not only an identity of authorship, but also an organic connection
between the two. The first Epistle has sometimes been regarded as a
preface to the Gospel. It should rather be described, I think, as a
commendatory postscript. This connection will make itself felt, if the
two books are read continuously. The Gospel seems to have been written
or (more properly speaking) dictated for an immediate circle of
disciples. This fact appears from special notices of time and
circumstance, inserted here and there, evidently for the purpose of
correcting the misapprehensions and solving the difficulties of the
Evangelist's hearers. It is made still more clear by the sudden
transition to the second person, when the narrator breaks off, and
looking up (as it were), addresses his hearers--'He that saw, it hath
borne record ... that _ye_ might believe.' 'These things are written that
_ye_ might believe' [187:1]. There were gathered about the Apostle, we
may suppose, certain older members of the Church, like Aristion and the
Presbyter John, who, as eye-witnesses of Christ's earthly life, could
guarantee the correctness of the narrative. The twenty-fourth verse of
the last chapter is, as it were, the endorsement of these elders--'This
is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these
things, and _we know_ that his testimony is true.' After the narrative
is thus ended, comes the hortatory postscript which we call the First
Epistle, and which was intended (we may suppose) to be circulated with
the narrative. It has no opening salutation, like the two Epistles
proper--the second and third--which bear the same Apostle's name. It
begins at once with a reference to the Gospel narrative which (on this
hypothesis) has preceded--'That which was from the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our
hands handled, of the Word of Life ... that which we have seen and heard
declare we unto you.' The use of the plural here links on the opening of
the Epistle with the close of the Gospel. The Apostle begins by
associating with himself the elders, who have certified to the
authorship and authenticity of the narrative. Having done this, he
changes to the singular, and speaks in his own name--'I write.' The
opening phrase of the Epistle, 'That which was from the beginning,' is
explained by the opening phrase of the Gospel, 'In the beginning was the
Word.' The whole Epistle is a devotional and moral application of the
main ideas which are evolved historically in the sayings and doings of
Christ recorded in the Gospel. The most perplexing saying in the
Epistle, 'He that came by water and by blood,' illustrates and itself is
illustrated by the most perplexing incident in the Gospel, 'There came
forth water and blood.' We understand at length, why in the Gospel so
much stress is laid on the veracity of the eye-witness just at this
point, when we see from the Epistle what significance the writer would
attach to the incident, as symbolizing Christ's healing power.
This view of the composition of the Gospel and its connection with the
Epistle has been suggested by internal considerations; but it is
strongly confirmed by the earliest tradition which has been preserved.
The Muratorian fragment [188:1] on the Canon must have been written
about A.D. 170. As I shall have occasion to refer to this document more
than once before I have done, I will here give an account of the passage
relating to the Gospels, that it may serve for reference afterwards.
The fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the passage
describing the First Gospel is altogether wanting. The text begins
with the closing sentence in the description of the Second
Gospel--obviously St Mark--which runs thus: 'At which however he
was present, and so he set them down.'
'The Third Book of the Gospel' is designated 'according to Luke.'
The writer relates that this Luke was a physician, who after the
Ascension of Christ became a follower of St Paul, and that he
compiled the Gospel in his own name. 'Yet,' he adds, 'neither did
_he_ (nec ipse) see the Lord in the flesh, and he too set down
incidents as he was able to ascertain them [189:1]. So he began his
narrative from the birth of John.' Then he continues--
'The Fourth Gospel is (the work) of John, one of the (personal)
disciples [189:2] (of Christ). Being exhorted by his
fellow-disciples and bishops, he said, "Fast with me to-day for
three days, and let us relate to one another what shall have been
revealed to each." The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of
the Apostles, that John should write down everything in his own
name, and all should certify (ut recognoscentibus cunctis Johannes
suo nomine cuncta describeret). And therefore, although various
elements (principia) are taught in the several books of the
Gospels, yet it makes no difference to the faith of the believer,
since all things in all of them are declared by one Supreme Spirit,
concerning the nativity, the passion, the resurrection, His
intercourse with His disciples, and His two advents, the first in
despised lowliness, which is already past, the second with the
magnificence of kingly power, which is yet to come. What wonder
then, if John so boldly puts forward each statement in his Epistle
([Greek: tais epistolais]) [189:3] also saying of himself, "What we
have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have
handled, these things we have written unto you?" For so he avows
himself to be not only an eye-witness and a hearer, but also a
recorder, of all the wonderful things of the Lord in order.'
After speaking of the Acts and Epistles of St Paul, this anonymous
writer arrives at the Catholic Epistles; and here he mentions _two_
Epistles of St John as received in the Church.
I shall have something to say presently about the coincidences with
Papias in this passage. For the moment I wish to call attention to the
account which the writer gives of the origin of St John's Gospel
[190:1]. There may be some legendary matter mixed up with this account;
the interposition of Andrew and the dream of John may or may not have
been historical facts; but its general tenor agrees remarkably with the
results yielded by an examination of the Gospel itself. Yet it must be
regarded as altogether independent. To suppose otherwise would be to
ascribe to the writer in the second century an amount of critical
insight and investigation which would do no dishonour to the nineteenth.
But there is also another point of importance to my immediate subject.
The writer detaches the First Epistle of St John from the Second and
Third, and connects it with the Gospel. Either he himself, or some
earlier authority whom he copied, would appear to have used a manuscript
in which it occupied this position.
But our author attempts to invalidate the testimony of Eusebius
respecting the use of the First Epistle by Papias. He wrote in his
earlier editions:--
As Eusebius however does not quote the passages from Papias, we
must remain in doubt whether he did not, as elsewhere, assume from
some similarity of wording that the passages were quotations from
these Epistles, whilst in reality they might not be. Eusebius made
a similar statement with regard to a supposed quotation in the
so-called Epistle of Polycarp (^5) upon very insufficient grounds
[191:1].
In my article on the Silence of Eusebius [191:2], I challenged him to
produce any justification of his assertion 'as elsewhere.' I stated, and
I emphasized the statement, that '_Eusebius in no instance which we can
test gives a doubtful testimony_.' I warned him that, if I were not
proved to be wrong in this statement, I should use the fact hereafter.
In the preface to his new edition he has devoted twelve pages to my
article on Eusebius; and he is silent on this point.
Of his silence I have no right to complain. If he had nothing to say, he
has acted wisely. But there is another point in the paragraph quoted
above, which demands more serious consideration. In my article [191:3] I
offered the conjecture that our author had been guilty of a confusion
here. I called attention to his note (^5) which runs, 'Ad Phil. vii.;
Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 14,' and I wrote:--
The passage of Eusebius to which our author refers in this note
relates how Polycarp 'has employed certain testimonies from the
First (former) Epistle of Peter.' The chapter of Polycarp, to which
he refers, contains a reference to the First Epistle _of St John_,
which has been alleged by modern writers, but _is not alleged by
Eusebius._ This same chapter, it is true, contains the words 'Watch
unto prayer,' which presents a coincidence with 1 Pet. iv. 7. But
no one would lay any stress on this one expression: the strong and
unquestionable coincidences are elsewhere. Moreover our author
speaks of a single 'supposed quotation,' whereas the quotations
from 1 Peter in Polycarp are numerous.
I then pointed out ten other coincidences with the First Epistle of St
Peter, scattered through Polycarp's Epistle. Some of these are verbal;
almost all of them are much more striking and cogent than the
resemblance in c. vii. Our author will not allow the error, but replies
in his preface:--
I regret very much that some ambiguity in my language (_S.R._ I. p.
483) should have misled, and given Dr Lightfoot much trouble. I
used the word 'quotation' in the sense of a use of the Epistle of
Peter, and not in reference to any one sentence in Polycarp. I
trust that in this edition I have made my meaning clear [192:1].
Accordingly, in the text, he substitutes for the latter sentence the
words:--
Eusebius made a similar statement with regard to the use of the
Epistle of Peter in the so-called Epistle of Polycarp, upon no more
definite grounds than an apparent resemblance of expressions
[192:2].
But the former part of the sentence is unaltered; the assertion 'as
elsewhere' still remains unsubstantiated; and what is more important, he
leaves the note exactly as it stood before, with the single reference to
c. vii. Thus he has entirely misled his readers. He has deliberately
ignored more than nine-tenths of the evidence in point of amount, and
very far more than this proportion in point of cogency. The note was
quite appropriate, supposing that the First Epistle of St John were
meant, as I assumed; it is a flagrant _suppressio veri_, if it refers to
the First Epistle of St Peter, as our author asserts that it does. The
charge which I brought against him was only one of carelessness, which
no one need have been ashamed to confess. The charge which his own
explanation raises against him is of a far graver kind. Though he
regrets the trouble he has given me, I do not regret it. It has enabled
me to bring out the important fact that Eusebius may always be trusted
in these notices relating to the use made of the Canonical Scriptures by
early writers.
2. But this is not the only reason which the fragments in Eusebius
supply for believing that Papias was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel.
The extract from the preface suggests points of coincidence, which are
all the more important because they are incidental. In the words, 'What
was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or
by John or Matthew,' the first four names appear in the same order in
which they are introduced on the scene by this Evangelist. As this
order, which places Andrew before Peter, is anything but the natural
order, the coincidence has a real significance. Moreover, three of these
four hold a prominent place in the Fourth Gospel, which they do not hold
in the others--Philip and Thomas being never once named by the Synoptic
Evangelists, except in their lists of the Twelve. It has been said
indeed that the position assigned to the name of John by Papias in his
enumeration is inconsistent with the supposition that this Apostle wrote
a Gospel, or even that he resided and taught in Asia Minor, because so
important a personage must necessarily have been named earlier. But this
argument proves nothing because it proves too much. No rational account
can be given of the sequence, supposing that the names are arranged 'in
order of merit.' Peter, as the chief Apostle, must have stood first; and
John, as a pillar Apostle, would have been named next, or (if the James
here mentioned is the Lord's brother) at all events next but one. This
would have been the obvious order in any case; but, if Papias had any
Judaic sympathies, as he is supposed to have had, no other is
imaginable. This objection therefore is untenable. On the other hand, it
is a remarkable fact that the two names, which are kept to the last and
associated together, are just those two members of the Twelve to whom
alone the Church attributes written Gospels. As Evangelists, the name of
John and Matthew would naturally be connected. On any other hypothesis,
it is difficult to account for this juxtaposition.
Again, it should be noticed that when Papias speaks of incidents in our
Lord's life which are related by an eye-witness without any
intermediation between Christ and the reporter, he describes them as
'coming from the Truth's self' [193:1] ([Greek: ap' autês tês
alêtheias]). This personification of Christ as 'the Truth' is confined
to the Fourth Gospel.
3. When we turn from Eusebius to Irenæus, we meet with other evidence
pointing to the same result. I refer to a passage with which the readers
of these articles will be familiar, for I have had occasion to refer to
it more than once [194:1]; but I have not yet investigated its
connection with Papias. Irenæus writes [194:2]:--
As the elders say, then also shall they which have been deemed
worthy of the abode in heaven go thither, while others shall enjoy
the delight of paradise, and others again shall possess the
brightness of the city; for in every place the Saviour shall be
seen, according as they shall be worthy who see him. [They say]
moreover that this is the distinction between the habitation of
them that bring forth a hundred-fold, and them that bring forth
sixty-fold, and them that bring forth thirty-fold; of whom the
first shall be taken up into the heavens, and the second shall
dwell in paradise, and the third shall inhabit the city; and that
therefore our Lord has said, 'In my Father's abode are many
mansions' ([Greek: en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas]); for
all things are of God, who giveth to all their appropriate
dwelling, according as His Word saith that allotment is made unto
all by the Father, according as each man is, or shall be, worthy.
And this is the banqueting-table at which those shall recline who
are called to the marriage and take part in the feast. The
presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say that this is the
arrangement and disposal of them that are saved, and that they
advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son,
and through the Son to the Father, the Son at length yielding His
work to the Father, as it is said also by the Apostle, 'for He must
reign until He putteth all enemies under his feet,' etc. [194:3]
I am glad to be saved all further trouble about the grammar of this
passage. Our author now allows that the sentence with which we are
mainly concerned is oblique, and that the words containing a reference
to our Lord's saying in St John's Gospel are attributed to the elders
who are mentioned before and after. He still maintains however, that 'it
is unreasonable to claim' the reference 'as an allusion to the work of
Papias,' He urges in one place that there is 'a wide choice of
presbyters, including even evangelists, to whom the reference of
Irenæus may with equal right be ascribed' [195:1]; in another, that
'the source of the quotation is quite indefinite, and may simply be the
exegesis of his own day' [195:2]. To the one hypothesis it is sufficient
to reply that no such explanation is found in the only four Evangelists
whom Irenæus recognized; to the other, that when Irenæus wrote there
were no 'disciples of the Apostles' living, so that he could have used
the present tense in speaking of them.
This reference to the tense leads to a distinction of real importance.
Critics have remarked that these reports of the opinions of the
presbyters in Irenæus must be accepted with reserve; that the reporter
may unconsciously have infused his own thoughts and illustrations into
the account; and that therefore we cannot adduce with entire confidence
the quotations from the canonical writings which they contain. This
caution is not superfluous, but it must not be accepted without
limitation. The reports in Irenæus are of two kinds. In some cases he
repeats the _conversations_ of his predecessors; in others he derives
his information from _published records_. The hesitation, which is
prudent in the one case, would be quite misplaced in the other. We shall
generally find no difficulty in drawing the line between the two. Though
there may be one or two doubtful instances, the language of Irenæus is
most commonly decisive on this point. Thus, when he quotes the opinions
of the elder on the Two Testaments, he is obviously repeating oral
teaching; for he writes, 'The presbyter used to say,' 'The presbyter
would entertain us with his discourse,' 'The old man, the disciple of
the Apostles, used to dispute' [196:1]. On the other hand, when in the
passage before us he employs the present tense, 'As the elders say,'
'The presbyters, the disciples of the Apostles, say,' he is clearly
referring to some _document_. No one would write, 'Coleridge maintains,'
or 'Pitt declares,' unless he had in view some work or speech or
biographical notice of the person thus quoted.
We may therefore safely conclude that in the passage before us Irenæus
is citing from some _book_. So far as regards the main question at
issue, the antiquity of the Fourth Gospel, it matters little whether
this book was the exegetical work of Papias or not. Indeed the
supposition that it was a different work is slightly more favourable to
my position, because it yields additional and independent testimony of
the same date and character as that of Papias. But the following reasons
combined make out a very strong case for assigning the passage to
Papias. (1) It entirely accords with the _method_ of Papias, as he
himself describes it in his preface [197:1]. Scriptural passages are
interpreted, and the sayings of the elders are interwoven with the
interpretations. It accords equally well with the _subject_ of his
Expositions; for we know that he had a great fondness for eschatological
topics, and that he viewed them in this light. (2) The possibilities are
limited by the language, which confines our search to written documents.
So far as we know there was, prior to the time of Irenæus, no Christian
work which would treat the same subject in the same way, and would at
the same time satisfy the conditions implied in the words, 'The elders,
the disciples of the Apostles, say.' (3) The connection with a previous
passage is highly important in its bearing on this question. In the
thirty-third chapter of his fifth and last book Irenæus gives the
direct reference to Papias which has been considered already [197:2]; in
the thirty-sixth and final chapter occurs the passage with which we are
now concerned. Is there reason to believe that the authority in these
two passages is the same or different? Several considerations aid us
in answering this question, and they all tend in the same direction.
(i) The subject of the two passages is the same. They both treat of the
future kingdom of Christ, and both regard it from the same point of view
as a visible and external kingdom. (ii) In the next place the
authorities in the two passages are described in similar terms. In the
first passage they are designated at the outset 'the elders who saw
John, the disciple of the Lord,' while at the close we are told that
'Papias records these things in writing in his fourth book: It is not
clear whether these elders are the authorities whom Papias quotes, or
the class to whom Papias himself belongs, and whom therefore he
represents. Since Irenæus regards Papias as a direct hearer of St John,
this latter alternative is quite tenable, though perhaps not as probable
as the other. But this twofold possibility does not affect the question
at issue. In the second passage the authorities are described in the
opening as 'the elders' simply, and at the close as 'the elders, the
disciples of the Apostles.' Thus the two accord. Moreover, in the second
passage 'the elders' are introduced without any further description, as
if they were already known, and we therefore naturally refer back to the
persons who have been mentioned and described shortly before. (iii) The
subject is continuous from the one passage to the other, though it
extends over four somewhat long chapters (c. 33-36). The discussion
starts, as we have seen, from Christ's saying about drinking the fruit
of the vine in His kingdom [198:1]. The authority of the elders,
recorded in the work of Papias, is quoted to support a literal
interpretation of these words, as implying a material recompense of the
believers. Irenæus then cites those prophecies of Isaiah which foretell
the reign of peace on God's Holy Mountain (xi. 6 sq, lxv. 25 sq). This
leads him to the predictions which announce the future triumphs of
Israel and the glories of the New Jerusalem, all of which are
interpreted literally as referring to a reign of Christ on earth.
Creation thus renovated, he argues, will last for ever, as may be
inferred from the promise of the new heavens and the new earth (Isaiah
lxvi. 22). Then follows the passage in question, which contains the
interpretation, given by the elders, of Christ's saying concerning the
many mansions in His Father's house. A few lines lower down Irenæus
refers again to the words respecting the fruit of the vine from which he
had started; and after two or three sentences more the book ends.
These seem to be very substantial reasons for assigning the words to
Papias. And probably the two passages which I have been considering do
not stand alone. In an earlier part of this same fifth book Irenæus
writes [198:2]:--
Where then was the first man placed? In paradise plainly, as it is
written 'And God planted a paradise....;' and he was cast out
thence into this world, owing to his disobedience. Wherefore also
the elders, disciples of the Apostles, say that those who were
translated were translated thither (for paradise was prepared for
righteous and inspired men, whither also the Apostle Paul was
carried....) and that they who are translated remain there till the
end of all things ([Greek: heôs sunteleias]), preluding immortality.
On this passage our author remarks:--
It seems highly probable that these 'presbyters the disciples of
the Apostles' who are quoted on paradise are the same 'presbyters
the disciples of the Apostles' referred to on the same subject (v.
36. §§ 1, 2), whom we are discussing [199:1].
With this opinion I entirely agree. 'But,' he adds, 'there is nothing
whatever to connect them with Papias.' Here I am obliged to join issue.
It seems to me that there are several things. In the first place, there
is the description of the authorities, 'the elders, the disciples of the
Apostles,' which exactly accords with the statement in Papias' own
preface [199:2]. Next there is the subject and its treatment. This
latter point, if I mistake not, presents some considerations which
strongly confirm my view of the source of these references in Irenæus.
The elders here quoted maintain that the paradise of Genesis is not a
terrestrial paradise; it is some region beyond the limits of this world,
to which Enoch and Elijah were translated; it is the abode, as Irenæus
says, of the righteous and the spiritual ([Greek: pneumatikoi]), of whom
these two respectively are types; their translation preludes the
immortality of the faithful in Christ. In the second passage where
paradise is mentioned by these elders, it is declared to be one of the
'many mansions' in the Father's house. But it is clear from this latter
passage that the work from which these sayings of the elders are quoted
must have contained much more about paradise. The intermediate position
there assigned to it between the celestial and the terrestrial kingdom
does not explain itself, and must have required some previous
discussion. Is there any reason to think that Papias did directly occupy
himself with this subject?
The work of Papias was in the hands of Anastasius of Sinai, who (as we
have seen) set a very high value on it [200:1]. He tells us in his
'Hexaemeron' [200:2] that 'the more ancient interpreters ... contemplated
the sayings about paradise _spiritually_, and referred them to the
Church of Christ.' They 'said that there was a certain _spiritual_
paradise' [200:3]. Among these 'more ancient interpreters,' of whom he
gives a list, he names 'the great Papias of Hierapolis, the scholar of
John the Evangelist, and Irenæus of Lyons.' Here the two are associated
together as dealing with this same subject in the same way. How much of
the exegesis which Anastasius gives in the context, and attributes to
these ancient interpreters, may be due to Papias in particular, it is
impossible to say. But it may be observed that the expression 'the
delight of the paradise,' in the saying of the elders reported by
Irenæus, is taken from the Septuagint of Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where the
Prince of Tyre is addressed, 'Thou wast in the delight of the paradise
of God;' and that Anastasius represents 'the interpreters' (among whom
he had previously mentioned Papias) as 'especially confirming their
views of a spiritual paradise' by appealing to this very passage, 'where
God seems to reveal to us enigmatically the fall of the devil from
heaven,' the Prince of Tyre being interpreted as Satan, and the 'stones
of fire' the hosts of intelligent beings; and he immediately afterwards
quotes in illustration our Lord's words in Luke x. 18, 'I beheld Satan
as lightning fall from heaven' [201:1]. 'See,' he concludes, 'we have
heard plainly that he was cast down to the earth from some paradise of
delight high above, and from the cherubic coals of fire. (Ezek. xxviii.
16)'
From the Hexaemeron of Anastasius I turn to the Catena on the
Apocalypse, bearing the names of Oecumenius and Arethas, which was
published by Cramer [201:2], and here I find fresh confirmation. On
Rev. xii. 9, the compiler of this commentary quotes the same passage of
St Luke to which Anastasius refers. He then goes on to explain that there
was a twofold fall of Satan--the one at the time of the creation of man,
the other at the Incarnation; and he proceeds--