hosts], could not tolerate the pride of the devil, and had long ago
cast him out from his own abode by warlike might, according as
Ezekiel says, that 'he was cast out by the cherubim from the midst
of the stones of fire,' that is to say, the angelic ranks, because
'iniquities were found in him' (xxviii. 15, 16); again at the
coming of Christ, as has been said ... he hath fallen more
completely. This is confirmed by the tradition of the fathers,
especially of Papias ([Greek: kai paterôn paradosis kai Papiou]), a
successor of the Evangelist John who wrote this very Apocalypse
with which we are concerned. Indeed Papias speaks thus concerning
the war in these express words: 'It so befell that their array,'
that is, their warlike enterprise, 'came to nought; for the great
dragon, the old serpent, who is also called Satan and the devil,
was cast down, yea, and was cast down to the earth, he and his
angels' [201:3].
I turn again to Anastasius; and I read in him that 'the above-mentioned
interpreters' gave these explanations of paradise to counteract the
teaching of divers heretics, among whom he especially mentions the
Ophites who 'offered the greatest thanksgivings to the serpent, on the
ground that by his counsels, and by the transgression committed by the
woman, the whole race of mankind had been born' [202:1]. This notice
again confirms the view which I adopted, that it was the design of
Papias to supply an antidote to the false exegesis of the Gnostics. Thus
everything hangs together, and we seem to have restored a lost piece of
ancient exegesis. If this restoration is uncertain in its details, it
has at least materially strengthened my position, that the two sayings
of the elders respecting paradise, quoted by Irenæus, must be
attributed to the same authority, Papias, whom Irenæus cites by name in
the intermediate passage relating to the millennial kingdom. I must add
my belief also that very considerable parts of the fifth book of
Irenæus, which consists mainly of exegesis, are borrowed from the
exegetical work of Papias. It is the unpardonable sin of Papias in the
eyes of Eusebius, that he has misled subsequent writers, more especially
Irenæus, on these eschatological subjects. This is speaking testimony
to the debt of Irenæus. Literary property was not an idea recognized by
early Christian writers. They were too much absorbed in their subject to
concern themselves with their obligations to others, or with the
obligations of others to them. Plagiarism was not a crime, where they
had all literary things in common. Hippolytus, in his chief work,
tacitly borrows whole paragraphs, and even chapters, almost word for
word, from Irenæus. He mentions his name only twice, and does not
acknowledge his obligations more than once [202:2]. The liberties, which
Hippolytus takes with his master Irenæus, might well have been taken by
Irenæus himself with his predecessor Papias.
4. Eusebius tells us that Papias 'relates also another story concerning
a woman accused of many sins before the Lord,' and he adds that it is
'contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.'
The story in question is allowed to be the narrative of the woman taken
in adultery, which appears in the common texts of the Fourth Gospel,
vii. 53-viii. 11. In the oldest Greek MS which contains this pericope,
the _Codex Bezæ_, the words 'taken in adultery' are read 'taken in
sin.' In the _Apostolic Constitutions_ [203:1], where this incident is
briefly related, the woman is described as 'having sinned.' And again
Rufinus, who would possibly be acquainted with Jerome's translation of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews, boldly substitutes 'a woman, an
adulteress,' for 'a woman accused of many sins,' in his version of
Eusebius.
But it is equally certain that this pericope is an interpolation where
it stands. All considerations of external evidence are against it. It is
wanting in all Greek MSS before the sixth century; it was originally
absent in all the oldest versions--Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, Gothic; it
is not referred to, as part of St John's Gospel, before the latter half
of the fourth century. Nor is the internal evidence less fatal. It is
expressed in language quite foreign to St John's style, and it
interrupts the tenor of his narrative. The Evangelist is here relating
Christ's discourses on the last day, that great day, of the feast' of
Tabernacles. Our Lord seizes on the two most prominent features in the
ceremonial--the pouring out of the water from Siloam upon the altar, and
the illumination of the city by flaming torches, lighted in the Temple
area. Each in succession furnishes Him with imagery illustrating His own
person and work. In the uninterrupted narrative, the one topic follows
directly upon the other. He states first, that the streams of _living
water_ flow from Him (vii. 37 sq). He speaks 'again' ([Greek: palin]),
and declares that He is the _light of_ _the world_ (viii. 12 sq). But
the intervention of this story dislocates the whole narrative,
introducing a change of time, of scene, of subject.
On the other hand, it will be felt that the incident, though misplaced
here, must be authentic in itself. Its ethical pitch is far above
anything which could have been invented for Him by His disciples and
followers, 'whose character and idiosyncrasies,' as Mr Mill says, 'were
of a totally different sort' [204:1]. They had neither the capacity to
imagine nor the will to invent an incident, which, while embodying the
loftiest of all moral teaching, would seem to them dangerously lax in
its moral tendencies.
But, if so, how came it to find a place in the copies of St John's
Gospel? Ewald incidentally throws out a suggestion [204:2] that it was
originally written on the margin of some ancient manuscript, to
illustrate the words of Christ in John viii. 15, 'Ye judge after the
flesh; I judge no man.' This hint he has not followed up, but it seems
to me to be highly valuable. The pericope in question occurs, in most
authorities which contain it, after vii. 52; in one MS however it stands
after vii. 36; and in several it is placed at the end of the Gospel.
This is just what might have been expected if it was written, in the
first instance, on the margin of a MS containing two or three columns on
a page. When transferred from the margin to the text, it would find a
place somewhere in the neighbourhood, where it least interfered with the
narrative, or, if no suitable place appeared, it would be relegated to
the end of the book. It should be added, that some good cursives give it
at the end of the twenty-first chapter of St Luke--the most appropriate
position, historically, that could be found for it. Whether this was an
independent insertion in St Luke, or a transference from St John made on
critical grounds, it is not easy to say.
But if this was the motive of the insertion, what was its source? Have
we not here one of those illustrative anecdotes which Papias derived
from the report of the elders, and to which he 'did not scruple to give
a place along with his interpretations' of our Lord's sayings? Its
introduction as an illustration of the words in John viii. 15 would thus
be an exact parallel to the treatment of the saying in Matthew xxvi. 29,
as described in the first part of this paper [205:1]. A reader or
transcriber of St John, familiar with Papias, would copy it down in his
margin, either from Papias himself or from the Gospel of the Hebrews;
and hence it would gain currency. The _Codex Bezæ_, the oldest Greek
manuscript by two or three centuries which contains this narrative, is
remarkable for its additions. May we not suspect that others besides
this pericope (I would name especially our Lord's saying to the man whom
He found working on the sabbath) were derived from this exegetical work
of Papias? At all events Eusebius speaks of it as containing 'some
strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other matters
more or less fabulous ([Greek: muthikôtera]),' which Papias derived from
oral tradition.
5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark
in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the
Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing
alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher
importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of
Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same
motive.
The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has
been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting
for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is
mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First
Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the
Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen
posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as
dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information
respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from
having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If
the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up
by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke,
he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but
_neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the
flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the
other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a
personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of
other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there
must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the
faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main
points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At
the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the
record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for
himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has
written what he himself had seen and heard.
Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the
coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it
stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The
Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's
account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First
Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what
object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at
least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the
Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions
Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the
First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together
in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? It is
quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations
existing between St Peter and St Mark previously to the extract which
gives an account of the Second Gospel; for he there refers back to a
preceding notice, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.'
Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the
reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son
saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's
notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably
have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the
resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was
acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast
between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St
John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly
natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder
respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as
we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its
relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two
drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could
not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be
strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other
evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_
and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield
many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few
years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the
Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian
writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius
Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps
immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the
showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one
another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the
Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.
It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St
Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect
much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did
Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We
may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the
secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call
attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but
a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this
father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this
very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii.
1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the
evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbatôn]), whereas
St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week
[Greek: tê mia tôn sabbatôn]; and among other explanations which he
offers is the following:--
The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the
translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published
[Greek: paredôke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person
who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the
hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbatôn] [208:1].
He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might
arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day
of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was
yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have
borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from
him.
But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must
have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius
must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have
had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and
none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed
circumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter
of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a
fragment from a passage in Irenæus which intimately affects the
relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the
middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate
purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I
can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenæus, he says,
'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than
to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not
indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius.
Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it
baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the
difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly
before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a
topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once
started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover
it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice
over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits
which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his
readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has
passed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further
information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his
notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we
may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material
which this father afforded for such extracts.
6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late
anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would
be decisive on the point at issue.
In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is
assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:--
The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the
Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in
corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a
beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in
his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque
libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John,
correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But
Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him,
because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat),
was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him
from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].
No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains
such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of
Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the
endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to
dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When
attention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf,
Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a
spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged
five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had
gathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them
'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he
assigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name
of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it
had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been
recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric'
books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this
source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a
notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius
Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].
This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or
trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover
these titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five
genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books
'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in
error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of
Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin
lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as
Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who
will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and
which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again
does the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this
theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the
twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katêxiôtai]),
continues:--
For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of
him, says in the second book [Greek: logô] of the 'Oracles of the
Lord' ([Greek: tôn kuriakôn logiôn]) that he was slain by the Jews,
having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the
prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]
Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is
attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting
directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of
John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the
ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly
quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias'
book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it
by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most
easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom
Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or
two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in
the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti
Iôannês [men hupo tou Rhômaiôn basileôs katedikasthê marturôn eis
Patmon, Iakôbos de] hupo Ioudaiôn anêrethê], 'Papias says that John [was
condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness
(to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].