we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS.
This passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different
sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an
anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a
confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that
between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenæus in the same
context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best
explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather
than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be
read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth
century, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for
EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which
should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the
false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to
Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having
reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on
somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own
Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body'
[Greek: eti en tô sômati kathestôtos]. In this contrast between the
story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips
during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc
in corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place.
The word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have
been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel
had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have
repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other
hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can
hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was
derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would
be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may
have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_
wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos
autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek:
apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias
himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is
suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also.
Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius
would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made
thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the
whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence.
Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I
considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its
companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so
flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not,
like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding
centuries.
But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which
he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias
recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--
Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the
Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'
([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its
Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the
book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show
that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the
author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a
witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].
This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics
of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works
cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether
they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second.
In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single
writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the
authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or
two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the
Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this
negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference
arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown
[215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and
references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the
authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church
writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in
the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been
entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely
what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the
Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The
inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the
direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or
section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the
second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the
Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and
(what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a
contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel
in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of
the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other
hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far
as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The
most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the
Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the
use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented
on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show
hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike
are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike
are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by
Irenæus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the
third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them
on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first
distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books
appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle
or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues
entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend
to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he
questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the
Apocalypse.
VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN.
[FEBRUARY, 1876.]
It has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a
remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive
disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor [217:1]. Of this colony
Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is
reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a
century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial
throne A.D. 98 [217:2]. In this respect his position is unique among the
earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted
disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of
a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly
rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian
society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal
influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly
missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct,
more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the
other Apostles.
Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St
John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the
veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author
of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as
writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but
also of his 'bishops' [218:1]. Clement of Alexandria again, among whose
teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very
school [218:2], represents him as going about from place to place in the
neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways
for the government of the Churches [218:3]. More especially Irenæus,
who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate
disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as
preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic
doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as 'the
elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord'
[218:4]; in another as 'all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying
more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus ... the true witness of the
Apostolic tradition' [218:5]; in a third as 'those who saw John face to
face' [218:6], or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord'
[218:7]; in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also
were pupils of the Apostles' [218:8]; in a fifth 'as the elders who have
their succession from the Apostles' [218:9]; in a sixth as 'the elders,
disciples of the Apostles' [218:10], with similar expressions elsewhere.
The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of
Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the
middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years
before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of
Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third
quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of
whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man,
when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged
him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church.
Asia Minor appears to have been far in advance of the other Churches of
Christendom in literary activity, during the second century. This
pre-eminence was due mainly, we may suppose, to the fact already
mentioned, that it had become the second home of the Apostles and
primitive teachers of Christianity. But the productiveness of the
Asiatic Christians in this respect was doubtless stimulated by the
pressure of opposition. This region was the hot-bed of heresies and the
arena of controversy. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the main
subjects of discussion were of such a kind as must necessarily have
involved questions intimately connected with the Canon. Montanism, with
its doctrine of the Paraclete and its visions of the New Jerusalem,
would challenge some expression of opinion respecting the Gospel and the
Apocalypse of St John, if these writings were disputed. The Paschal
controversy courted investigation into the relations between the
narratives of the Synoptists and the Fourth Evangelist. Marcionism,
resting as it did on the paramount and sole authority of St Paul's
Epistles and of the Pauline Gospel, would not suffer friend or foe to
preserve silence on this fundamental question. And so again, though in a
less degree, the disputes with Cerinthians, with Ophites, with
Basilideans, with Valentinians, with all the various sects of Gnostics,
could not have been conducted, as we see plainly from the treatises of
Irenæus and Hippolytus, without constant appeals to the testimony of
written documents--thus indicating, at all events roughly, the amount of
authority which the writers accorded to the more prominent books of our
New Testament Canon. To men like Irenæus or Eusebius, who had this
extensive literature in their hands, the teaching of this Church
generally, as well as of the more prominent individual writers belonging
to it, could not have been open to question. Their approval of its
orthodoxy therefore, either by silent assent or by studied panegyric, is
a fact of real moment.
Over and above this relation to the books of the New Testament
generally, the two points to which modern controversy directs attention,
and which therefore deserve special consideration in any review of the
writers belonging to the school of St John, are--_first_, what
indications the extant fragments and notices contain, that they
recognized or rejected the Fourth Gospel; and _secondly_, what can be
learnt from these same sources as to the degree of authority which they
accorded to the Apostle of the Gentiles.
Polycarp and Papias have been discussed in my earlier articles [220:1].
In the case of both these fathers, a recognition of the Fourth Gospel
has been inferred from the use made of the First Epistle; in the case of
the latter, from other indications also. As regards St Paul the
testimony of Polycarp is as full and explicit as it well could be;
while, on the other hand, the meagre fragments of Papias do not in
themselves warrant any inference on this point.
The next extant document in chronological order is the account of
Polycarp's martyrdom, written immediately after the occurrence (A.D.
155), and addressed to the Churches of the neighbouring province of
Pontus, more especially to the Christians of Philomelium. In this letter
the brethren of Smyrna draw a parallel between the sufferings of their
martyred friend and the Passion of our Lord, which is suggested by some
remarkable coincidences. 'Nearly all the incidents,' we are told at the
outset, 'which preceded (his death) came to pass that the Lord might
exhibit anew to us a martyrdom after the pattern of the Gospel; for
Polycarp remained that he might be betrayed, as did also the Lord'
[220:2]. This account is thus the earliest instance of a favourite type
of hagiology, which sees the sufferings of Christ visibly reflected and
imaged in detail in the servants of Christ, and of which ancient and
mediæval biography furnishes numerous examples. This idea of literal
conformity to the life and Passion of Christ runs through the document.
Some of the coincidences are really striking; but in other cases the
parallelism is highly artificial. The name of the convicting magistrate
is Herod, and special stress is naturally laid on this fact [221:1]. The
time of the martyrdom is the passover--'the great sabbath,' as it is
here called [221:2]. Polycarp's place of refuge is ascertained from
information elicited by torture from a youth, apparently a slave in his
employ. This poor boy, much more sinned against than sinning, is cruelly
compared to Judas; and we are told accordingly that Polycarp, like our
Lord, was 'betrayed by them of his own household' [221:3]. When
apprehended, he is put upon an ass, and thus taken back to the city
[221:4]; and this is of course intended as a parallel to the triumphal
entry into Jerusalem. His pursuers come on horse-back and in arms, 'as
against a robber' [221:5]. When he is apprehended, he prays, 'The will
of God be done' [221:6]; and so forth. These parallels, at the same time
that they show the idea dominant in the mind of the narrators, are a
valuable testimony to the truth of the narrative itself, where so much
violent treatment is necessary to produce the desired effect [221:7].
Most of the incidents have their counterparts in the circumstances of
the Passion, as recorded by the Synoptic Evangelists alone or in common
with St John. This is natural; for they refer to external events, in
which the Synoptic narrative is rich. But there are exceptions, where
the writers obviously have the account of the Fourth Evangelist in their
mind. Thus we are told that at the crisis of Polycarp's fate a voice
came from heaven, saying, 'Be strong, and play the man, Polycarp'
[221:8]. 'And the speaker,' it is added, 'no man saw; but the voice
those of our company that were present heard.' This corresponds to the
voice which St John records as addressing our Lord from heaven, and as
imperfectly apprehended by the bystanders [222:1]. Again, Polycarp, in
consequence of a vision, predicts that he shall be burnt alive [222:2],
though at the time the intention obviously is to throw him to the wild
beasts, as the games are going on. A fortuitous circumstance frustrates
this intention, and brings about a fulfilment of his prophecy as to the
manner of his death [222:3]. Just in the same way in the Fourth Gospel
Jesus is represented as 'signifying by what death He should die'
[222:4]. Death by crucifixion seemed altogether unlikely at the time,
for His enemies were the Jews, and this was not a Jewish mode of
punishment; but by an accidental turn of circumstances He was
transferred from the Jews to Pilate, and so His prediction was fulfilled
[222:5]. Again, it is related that when the fire would not consume the
body of the saint, his persecutors 'ordered an executioner to go up to
him and thrust a small sword into him. When he had done this,' we are
told, 'there came forth [a dove and] a quantity of blood' [222:6]. The
parallel to the incident recorded in St John's account of the
crucifixion is obvious [222:7]; and just as the Evangelist lays stress
on his own presence as an eye-witness of the scene, so also do these
hagiologers, when relating a strange occurrence at his martyrdom. 'We
saw a great marvel,' they say, 'we to whom it was given to see; and we
have been saved that we might relate to the rest what happened' [222:8].
And lastly, as St John emphasizes the fact that everything was
accomplished in the death of Jesus [222:9], so also they declare of
Polycarp, that 'every word which he uttered out of his mouth hath been
and shall be accomplished' [223:1]. To these facts it should be added
that the dying prayer of Polycarp contains two coincidences with the
phraseology of the Fourth Gospel--'the resurrection of life,' 'the true
God' [223:2].
MELITO, bishop of Sardis, flourished soon after the middle of the second
century. This fact appears from two of his works, to which we are able
to assign an approximate date. His treatise 'On the Paschal Festival,'
he himself tells us, was written while Sergius Paulus was proconsul of
Asia [223:3]; and the recent investigations of M. Waddington into the
fasti of this province have led to the result that this proconsulate
should probably be dated about A.D. 164-166 [223:4]. Again we are
informed that he addressed his 'Apology' to M. Antoninus (A.D. 161-180)
[223:5]. It appears however from an extant fragment, that L. Verus, the
colleague of M. Antoninus, was no longer living; for Melito speaks of
prayer on behalf of the emperor's son (Commodus), without mentioning his
brother and co-emperor (Verus). Now Verus died in the very beginning of
the year 169. On the other hand ancient authorities assign the Apology
to the year 169 or 170; and, as there is no reason for rejecting their
statement, we may suppose that it was written soon after the death of
Verus. Probably its date was ascertainable within a year or two from
internal evidence. This Apology however is regarded by Eusebius as the
latest of Melito's writings [223:6]; and, as the catalogue of his works
comprises some twenty treatises at least, his literary activity must
have extended over a considerable period of time, so that we shall
probably not be far wrong if we place the commencement of his career as
an author about the middle of the century. He appears to have died soon
after the Apology was written. In the last decade of the century
Polycrates mentions him among other worthies of the past who had gone to
their rest [224:1]. He was buried at Sardis. From the context it may be
inferred that he did not suffer martyrdom, like so many of his famous
contemporaries, but died a natural death.
These chronological notices suggest that Melito was born in the early
part of the second century, within a very few years after the death of
St John. During the greater part of his life at all events, he must have
been a contemporary of St John's disciple Polycarp, who was martyred at
an advanced age in the year 155 or 156; and likewise of Papias, who had
conversed with personal disciples of Christ, and seems also to have
survived till towards the middle of the century. As the communications
between Sardis on the one hand, and Smyrna and Hierapolis on the other,
were easy, a prominent man like Melito, whose religious zeal led him on
one occasion to undertake a distant journey to Palestine, would be sure
to cultivate the acquaintance of these older teachers, even if
circumstances did not throw him directly in their way.
Thus Melito is a significant link of connection with the past. At the
same time he holds an equally important position with respect to the
succeeding age. It can hardly be doubted that among the Asiatic elders,
whose authority Irenæus invokes so constantly, Melito must have held a
prominent place. It may be suspected that he was the very Ionian whom
Clement of Alexandria mentions among his earlier teachers [224:2]. It is
quite certain that his writings were widely known and appreciated in the
generations next succeeding his own. He is quoted or referred to by
Polycrates at Ephesus, by Clement and Origen at Alexandria, by
Tertullian at Carthage, by Hippolytus at Rome.
I have already mentioned that he was a very voluminous writer. Eusebius
gives a catalogue of his works, which however he does not profess to be
complete. The historian's knowledge was obviously limited by the
contents of the library which his friend Pamphilus had gathered together
at Cæsarea. The titles of these works are as follows:--_On the Paschal
Festival_ (two treatises) [225:1], _On the Life of the Prophets_, _On
the Church_, _On the Lord's Day_, _On the Nature of Man_, _On Creation_,
_On the Obedience of Faith and on the Senses_, _On the Soul and Body
[and Mind]_, _On Baptism_, _On Truth_, _On the Creation and Generation of
Christ_, _On Prophecy_, _On Hospitality_, _The Key_, _On the Devil and
on the Apocalypse of John_, _On a Corporeal Deity_, _An Apology to
Antonius_, _Selections from the Law and the Prophets_ [225:2]. Besides
these works here enumerated, other writings of Melito axe quoted
elsewhere under the titles, _On the Incarnation of Christ_, _On the
Passion_, _On the Cross_, _On the Faith_ [225:3], though some of these
may perhaps represent the same works to which Eusebius refers under
other names. Comprising this wide range of subjects, doctrinal,
exegetical, practical, and controversial, the works of Melito must have
furnished the next succeeding generations with ample data for
determining his exact theological position. To them it must have been
clear, for instance, whether he did or did not accept the Gospel of St
John or the Epistles of St Paul. It was hardly possible for him to write
on the Paschal question without indicating his views on the Fourth
Gospel. It is almost inconceivable that he should have composed a
controversial treatise against Marcion without declaring himself
respecting the Apostle of the Gentiles. The few meagre fragments which
have come down to us supply only incidental notices and resemblances,
from which we are left to draw our own inferences; but where we grope in
the twilight, they were walking in the broad noonday.
Eusebius has happily preserved Melito's preface to his _Selections_,
which is of considerable interest. The work itself comprised passages
from the Law and the Prophets relating to the Saviour and to the
Christian faith generally ([Greek: peri tou Sôtêros kai pasês tês
pisteôs hêmôn]), arranged in six books. It seems to have been
accompanied with explanatory comments bringing out the prophetical
import of the several passages, as Melito understood them. In the
preface, addressed to his friend Onesimus, at whose instance the work
had been undertaken, he relates that having made a journey to the East
and visited the actual scenes of the Gospel history, he informed himself
respecting the books of the Old Testament, of which he appends a list.
The language which he uses is significant from its emphasis. He writes
that his friend had 'desired to be accurately informed about the _old_
books' ([Greek: mathein tên tôn palaiôn bibliôn eboulêthês akribeian]).
He adds that he himself during his Eastern tour had 'obtained accurate
information respecting the books of the _Old_ Testament ([Greek: akribôs
mathôn ta tês palaias diathêkês biblia]).' From these expressions Dr
Westcott argues that Melito must have been acquainted with a
corresponding Christian literature, which he regarded as the books of
the New Testament. To any such inference the author of _Supernatural
Religion_ demurs [226:1], and he devotes several pages to proving (what
nobody denies) that the expressions 'Old Testament,' 'New Testament,'
did not originally refer to a written literature at all, and need not so
refer here. All this is beside the purpose, and betrays an entire
misunderstanding of the writer whom he ventures to criticize. The
contention is not that the expression 'Old Testament' here in itself
signifies a collection of books, and therefore implies another
collection called the 'New Testament,' but that the emphatic and
reiterated mention of an _old_ Biblical _literature_ points naturally to
the existence of a _new_. To any one who is accustomed to weigh the
force of Greek sentences, as determined by the order of the words, this
implied contrast must, I think, make itself felt. It is impossible to
read the clauses, having regard to the genius of the language, without
throwing a strong emphasis on the recurrent word _old_, which I have
therefore italicized, as the only way of reproducing the same effect for
the English reader. Dr Westcott therefore is perfectly justified in
maintaining that the expression naturally implies a recognized New
Testament literature.