The first information we get concerning this Father shows him to have
been acquainted with other stories than those found in our Gospels. It
occurs in Irenaeus against Heresies (book v., chap. xxxiii., sec. 3 and
4, p. 146, vol. ix., _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_). Speaking of the
rewards which will come in the flesh to Christians, he tells us that
"elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord, related that they had
heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times,
and say: The days will come in which vines shall grow, each having ten
thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in
each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten
thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes,
and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine.
And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another cry
out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.'"
Taking Smith's Bible Dictionary as authority for the value of a metrete,
viz., eight and two-thirds of a gallon, it follows that the product of
one millenial grape-vine will make a quantity of wine equal in bulk to
the planet Mercury, and allowing to the thousand million of the earth's
inhabitants enough to keep them constantly intoxicated, say two gallons
of wine a day to each person, it would keep them all dead drunk for
the space of thirty thousand million years! What a jolly old Father was
this! or, if he is to believed, what a jolly Jesus to promise and
jolly John to report such a millenial prospect. It beats the Mahommedan
Paradise. Irenaeus continues:--
"In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce
ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains,
and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and
that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce
in similar proportions; and that all animals feeding on the productions
of the earth should become peaceful and harmonious among each other,
and be in perfect subjection to man. Sec. 4. And these things are borne
witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of
Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled by him.
And he says in addition, 'Now these things are credible to believers.'
And he says that when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them,
and put the question, 'How then can things, about to bring forth so
abundantly, be wrought by the Lord? The Lord declared, They who shall
come to these [times] shall see.'" Which, in evasiveness, is on a par
with some of the utterances of Jesus in the Gospels. Dr. Donaldson
("Apostolical Fathers," p. 897,1874,) says: "There is nothing improbable
in the statement that the Lord spoke in some such way, and it is not at
all improbable that Papias took literally what was meant for allegory."
Dr. Giles seems to concur in the view that Papias repeated words of
Jesus.
J. Jones (on the Canon, vol. i., p. 370,1827,) thinks Papias both
the manufacturer of the doctrine of the Millenium and of this passage
ascribed to Christ calculated to support it. The idea he considers
borrowed from the Jews. Perhaps it was, but it certainly finds some
countenance in the Apocalypse.
The statement that Papias was a hearer of the Apostle John conflicts
with the account in Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii., 89), which implies that he
received information from John the Presbyter after all the Apostles were
dead. According to Eusebius (Ec. Hist, iii, 36,) and Jerome (De Viri
Illust. xviii.), Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, a city of Phyrgia.
He is supposed to have suffered martyrdom about 163 or 167. His work, in
five books, was entitled "An Exposition of the Oracles (or Words) of
the Lord." Eusebius, in the third book of his Ecclesiastical History,
chapter 39, gives us most of our information about Papias. His estimate
of him, as a man of very limited understanding, does not deter us from
regretting the loss of his writings. The fragments which remain cast
such radiance on some of the dark points of the Christian evidences.
Paley and all the school of evidence-writers cite him as proving the
existence of our Matthew and Mark. But he is now generally seen to prove
the very reverse.
Let us first examine his statement in regard to Matthew. As given on
the authority of Eusebius, it reads that "Matthew composed the _logia_
[oracles or sayings] in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted
them as he was able."
Now it is somewhat curious that Papias, probably in the second half
of the second century, should be the first to give currency to the
tradition that Matthew wrote a Gospel if that Gospel had been in
existence 100 years.
But that the work referred to was not the same we now have is manifest
from its name _logia_, discourses, sayings, or oracles. It would be an
utter misnomer for an historical narrative beginning with a detailed
history of the genealogy, birth and infancy of Jesus, and the preaching
of John the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute account
of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, giving all his
movements and miracles, and which has for its evident aim throughout the
demonstration that Jesus was the Messiah. Our Gospel, not written by,
_but according to_ Matthew, has no such title.
Moreover, ours is a Greek and not a Hebrew Gospel. The testimony
of Papias on this point is explicit It is, moreover, confirmed by a
consensus of all the Fathers: Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Origen, Eusebius,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Augustine, and all others
who allude to Matthew's Gospel declare that it was written in Hebrew.
Now our Gospel is considered by the most competent authorities an
original document. There is no ground whatever for considering it a
translation, even if we knew that Matthew's Gospel had been properly
translated, instead of everyone interpreting it as he was able. Many
of the quotations in it from the Old Testament are taken not from the
Hebrew but directly from the Greek Septuagint. Its turns of language
have the stamp of Greek idiom, and could not have come in through
translation. So that there is no reason for even indirectly connecting
our Canonical Gospel according to Matthew with the _logia_ which Papias
had heard were composed by him.
This position is somewhat strengthened when we find in the Fragments
of Papias, p. 442: "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of
impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not
pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot,
so that his bowels gushed out." Theophylact, after quoting this passage,
adds other particulars, as if they were derived from Papias. He says
that Judas's eyes were so swollen that they could not see the light,
that they were so sunk that they could not be seen, even by the optical
instruments of physicians; that the rest of his body was covered with
runnings and worms, etc.
If Papias knew from Matthew that Judas had already hanged himself, and
further from the Acts of the Apostles that he had fallen headlong in
a field and burst asunder, it was really too hard to inflict on poor
oft-killed Judas these additional cruelties. Surely it were better
_that_ man had never been born, though in that case we know not how
Christian Salvation would have been brought to the world. It seems as if
each new Christian writer felt himself at liberty to invent a new death
for Judas, who was divinely appointed to bring about their redemption.
By Paul's saying Jesus appeared to the twelve (1 Cor. xv., 5), it is
evident he knew nothing of Judas's suicide.
Among the fragmentary remains of Papias is one found in Eusebius, who
tells us that: "He also relates the story of a woman accused of many
crimes, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews."
It would thence appear likely that if Papias saw and quoted from any
Gospel, though we have no other evidence than this that he did either,
it was from the Gospel to the Hebrews, which some have thought the
original of Matthew, and which would agree with the language in which he
declares Matthew to have written. Orthodox writers endeavor to make out
that here Papias alludes to the story found in the eighth chapter of
John. But surely if Eusebius knew the story in John was the same he
would not have ascribed it to another Gospel. In truth there is no
evidence that John's narrative of the woman taken in adultery was extant
even in the time of Eusebius. It is an undoubted interpolation contained
in no ancient manuscript of value, and may have been taken from some
tradition similar to that found in Papias, yet certainly not the same
since Papias speaks of many crimes, John only of one.
We think the reader will agree with Dr. Samuel Davidson, who in his
"Introduction to the Study of the New Testament," vol. i., p. 383, 1882,
says: "There is no tangible evidence to connect the present Gospel
with the Apostle Matthew." Even the orthodox apologist, Neander, admits
"Matthew's Gospel, in its present form, was not the production of the
Apostle whose name it bears, but was _founded_ on an account written by
him in the Hebrew language, chiefly (but not wholly) for the purpose
of presenting the discourses of Christ in a collective form" ("Life of
Christ," cap. ii., sec. 4, p. 7). An admission sufficient to destroy the
credit of any profane work much less a divinely inspired record of the
sayings and doings of an alleged God.
The author of "Supernatural Religion," vol. i. p. 486, 1879, says: "It
is manifest from the evidence adduced, however, that Papias did not
know, our Gospels. It is not possible that he could have found it better
to inquire 'What John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of
the Lord.... say, if he had known of Gospels such as ours, and believed
them to have been actually written by those Apostles, deliberately
telling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew being, however, a
mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what
the Apostle himself said of the history and teaching of the Master. The
evidence of Papias is in every respect most important. He is the first
writer who mentions that Matthew and Mark were believed to have written
any works at all; but whilst he shows that he does not accord
any canonical authority even to the works attributed to them, his
description of those works and his general testimony comes with crushing
force against the pretensions made on behalf of our Gospels to Apostolic
origin and authenticity."
We will now look at his testimony to Mark. "Mark," he tells us, "having
become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he
remembered, though he did not arrange in order the sayings or deeds
of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him. But
afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his
instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention
of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made
no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one
thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard and not
to put anything fictitious into the statements."
This description likewise shows that our actual second Gospel could not,
in its present form, have been the work of the Mark referred to. Mark or
Marcus was an extremely common name in the early Christian period.
In the first place, our Gospel is no more like a man's preaching than it
is like an epic poem. It has, moreover, no Petrine characteristics. Mark
does not give the important passage about Christ's church being built
upon Peter (Matt, xvi., 18); nor the distinguishing addition "called
Peter," in the calling of Simon; nor the narrative of Peter's miraculous
draught of fishes; of his walking on the sea; his being sent to prepare
the Passover, or the reproachful look of Jesus when Peter denied him. It
also omits the expression "bitterly" when the cock crew, and Peter wept.
These omissions have been attributed to Peter's excessive modesty. Apart
from the absence of any evidence of this trait in the Apostle whom Paul
withstood to his face because he was to be blamed, it must have been a
peculiar kind of modesty indeed to omit important passages and events
lest the chief Apostle should seem too prominent, and to suppress the
bitterness of his penitence!
But Irenaeus tells us the Gospel of Mark was written after Peter's death,
while Clement of Alexandria makes out that he wrote it at the request of
friends which, when Peter knew, he neither hindered nor encouraged.
So from these accounts, neither of which accord with Papias, it would
appear that Mark had no motive for lessening the prominence of Peter.
Peter is alleged to have died about the year 60; so that, Papias dying
about the year 165, and writing late in life, his evidence on behalf of
Mark's Gospel would be about 100 years after it is alleged to have been
written. This applies with equal force to Matthew. But so marvellous
are the contents of these Gospels that even the most certain evidence of
their existence 100 years later would be very unsatisfactory.
It will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a _Gospel_ of Mark
than he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an inspired narrative,
but records written from memory. Now if Mark wrote from memory he did
not write from inspiration. The argument for the genuineness of the
Gospel is at the expense of its inspiration. But the evidence from the
numerous passages in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is
overwhelming that it is not an original document written from memory
at all, but with the writer having other documents directly before him.
This is admitted by all the best critics.
Papias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which were said and
done by Christ, and that he was careful to omit none of the things which
he heard. How can this apply to our Gospel, which we have seen omits
many most important things with which Peter was most especially
concerned, and which moreover is the most orderly and consecutive of the
Gospels. Canon Sanday says ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 151):
"The second Gospel _is_ written in order, it is _not_ an original
document. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its
present shape the document to which Papias alludes." And again (p. 155):
"Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the
conditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim
Papias as a witness to them." Once more (p. 159), "I am bound in candor
to say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to
agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' against his critics,
that the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in
their present form."
Dr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. i., p. 539, 1882,) declares:
"A careful examination of Papias's testimony shows that it does not
relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as
its author. All we learn from it is, that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel
which was not our canonical one."
The description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regularly
concocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter's preaching. It
seems altogether more likely that the allusion is to the work known
as the "Preaching of Peter," which was undoubtedly popular in early
Christian times, and which was used by Heracleon and Clement of
Alexandria as authentic canonical Scripture. Since Papias gives no
quotations whatever from these alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the
whole matter remains a bare tradition resting on the authority of this
weak-minded Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to
test the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that he
did anything of the kind. Dupin says: "The judgment that ought to be
given concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius,
that is to say, that he was a very good man, but very credulous, and of
very mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and
miracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to
believe everything that was told him, it is not to be admired that he
hath divulged divers errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of
the Apostles, and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories,
which shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as
lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the
appearance of piety without considering in the first place how true it
is" ("A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers," vol. i., p. 50, 1692).
Traditions coming from such a source could be of very little value. It
is, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to any book with
which he was acquainted He says: "For I imagined that what was to be
got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living
abiding voice "--a saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew
and Mark he referred to, and possibly others of the "many" who had
written "a declaration of those things which are surely believed among
us," referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he refers to spurious
productions, as "he never would have said this concerning any inspired
book" ("New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of
the New Testament," vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop
preferring uncertain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an
infallibly inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant
apologist.
This extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight fragments which
has come down to us. He relates on the authority of Philip's daughters
that a man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another
miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly
poison and received no harm. After this we are not surprised at the
information that the government of the world's affairs was left to
angels, and that they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while
mentioning Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never
ascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel The only
saying which he does ascribe to him: "The days shall come when vines
shall grow, having each ten thousand branches," etc., is not only
uncanonical but entirely dissimilar to the style of both Gospel and
First Epistle, though not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson
considers his notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed
him to be the author of a Gospel Had he known of such a document he
would surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and Mark, and Eusebius
would not have failed to reproduce the testimony.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, seems to have been a fair average specimen
of the early Christian. Probably he was very devout and pious, but most
certainly he was not strong in intellect, and was ready to give credence
to old wives' tales concerning the Christ or his Apostles. It is
upon such authorities as these that the whole fabric of historical
Christianity rests.