passage in Matthew, and only thrice does he repeat the verb in the

second clause as in that Gospel, and on these occasions he twice makes

use of [--Greek--](1) and once of [--Greek--].(2) He once uses [--Greek--] with

the same order as Justin, but does not complete the sentence.(3) Each

time he completes the quotation, he uses [--Greek--] with the Gospel,

and [--Greek--] with Justin,(4) but only once out of the five complete

quotations does he insert [--Greek--] in the concluding phrase. It is

evident from this examination, which we must not carry further, that

Epiphanius never verbally agrees with the Gospel in his quotation

of this passage and never verbally with Justin, but mainly follows a

version different from both. It must be remembered,

however, that he is writing against various heresies, and it does not

seem to us improbable that he reproduces forms of the passage current

amongst those sects.

In his work against Marcion, Tertullian says: "With regard to the

Father, however, that he was never seen, the Gospel which is common to

us will testify, as it was said by Christ: Nemo cognovit patrem nisi

filius,"(5) but elsewhere he translates "Nemo scit,"(6) evidently

not fully appreciating the difference of [--Greek--].(7) The passage in

Mar-cion's Gospel reads like Justin's: [--Greek--].(8) The use of [--Greek--]

as applied to the Father and [--Greek--] as regards the Son in this passage

is suggestive. Origen

{410}

almost invariably uses [--Greek--], sometimes adopting the order of the

Gospels and sometimes that of Justin, and always employing [--Greek--].(1)

The Clementine Homilies always read [--Greek--], and always follow the same

order as Justin, presenting other and persistent variations from the

form in the Gospels. [--Greek--] This reading occurs four times.

The Clementine Recognitions have the aorist with the order of the

Gospels.(4)

There only remain a few more lines to add to those already quoted to

complete the whole of Dr. Westcott's argument regarding this passage. He

continues and concludes thus: "If, indeed, Justin's quotations were made

from memory, no transposition could be more natural; and if we suppose

that he copied the passage directly from a manuscript, there is no

difficulty in believing that he found it so written in a manuscript

of the Canonical St. Matthew, since the variation is excluded by no

internal improbability, while it is found elsewhere, and its origin is

easily explicable."(5) It will be observed that Canon Westcott does not

attempt any argument, but simply confines himself to suppositions.

If such explanations were only valid, there could be no difficulty in

believing anything, and every embarrassing circumstance would indeed be

easily explicable.

The facts of the case may be briefly summed up as follows: Justin

deliberately and expressly quotes from his Gospel, himself calling it

"Gospel," be it observed, a

{411}

passage whose nearest parallel in our Gospels is Matt. xi. 27. This

quotation presents material variations from our Canonical Gospel both in

form and language. The larger part of the passage he quotes twice in a

different work, written years before, in precisely the same words as the

third quotation, with the sole exception that he uses the aorist

instead of the present tense of the verb. No MS. of our Gospel extant

approximates to the reading in Justin, and we are expressly told by

Irenaeus that the present reading of our Matthew was that existing in

his day. On the other hand, Irenaeus states with equal distinctness that

Gospels used by Gnostic sects had the reading of Justin, and that the

passage was "the crown of their system," and one upon whose testimony

they based their leading doctrines. Here, then, is the clear statement

that Justin's quotation disagrees with the form in the Gospels, and

agrees with that of other Gospels. The variations occurring in the

numerous quotations of the same passage by the Fathers, which we have

analysed, show that they handled it very loosely, but also indicate that

there must have been various readings of considerable authority then

current. It has been conjectured with much probability that the form in

which Justin quotes the passage twice in his Apology may have been

the reading of older Gospels, and that it was gradually altered by the

Church to the form in which we now have it, for dogmatic reasons, when

Gnostic sects began to base doctrines upon it inconsistent with the

prevailing interpretation.(1) Be this as it may, Justin's Gospel clearly

had a reading different from ours, but in unison with

{412}

that known to exist in other Gospels, and this express quotation only

adds additional proof to the mass of evidence already adduced that the

Memoirs of the Apostles were not our Canonical Gospels.(1)

We have already occupied so much space even with this cursory

examination of Justin's quotations, that we must pass over in silence

passages which he quotes from the Memoirs with variations from the

parallels in our Gospels which are also found in the Clementine Homilies

and other works emanating from circles in which other Gospels than ours

were used. We shall now only briefly refer to a few sayings of Jesus

expressly quoted by Justin, which are altogether unknown to our Gospels.

Justin says: "For the things which he foretold would take place in his

name, these we see actually coming to pass in our sight. For he

said: 'Many shall come,' &c., &c.,(2) and 'There shall be schisms and

heresies,'(3) and 'Beware of false prophets,'(4) &c, and 'Many false

Christs and false Apostles shall arise and shall deceive many of the

faithful.'"(5) Neither of the two prophecies here quoted are to be found

anywhere in our Gospels, and to the second of them Justin repeatedly

refers. He says in one place that Jesus "foretold that in the interval

of his coming, as I previously said,(6) heresies and false prophets

would arise in his name."(7) It is admitted that these

{413}

prophecies are foreign to our Gospels.(1) It is very probable that

the Apostle Paul refers to the prophecy, "There shall be schisms and

heresies" in 1 Cor. xi. 18-19, where it is said, ".... I hear that

schisms exist amongst you; and I partly believe it. For there must also

be heresies amongst you," &c. [--Greek--].(2) We find also, elsewhere,

traces both of this saying and that which accompanies it. In the

Clementine Homilies, Peter is represented as stating, "For there shall

be, as the Lord said, _false apostles_, false prophets, _heresies_,

desires for supremacy," &c. [--Greek--].3 We are likewise reminded of the

passage in the Epistle attributed to the Roman Clement, xliv.: "Our

Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be

contention regarding the dignity of the episcopate."(4) In our Gospel

there is no reference anywhere to schisms and heresies, nor are false

Apostles once mentioned, the reference being solely to "false Christs"

and "false prophets." The recurrence here and elsewhere of the peculiar

expression "false apostles" is very striking,(5) and the evidence

for the passage as a saying of Jesus is important. Hegesippus, after

enumerating a vast number of heretical sects and teachers, continues:

"From these sprang the false Christs, false prophets, _false apostles_,

who divided the

{414}

union of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning God and

concerning his Christ."(1) It will be remembered that Hegesippus

made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the Clementine

literature points to the same source. In the Apostolic Constitutions

we read: "For these are false Christs and false prophets, _and false

apostles_, deceivers, and corrupters," &c.,(2) and in the Clementine

Recognitions the Apostle Peter is represented as saying that the Devil,

after the temptation, terrified by the final answer of Jesus, "hastened

immediately to send forth into this world false prophets, and _false

apostles_, and false teachers, who should speak in the name of Christ

indeed, but should perform the will of the demon."(3) Justin's whole

system forbids our recognizing in these two passages mere tradition, and

we must hold that we have here quotations from a Gospel different from

ours.

Elsewhere, Justin says: "Out of which (affliction and fiery trial of the

Devil) again Jesus, the Son of God, promised to deliver us, and to put

on us prepared garments, if we do his commandments, and he is proclaimed

as having provided an eternal kingdom for us."(4) This promise is

nowhere found in our Gospel.(5)

Immediately following the passage (k 3 and 4) which we have discussed(6)

as repeated in the Dialogue: "Many

{415}

shall say to me, &c, &c, and I will say to them, Depart from me," Justin

continues: "And in other words by which he will condemn those who are

unworthy to be saved, he said that he will say: Begone into the darkness

without, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels."(1)

The nearest parallel to this is in Matt. xxv. 41: "Then shall he say

also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into the

eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels."

[--Greek--]

It is apparent that Justin's quotation differs very widely from the

reading of our Gospel. The same reading, with the exception of a single

word, is found in the Clementine Homilies (xix. 2), that is to say, that

"Devil" is substituted for "Satan," and this variation is not important.

The agreement of the rest, on the other hand, seems to establish the

conclusion that the quotation is from a written Gospel different from

ours,(2) and here we have further strong indications of Justin's use of

the Ebionite Gospel.

Another of the sayings of Jesus which are foreign to our Gospels is one

in reference to the man who falls away from righteousness into sin,

of whom Justin says: "Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ said: In

whatsoever things I may find you, in these I shall also judge you."(3)

[--Greek--]

{416}

"[--Greek--]") A similar expression is used by some of the Fathers, and

in some cases is ascribed to the prophets.(1) Clement of Alexandria has

quoted a phrase closely resembling this without indicating the source.

[--Greek--].(2 ) Grabe was of opinion that Justin derived the passage from

the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(3) an opinion shared by the greater

number of modern critics, and which we are prepared to accept from

many previous instances of agreement. Even the warmest asserters of the

theory that the Memoirs are identical with our Gospels are obliged to

admit that this saying of Jesus is not contained in them, and that it

must have been derived from an extra-canonical source.(4)

Other passages of a similar kind might have been pointed out, but we

have already devoted too much space to Justin's quotations, and must

hasten to a conclusion. There is one point, however, to which we must

refer. We have more than once alluded to the fact that, unless in one

place, Justin never mentions an author's name in connection with the

Memoirs of the Apostles. The exception to which we referred is the

following. Justin says: "The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the

name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in

_his_ Memoirs as having been done,

{417}

together with the fact that he also changed the name of other two

brothers, who were sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, that is, sons of

Thunder," &c.(1) According to the usual language of Justin, and upon

strictly critical grounds, the [--Greek--] in this passage must be referred

to Peter; and Justin, therefore, seems to ascribe the Memoirs to that

Apostle, and to speak of a Gospel of Peter. Some critics maintain that

the [--Greek--] does not refer to Peter, but to Jesus, or, more probably

still, that it should be amended to [--Greek--], and apply to the

Apostles.(3) The great majority, however, are forced to admit the

reference of the Memoirs to Peter, although they explain it, as we shall

see, in different ways. It is argued by some that this expression is

used when Justin is alluding to the change of name not only of Peter

but of the sons of Zebedee, the narrative of which is only found in the

Gospel according to Mark. Now Mark was held by many of the Fathers

to have been the mere mouthpiece of Peter, and to have written at his

dictation;(3) so that, in fact, in calling the second Gospel by the name

of the Apostle Peter, they argue, Justin merely adopted the tradition

current in the early Church, and referred to the

{418}

Gospel now known as the Gospel according to Mark.(1) It must be evident,

however, that after admitting that Justin speaks of the Memoirs of

Peter," it is indeed hasty in the extreme to conclude from the fact

that the mention of the sons of Zebedee being surnamed Boanerges is only

recorded in Mark iii. 17, and not in the other canonical Gospels, that

therefore the "Memoirs of Peter" and our Gospel according to Mark are

one and the same. We shall, hereafter, in examining the testimony of

Papias, see that the Gospel according to Mark, of which the Bishop of

Hierapolis speaks, was not our canonical Mark at all. It would be very

singular indeed on this hypothesis that Justin should not have quoted

a single passage from the only Gospel whose author he names, and the

number of times he seems to quote from a Petrine Gospel, which was quite

different from Mark, confirms the inference that he cannot possibly here

refer to our second Gospel. It is maintained, therefore, by numerous

other critics that Justin refers to a Gospel according to Peter, or

according to the Hebrews, and not to Mark.(3)

We learn from Eusebius that Serapion, who became Bishop of Antioch about

a.d. 190, composed a book on

{419}

the "Gospel according to Peter" [--Greek--], which he found in circulation

in his diocese. At first Serapion had permitted the use of this Gospel,

as it evidently was much prized, but he subsequently condemned it as a

work favouring Docetic views, and containing many things superadded to

the doctrine of the Saviour.(1) Origen likewise makes mention of the

Gospel according to Peter [--Greek--] as agreeing with the tradition of the

Hebrews.(3) But its relationship to the Gospel according to the Hebrews

becomes more clear when Theodoret states that the Nazarenes made use of

the Gospel according to Peter,(3) for we know by the testimony of the

Fathers generally that the Nazarene Gospel was that commonly called the

Gospel according to the Hebrews [--Greek--].

The same Gospel was in use amongst the Ebionites, and in fact, as almost

all critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under

various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the

Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, &c, with modifications

certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely

throughout the early Church.(4) A quotation occurs in the

{420}

so-called Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, to which we have

already referred, which is said by Origen to be in the work called the

doctrine of Peter(l) [--Greek--], but

Jerome states that it is taken from the Hebrew Gospel of the

Nazarenes.(2) Delitzsch finds traces of the Gospel according to the

Hebrews before a.d. 130 in the Talmud.(3) Eusebius(4) informs us that

Papias narrated a story regarding a woman accused before the Lord of

many sins which was contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(5)

The same writer likewise states that Hegesippus, who came to Rome

and commenced his public career under Anicetus, quoted from the same

Gospel.(6) The evidence of this "ancient and apostolic man is very

important, for although he evidently attaches great value to tradition,

does not seem to know of any canonical Scriptures of the New Testament

{421}

and, like Justin, apparently rejected the Apostle Paul,(1) he still

regarded the Gospel according to the Hebrews with respect, and probably

made exclusive use of it. The best critics consider that this Gospel was

the evangelical work used by the author of the Clementine Homilies.(2)

Cerinthus and Carpocrates made use of a form of it,(3) and there is good

reason to suppose that Tatian, like his master Justin, used the same

Gospel: indeed his "Diatessaron," we are told, was by some called the

Gospel according to the Hebrews.(4) Clement of Alexandria quotes it as

an authority, with quite the same respect as the other Gospels. He says:

"So also in the Gospel according to the Hebrews: 'He who wonders shall

reign,' it is written, 'and he who reigns shall rest.'"(5) A form of

this Gospel, "according to the Egyptians," is quoted in the second

Epistle of pseudo-Clement of Rome, as we are informed by the Alexandrian

{422}

Clement, who likewise quotes the same passage.(1) Origen frequently made

use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,(2) and that it long enjoyed

great consideration in the Church is proved by the fact that Theodoret

found it in circulation not only among heretics, but also amongst

orthodox Christian communities;(3) and even in the fourth century

Eusebius records doubts as to the rank of this Gospel amongst Christian

books, speaking of it under the second class in which some reckoned

the Apocalypse of John.(4) Later still Jerome translated it;(5) whilst

Nicephorus inserts it, in his Stichometry, not amongst the Apocrypha,

but amongst the Antilegomena, or merely doubtful books of the New

Testament, along with the Apocalypse of John.(6) Eusebius bears

testimony to the value attached to it by the Jewish Christians,(7) and

indeed he says of the Ebionites that, "making use only of the Gospel

according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the rest."(8) In

such repute was this Gospel amongst the earliest Christian communities,

that it was generally believed to be the original of the Greek Gospel

of Matthew. Irenaeus states that the Ebionites used solely the Gospel

according to Matthew and reject the Apostle Paul, asserting that he was

an apostate from the law.(9) We know from statements

{423}

regarding the Ebionites(1) that this Gospel could not have been our

Gospel according to Matthew, and besides, both Clement(2) of Alexandria

and Origen(3) call it the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Eusebius,

however, still more clearly identifies it, as we have seen above.

Repeating the statements of Irenaeus, he says: "These indeed (the

Ebionites) thought that all the Epistles of the Apostle (Paul) should be

rejected, calling him an apostate from the law; making use only of

the Gospel according to the Hebrews, they took little account of the

rest."(4) Epiphanius calls both the single Gospel of the Ebionites and

of the Nazarenes the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," and also

the Gospel according to Matthew,(5) as does also Theodoret(6) Jerome

translated the Gospel according to the Hebrews both into Greek and

Latin,(7) and it is clear that his belief was that this Gospel, a copy

of which he found in the library collected at Caesarea by the Martyr

Pamphilus (f 309), was the Hebrew original of Matthew; and in support of

this view he points out that it did not follow the version of the LXX.

in its quotations from the Old Testament, but quoted directly from the

Hebrew.(8 ) An attempt has been made to argue

{424}

that, later, Jerome became doubtful of this view, but it seems to

us that this is not the case, and certainly Jerome in his subsequent

writings states that it was generally held to be the original of

Matthew.(1) That this Gospel was not identical with the Greek Matthew is

evident both from the quotations of Jerome and others, and also from the

fact that Jerome considered it worth while to translate it twice. If

the Greek Gospel had been an accurate translation of it, of course there

could not have been inducement to make another.(2) As we shall hereafter

see, the belief was universal in the early Church that Matthew wrote

his Gospel in Hebrew. Attempts have been made to argue that the Gospel

according to the Hebrews was first written in Greek and then translated

into Hebrew,(3) but the reasons advanced seem quite insufficient and

arbitrary,(4) and it is contradicted by the whole tradition of the

Fathers.

{425}

It is not necessary for our purpose to enter fully here into the

question of the exact relation of our canonical Gospel according to

Matthew to the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is sufficient for us

to point out that we meet with the latter before Matthew's Gospel,

and that the general opinion of the early church was that it was the

original of the canonical Gospel This opinion, as Schwegler(1) remarks,

is supported by the fact that tradition assigns the origin of both

Gospels to Palestine, and that both were intended for Jewish Christians

and exclusively used by them. That the two works, however originally

related, had by subsequent manipulation become distinct, although still

amidst much variation preserving some substantial affinity, cannot be

doubted, and in addition to evidence already cited we may point out that

in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Gospel according to Matthew is

said to have 2500 [--Greek--], whilst that according to the Hebrews has

only 2200.(2)

Whether this Gospel formed one of the writings of the [--Greek--] of Luke

it is not our purpose to inquire, but enough has been said to prove that

it was one of the most ancient(3)

{426}

and most valued evangelical works, and to show the probability that

Justin Martyr, a Jewish Christian living amongst those who are known to

have made exclusive use of this Gospel, may well, like his contemporary

Hegesippus, have used the Gospel according to the Hebrews; and this

probability is, as we have seen, greatly strengthened by the fact that

many of his quotations agree with passages which we know to have been

contained in it; whilst, on the other hand, almost all differ from our

Gospels, presenting generally, however, a greater affinity to the Gospel

according to Matthew, as we might expect, than to the other two. It is

clear that the title "Gospel according to the Hebrews" cannot have been

its actual superscription, but merely was a name descriptive of the

readers for whom it was prepared or amongst whom it chiefly circulated,

and it is most probable that it originally bore no other title than "The

Gospel" [--Greek--], to which were added the different designations under

which we find it known amongst different communities.(1) We have already

seen that Justin speaks of "The Gospel" and seems to refer to the

"Memoirs of Peter," both distinguishing appellations of this Gospel,

but there is another of the names borne by the "Gospel according to the

Hebrews," which singularly recalls the "Memoirs of the Apostles," by

which Justin prefers to call his evangelical work. It was called the

"Gospel according to the Apostles"(2)

{427}

[--Greek--], and, in short, comparing Justin's Memoirs with this Gospel, we

find at once similarity of contents and even of name.(1)

It is not necessary, however, for) the purposes of this examination to

dwell more fully upon the question as to what specific Gospel now no

longer extant Justin employed. We have shown that there is no evidence

that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore,

be cited even to prove their existence, and much less to attest the

authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once

name. On the other hand it has been made evident that there were other

Gospels, now lost but which then enjoyed the highest consideration, from

which his quotations might have been, and probably were, taken. We have

seen that Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles contained facts of Gospel

history unknown to our Gospels, which were contained in apocryphal works

and notably in the Gospel according to the Hebrews; that they further

contained matter contradictory to our Gospels, and sayings of Jesus

not contained in them; and that his quotations, although so numerous,

systematically vary from similar passages in our Gospels. No theory of

quotation from memory can satisfactorily account for these phenomena,

and the reasonable conclusion is that Justin did not make use of our

Gospels, but quoted from another source. In no case can the testimony

of Justin afford the requisite support to the Gospels as records of

miracles and of a Divine Revelation.

{429}

CHAPTER IV. HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

We now turn to Hegesippus, one of the contemporaries of Justin, and,

like him, a Palestinian Jewish Christian. Most of our information

regarding him is derived from Eusebius, who fortunately gives rather

copious extracts from his writings. Hegesippus was born in Palestine,

of Jewish parents,(l) and in all probability belonged to the primitive

community of Jerusalem.(2) In order to make himself thoroughly

acquainted with the state of the Church, he travelled widely and came

to Rome when Anicetus was Bishop. Subsequently he wrote a work of

historical Memoirs, [--Greek--], in five books, and thus became the

first ecclesiastical historian of Christianity. This work is lost, but

portions have been preserved to us by Eusebius, and one other fragment

is also extant. It must have been, in part at least, written after the

succession of Eleutherus to the Roman bishopric (a.d. 177-193), as that

event is mentioned in the book itself, and his testimony is allowed by

all critics to date from an advanced period of the second half of the

second century.(3)

{430}

The testimony of Hegesippus is of great value, not only as that of a

man born near the primitive Christian tradition, but also as that of

an intelligent traveller amongst many Christian communities. Eusebius

evidently held him in high estimation as recording the unerring

tradition of the Apostolic preaching in the most simple style of

composition,(1) and as a writer of authority who was "contemporary with

the first successors of the Apostles"(2) [--Greek--]. Any indications,

therefore, which we may derive from information regarding him, and

from the fragments of his writings which survive, must be of peculiar

importance for our inquiry.

As might have been expected from a convert from Judaism(3) [--Greek--], we

find in Hegesippus manifest evidences of general tendency to the Jewish

side of Christianity. For him, "James, the brother of the Lord," was the

chief of the Apostles, and he states that he had received the government

of the Church after the death of Jesus.(4) The account which he gives of

him is remarkable. "He was holy from his mothers womb. He drank neither

wine nor strong drink, nor ate he any living thing. A razor never went

upon his head, he anointed not himself with

{431}

oil, and did not use a bath. He alone was allowed to enter into the

Holies. For he did not wear woollen garments, but linen. And he alone

entered into the Sanctuary and was wont to be found upon his knees

seeking forgiveness on behalf of the people; so that his knees became

hard like a camel's, through his constant kneeling in supplication to

God, and asking for forgiveness for the people. In consequence of his

exceeding great righteousness he was called Righteous and 'Oblias,' that

is, Protector of the people and Righteousness, as the prophets declare

concerning him,"(1) and so on. Throughout the whole of his account of

James, Hegesippus describes him as a mere Jew, and as frequenting the

temple, and even entering the Holy of Holies as a Jewish High Priest.

Whether the account be apocryphal or not is of little consequence here;

it is clear that Hegesippus sees no incongruity in it, and that the

difference between the Jew and the Christian was extremely small. The

head of the Christian community could assume all the duties of the

Jewish High-Priest,(2) and his Christian doctrines did not offend more

than a small party amongst the Jews.(3)

We are not, therefore, surprised to find that his rule [--Greek--] of

orthodoxy in the Christian communities

{432}

which he visited, was "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord." Speaking of

the result of his observations during his travels, and of the succession

of Bishops in Rome, he says: "The Corinthian Church has continued in the

true faith until Primus, now Bishop of Corinth. I conversed with him

on my voyage to Rome, and stayed many days with the Corinthians, during

which time we were refreshed together with true doctrine. Arrived

in Rome I composed the succession until Anicetus, whose deacon was

Eleutherus. After Anicetus succeeded Soter, and afterwards Eleutherus.

But with every succession, and in every city, that prevails which

the Law, and the Prophets, and the Lord enjoin."(1) The test of true

doctrine [--Greek--] with Hegesippus as with Justin, therefore, is no

New Testament Canon, which does not yet exist for him, but the Old

Testament, the only Holy Scriptures which he acknowledges, and the words

of the Lord himself,(3) which, as in the case of Jewish Christians like

Justin, were held to be established by, and in direct conformity with,

the Old Testament. He carefully transmits the unerring tradition of

apostolic preaching [--Greek--], but he apparently knows nothing of any

canonical series even of apostolic epistles.

The care with which Eusebius searches for information regarding the

books of the New Testament in early writers, and his anxiety to produce

any evidence concerning their composition and authenticity, render his

silence upon the subject almost as important as his distinct

{433}

utterance when speaking of such a man as Hegesippus.(1) Now, while

Eusebius does not mention that Hegesippus refers to any of our Canonical

Gospels or Epistles, he very distinctly states that he made use in his

writings of the "Gospel according to the Hebrews" [--Greek--]. It may be

well, however, to give his remarks in a consecutive form. "He sets forth

some matters from the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Syriac,

and particularly from the Hebrew language, showing that he was a convert

from among the Hebrews, and other things he records as from unwritten

Jewish tradition. And not only he, but also Irenaeus, and the whole body

of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom.

And regarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had

been forged in his own time by certain heretics."(2)

It is certain that Eusebius, who quotes with so much care the testimony

of Papias, a man of whom he speaks disparagingly, regarding the

composition of the first two Gospels, would not have neglected to have

availed himself of the evidence of Hegesippus, for whom he has so much

respect, had that writer furnished him with any opportunity, and

there can be no doubt that he found no facts concerning the origin and

authorship of our Gospels in his writings. It is, on the other hand,

reasonable to infer that Hegesippus exclusively made use of the

{434}

Gospel according to the Hebrews, together with unwritten tradition.(1)

In the passage regarding the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as even

Lardner(2) conjectures, the text of Eusebius is in all probability

confused, and he doubtless said what Jerome later found to be the fact,

that "the Gospel according to the Hebrews is written in the Chaldaic and

Syriac (or Syro-Chaldaic) language, but with Hebrew characters."(3) It

is in this sense that Rufinus translates it. It may not be inappropriate

to point out that fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews,

which have been preserved, show the same tendency to give some

pre-eminence to James amongst the Apostles which we observe in

Hegesippus.(4) It has been argued by a few that the words, "and

regarding the so-called Apocrypha, he states that some of them had been

forged in his own times by certain heretics," are contradictory to his

attributing authority to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or at

least that they indicate some distinction amongst Christians between

recognized and apocryphal works. The apocryphal works referred

to, however, are clearly Old Testament Apocrypha.(5) The words are

introduced by the statement that Hegesippus records matters "as from

unwritten Jewish tradition," and then proceeds, "and

{435}

not only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole body of the ancients, called

the Proverbs of Solomon: all-virtuous Wisdom." Then follow the words,

"And with regard to the _so-called_ Apocrypha," &c, &c, evidently

passing from the work just mentioned to the Old Testament Apocrypha,

several of which stand also in the name of Solomon, and it is not

improbable that amongst these were included the _Ascensio Esaiae_ and the

_Apocalypsis Eliae_, to which is referred a passage which Hegesippus, in

a fragment preserved by Photius,(1) strongly repudiates. As Hegesippus

does not, so far as we know, mention any canonical work of the New

Testament, but takes as his rule of faith the Law, the Prophets, and the

words of the Lord, probably as he finds them in the Gospel according to

the Hebrews, quotes also Jewish tradition and discusses the Proverbs of

Solomon, the only possible conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive

is that he spoke of Old Testament Apocrypha. There cannot be a doubt

that Eusebius would have recorded his repudiation of New Testament

"Apocrypha," regarding which he so carefully collects information, and

his consequent recognition of New Testament Canonical works implied in

such a distinction.

We must now see how far in the fragments of the works of Hegesippus

which have been preserved to us there are references to assist our

inquiry. In his account of certain surviving members of the family of

Jesus, who were brought before Domitian, Hegesippus says: "For Domitian

feared the appearing of the Christ as much as Herod."(2) It has been

argued that this

{436}

may be an allusion to the massacre of the children by Herod related in

Matt ii., more especially as it is doubtful that the parallel account to

that contained in the first two chapters of the first Gospel existed

in the oldest forms of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(1) But the

tradition which has been preserved in our first Synoptic may have formed

part of many other evangelical works, in one shape or another, and

certainly cannot be claimed with reason exclusively for that Gospel.

This argument, therefore, has no weight whatever, and it obviously rests

upon the vaguest conjecture. The principal passages which apologists(2)

adduce as references to our Gospels occur in the account which

Hegesippus gives of the martyrdom of James the Just. The first of

these is the reply which James is said to have given to the Scribes and

Pharisees: "Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He sits

in heaven on the right hand of great power, and is about to come on the

clouds of heaven."(3) This is compared with Matt. xxvi. 64: "From this

time ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and

coming on the clouds of heaven."(4) It is not necessary to point out the

variations between these two passages, which are obvious. If we had not

the direct intimation that Hegesippus made use of the Gospel according

to the Hebrews, which no doubt contained this passage, it would be

apparent that a man who valued tradition

{437}

so highly might well have derived this and other passages from that

source. This is precisely one of those sayings which were most current

in the early Church, whose hope and courage were sustained amid

persecution and suffering by such Chiliastic expectations, with which

according to the apostolic injunction they comforted each other.(1) In

any case the words do not agree with the passage in the first Gospel,

and as we have already established, even perfect agreement would not

under the circumstances be sufficient evidence that the quotation is

from that Gospel, and not from another; but with such discrepancy,

without any evidence whatever that Hegesippus knew anything of our

Gospels, but, on the contrary, with the knowledge that he made use

of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we must decide that any such

passages must rather be derived from it than from our Gospels.

It is scarcely necessary to say anything regarding the phrase: "for

we and all the people testify to thee that thou art just and that thou

respectest not persons."(2) Canon Westcott points out that [--Greek--] only

occurs in Luke xx. 21, and Galatians ii. 6;(3) but the similarity

of this single phrase, which is not given as a quotation, but in a

historical form put into the mouth of those who are addressing James,

cannot for a moment be accepted as evidence of a knowledge of Luke. The

episode of the tribute money is generally ascribed to the oldest form

of the Gospel history, and although the other two Synoptics(4) read

[--Greek--] for [--Greek--], there is

{438}

no ground for asserting that some of the [--Greek--] who preceded Luke did

not use the latter form, and as little for asserting that it did not

so stand, for instance, in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The

employment of the same expression in the Epistle, moreover, at once

deprives the Gospel of any individuality in its use.

Hegesippus represents the dying James as kneeling down and praying for

those who were stoning him: "I beseech (thee), Lord God Father, forgive

them, for they know not what they do" [--Greek--].(1) This is compared

with the prayer which Luke(2) puts into the mouth of Jesus on the cross:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" [--Greek--], and it

is assumed from this partial coincidence that Hegesippus was acquainted

with the third of our canonical Gospels. We are surprised to see an

able and accomplished critic like Hilgenfeld adopting such a conclusion

without either examination or argument of any kind.(3) Such a deduction

is totally unwarranted by the facts of the case, and if the partial

agreement of a passage in such a Father with a historical expression in

a Gospel which, alone out of many previously existent, has come down

to us can be considered evidence of the acquaintance of the Father with

that particular Gospel, the function of criticism is at an end.

It may here be observed that the above passage of Luke xxiii. 34 is

omitted altogether from the Vatican MS. and Codex D (Bezse), and in the

Codex Sinaiticus

{439}

its position is of a very doubtful character.(1) The Codex Alexandrinus

which contains it omits the word [--Greek--].(2) Luke's Gospel was avowedly

composed after many other similar works were already in existence, and

we know from our Synoptics how closely such writings often followed each

other, and drew from the same sources.(3) If any historical character is

conceded to this prayer of Jesus it is natural to suppose that it must

have been given in at least some of these numerous Gospels which have

unfortunately perished. No one could reasonably assert that our third

Gospel is the only one which ever contained the passage. It would be

preposterous to affirm, for instance, that it did not exist in the

Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Hegesippus employed. On the

supposition that the passage is historical, which apologists at least

will not dispute, what could be more natural or probable than that such

a prayer, "emanating from the innermost soul of Jesus,"(4) should

have been adopted under similar circumstances by James his brother

and successor, who certainly could not have derived it from Luke. The

tradition of such words, expressing so much of the original spirit of

Christianity, setting aside for the moment written

{440}

Gospels, could scarcely fail to have remained fresh in the mind of the

early Church, and more especially in the primitive community amongst

whom they were uttered, and of which Hegesippus was himself a later

member; and they would certainly have been treasured by one who was so

careful a collector and transmitter of "the unerring tradition of the

apostolic preaching." No saying is more likely to have been preserved

by tradition, both from its own character, brevity, and origin, and from

the circumstances under which it was uttered, and there can be no reason

for limiting it amongst written records to Luke's Gospel. The omission

of the prayer from very important codices of Luke further weakens

the claim of that Gospel to the passage. Beyond these general

considerations, however, there is the important and undoubted fact

that the prayer which Hegesippus represents James as uttering does not

actually agree with the prayer of Jesus in the third Gospel. So far from

proving the use of Luke, therefore, this merely fragmentary and partial

agreement, on the contrary, rather proves that he did not know that

Gospel, for on the supposition of his making use of the third Synoptic

at all for such a purpose, and not simply giving the prayer which James

may in reality have uttered, why did he not quote the prayer as he

actually found it in Luke?

We have still to consider a fragment of Hegesippus preserved to us by

Stephanus Gobarus, a learned monophysite

of the sixth century, which reads as follows: "That the good things

prepared for the righteous neither eye saw, nor ear heard, nor entered

they into the heart of man. Hegesippus, however, an ancient and

apostolic man, how moved I know not, says in the fifth book of his

Memoirs that these words are vainly

{441}

spoken, and that those who say these things give the lie to the divine

writings and to the Lord saying: 'Blessed are your eyes that see, and

your cars that hear,'" &c. [--Greek--].(1) We believe that we have here

an expression of the strong prejudice against the Apostle Paul and

his teaching which continued for so long to prevail amongst Jewish

Christians, and which is apparent in many writings of that period.(2)

The quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians ii. 9, differs materially from the

Septuagint version of the passage in Isaiah lxiv. 4, and, as we have

seen, the same passage quoted by "Clement of Rome,"(3) differs both from

the version of the LXX'. and from the Epistle, although closer to the

former. Jerome however found the passage in the apocryphal work called

"Ascensio Isaiae,"(4) and Origen, Jerome, and others likewise ascribe it

to the "Apocalypsis Eliae."(5) This, however, does not concern us here,

and we have merely to examine the "saying of the Lord," which Hegesippus

opposes to the passage: "Blessed are your eyes that see and your ears

that hear." This is compared with Matt. xiii. 16, "But blessed are your

eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear" [--Greek--], and also

with Luke x. 23, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that

ye see," &c. We need not point out that the saying referred to by

Hegesippus, whilst conveying the

{442}

same sense as that in the two Gospels, differs as materially from them

both as they do from each other, and as we might expect a quotation

taken from a different though kindred source, like the Gospel according

to the Hebrews, to do. The whole of the passages which we have examined,

indeed, exhibit the same natural variation.

We have already referred to the expressions of Hegesippus regarding the

heresies in the early Church: "From these sprang the false Christs, and

false prophets, and _false apostles_ who divided the unity of the Church

by corrupting doctrines concerning God and his Christ."(1) We have shown

how this recalls quotations in Justin of sayings of Jesus foreign to

our Gospels, in common with similar expressions in the Clementine

Homilies,(2) Apostolic Constitutions,(3) and Clementine Recognitions,(4)

and we need not discuss the matter further. This community of reference,

in a circle known to have made use of the Gospel according to the

Hebrews, to matters foreign to our Synoptics, furnishes collateral

illustration of the influence of that Gospel.

Tischendorf, who so eagerly searches for every trace, real or imaginary,

of the use of our Gospels and of the existence of a New Testament Canon,

passes over in silence, with the exception of a short note(5) devoted

to the denial that Hegesippus was opposed to Paul, this first writer of

Christian Church history, whose evidence, could it have been adduced,

would have been so valuable. He does not pretend that Hegesippus made

use of the Canonical Gospels, or knew of any other Holy Scriptures

{443}

than those of the Old Testament, but, on the other hand, he does not

mention that he possessed, and quoted from, the Gospel according to the

Hebrews. There is no reason for supposing that Hegesippus found a New

Testament Canon in any of the Christian communities which he visited,

and such a rule of faith certainly did not yet exist in Rome in a.d.

160-170.(1) There is no evidence whatever to show that Hegesippus

recognized any other evangelical work than the Gospel according to the

Hebrews, as the written source of his knowledge of the words of the

Lord.(2)

2.

The testimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in

connection with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical

writer who mentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written

records of the life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been more

continuously contested than that of the identity of the works to which

he refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of

Hierapolis, in Phrygia,(3) in the first half of the second century,

and is said to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about a.d.

164-167.(4) About the middle of the second century(5)5 he wrote a work

in five books, entitled

{444}

"Exposition of the Lord's Oracles "(l) [--Greek--], which, with the

exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and

Irenaeus, is unfortunately, no longer extant. In the preface to his

book he stated: "But I shall not hesitate also to set beside my

interpretations all that I rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and

rightly remembered, earnestly testifying to their truth. For I was not,

like the multitude, taking pleasure in those who speak much, but in

those who teach the truth, nor in those who relate alien commandments,

but in those who record those delivered by the Lord to the faith, and

which come from the truth itself. If it happened that any one came who

had followed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after the words of

the Presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what

Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the

disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the

disciples of the Lord, say, for I held that what was to be derived

from books did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding

voice"(2). [--Greek--]

It is clear from this that Papias preferred tradition to any written

works with which he was acquainted, that he attached little or

{445}

no value to any Gospels with which he had met,(1) and that he knew

absolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament.(2) His

work was evidently intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of

Jesus completed from oral tradition, with his own expositions, and this

is plainly indicated both by his own words, and by the statements of

Eusebius who, amongst other things, mentions that Papias sets forth

strange parables of the Saviour and teachings of his from unwritten

tradition [--Greek--].(3) It is not, however, necessary to discuss more

closely the nature of the work, for there is no doubt that written

collections of discourses of Jesus existed before it was composed of

which it is probable he made use.

The most interesting part of the work of Papias which is preserved to us

is that relating to Matthew and

1 With reference to the last sentence of Papias, Teschendorf

asks: "What books does he refer to here, perhaps our Gospels

? According to the expression this is not impossible, but

from the whole character of the book in the highest degree

improbable." (Wann wurden, u. s. w.t p. 109.) We know little

or nothing of the "whole character" of the book, and what we

do know is contradictory to our Gospels. The natural and

only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration

of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance,

as a prefatory statement of his belief.

{446}

Mark. After stating that Papias had inserted in his book accounts of

Jesus given by Aristion, of whom nothing is known, and by the

Presbyter John, Eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding Mark

communicated by the latter. There has been much controversy as to the

identity of the Presbyter John, some affirming him to have been the

Apostle,(1) but the great majority of critics deciding that he was

a totally different person.(2) Irenseus, who, sharing the Chiliastic

opinions of Papias, held him in high respect, boldly calls him "the

hearer of John" (meaning the Apostle) "and a companion of Polycarp"

[--Greek--](3) but this is expressly contradicted by Eusebius, who points

out that, in the preface to his book, Papias by no means asserts that he

was himself a hearer of the Apostles, but merely that he received their

doctrines from those who had personally known them;(3) and after making

the quotation from Papias which we have given

{447}

above, he goes on to point out that the name of John is twice mentioned,

once together with Peter, James, and Matthew, and the other Apostles,

"evidently the Evangelist," and the other John he mentions separately,

ranking him amongst those who are not Apostles, and placing Aristion

before him, distinguishing him clearly by the name of Presbyter.(1)

He further refers to the statement of the great Bishop of Alexandria,

Dionysius,(2) that at Ephesus there were two tombs, each bearing the

name of John, thereby leading to the inference that there were two men

of the name.(3) There can be no doubt that Papias himself in the passage

quoted mentions two persons of the name of John, distinguishing the one

from the other, and classing the one amongst the Apostles and the other

after Aristion, an unknown "disciple of the Lord," and, but for the

phrase of Irenaeus, so characteristically uncritical and assumptive,

there probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning

of the passage. The question is not of importance to us, and we may

leave it, with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom under

Marcus Aurelius, c. a.d. 165, can scarcely have been a hearer of the

Apostles.(4)

The account which the Presbyter John is said to have

{448}

given of Mark's Gospel is as follows: "'This also the Presbyter said:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever

he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which

were either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord,

nor followed him; but afterwards, as I said,(1) accompanied Peter, who

adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive

record of the Lord's oracles. Mark, therefore, committed no error in

thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For of one point

he was careful, to omit none of the things which he heard, and not to

narrate any of them falsely.' These facts Papias relates concerning

Mark."(2) The question to decide is, whether the work here described is

our Canonical Gospel or not.

The first point in this account is the statement that Mark was the

interpreter of Peter [--Greek--]. Was he merely the secretary of the

Apostle writing in a manner from his dictation, or does the passage mean

that he translated the Aramaic narrative of Peter into

1 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Bev., 1875, p. 842), in the course

of a highly fanciful argument says, in reference to this "as

I said": "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." It is quite clear that he refers back, but only to

the preceding sentence in which he "had already said

something of the relations" in stating the fact that: "Mark,

having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote, &c."

{449}

Greek?(1) The former is the more probable supposition and that which

is most generally adopted, but the question is not material here. The

connection of Peter with the Gospel according to Mark was generally

affirmed in the early Church, as was also that of Paul with the third

Gospel,{2} with the evident purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all

the Canonical Gospels.(3) Irenaeus says: "After their decease (Peter and

Paul), Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter delivered to, us in

writing that which had been preached by Peter."(4) Eusebius quotes a

similar tradition from Clement of Alexandria, embellished however

with further particulars. He says: "... The cause for which the Gospel

according to Mark was written was this: When Peter had publicly preached

the word at Rome, and proclaimed the Gospel by the Spirit, those who

were present being many, requested Mark, as he had followed him from

afar and remembered what he had said, to write down what he had spoken;

and when he had composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had asked

it of him; which when Peter knew he neither absolutely hindered nor

encouraged it*"(5) Tertullian repeats the same tradition. He says:

{450}

"And the Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's,

whose interpreter Mark was.... for it may rightly appear that works

which disciples publish are of their masters."(l) We have it again from

Origen: "The second (Gospel) is according to Mark, written as Peter

directed him."(2) Eusebius gives a more detailed and advanced version

of the same tradition. "So much, however, did the effulgence of piety

illuminate the minds of those (Romans) who heard Peter, that it did

not content them to hear but once, nor to receive only the unwritten

doctrine of the divine teaching, but with reiterated entreaties they

besought Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, as the companion of

Peter, that he should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus

orally conveyed. Nor did they cease their entreaties until they had

persuaded the man, and thus became the cause of the writing of the

Gospel called according to Mark. They say, moreover, that the Apostle

(Peter) having become aware, through revelation to him of the Spirit,

of what had been done, was delighted with the ardour of the men, and

ratified the work in order that it might be read in the churches. This

narrative is given by Clement in the sixth book of his Institutions,

whose testimony is supported by that of Papias, the Bishop of

Hierapolis."(3)

{451}

The account given by Clement, however, by no means contained these

details, as we have seen. In his "Demonstration of the Gospel" Eusebius,

referring to the same tradition, affirms that it was the modesty of

Peter which prevented his writing a Gospel himself.(1) Jerome almost

repeats the preceding account of Eusebius: "Mark, the disciple and

interpreter of Peter, being entreated by the brethren of Rome, wrote a

short Gospel according to what he had received from Peter, which when

Peter heard, he approved, and gave his authority for its being read

in the Churches, as Clement writes in the sixth book of his

Institutions,"(3) &c. Jerome moreover says that Peter had Mark for an

interpreter, "whose Gospel was composed: Peter narrating and he writing"

(cujus evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est).(3)

It is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations

the tradition regarding the first two Gospels which Papias originated.

Irenaeus dates the writing of Mark after the death of Peter and Paul in

Rome. Clement describes Mark as writing during Peter's life, the Apostle

preserving absolute neutrality. By the time of Eusebius, however, the

tradition has acquired new and miraculous elements and a more decided

character--Peter is made aware of the undertaking of Mark through a

revelation of the Spirit, and instead of being neutral is delighted and

lends the work the weight of his authority. Eusebius refers to Clement

and Papias as giving the same account, which they do

{452}

not, however, and Jerome merely repeats the story of Eusebius without

naming him, and the tradition which he had embellished thus becomes

endorsed and perpetuated. Such is the growth of tradition;(l) it is

impossible to overlook the mythical character of the information we

possess as to the origin of the second Canonical Gospel.(2)

In a Gospel so completely inspired by Peter as the tradition of Papias

and of the early Church indicates, we may reasonably expect to find

unmistakable traces of Petrine influence, but on examination it will be

seen that these are totally wanting.(3) Some of the early Church did

not fail to remark this singular discrepancy between the Gospel and the

tradition of its dependence on Peter, and in reply Eusebius adopts an

apologetic tone.(4) For instance, in the brief account of the calling of

Simon in

1 A similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as

to the place in which the Gospel was written, Irenaeus and

others dating it from Rome, and others (as Chrysostom, in

Matth. Homil., i.), assigning it to Egypt. Indeed some MSS.

of the second Gospel have the words [--Greek--] in accordance

with this tradition as to its origin. Cf. Scholz, Einl. N.

T., i. p. 201. Various critics have argued for its

composition at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. We do not go

into the discussion as to whether Peter ever was in Rome.

{453}

Mark, the distinguishing addition: "called Peter," of the first Gospel

is omitted,(1) and still more notably the whole narrative of the

miraculous draught of fishes, which gives the event such prominence in

the third Gospel.(2) In Matthew, Jesus goes into the house of "Peter" to

cure his wife's mother of a fever, whilst in Mark it is "into the house

of Simon and Andrew," the less honourable name being still continued.(3)

Matthew commences the catalogue of the twelve by the pointed indication:

"The first, Simon, who is called Peter,"(4) thus giving him precedence,

whilst Mark merely says: "And Simon he surnamed Peter."(5) The important

episode of Peter's walking on the sea, of the first Gospel,(6) is

altogether ignored by Mark. The enthusiastic declaration of Peter: "Thou

art the Christ,"(7) is only followed by the chilling injunction to tell

no one, in the second Gospel,(8) whilst Matthew not only gives greater

prominence to the declaration of Peter, but gives the reply of Jesus:

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona," &c,--of which Mark apparently knows

nothing,--and then proceeds to the most important episode in the history

of the Apostle, the celebrated words by which the surname of Peter was

conferred upon him: "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon

this rock will I build my Church," &c.(9) The Gospel supposed to be

inspired by Peter, however, totally omits this most important passage;

as it also does the miracle of the finding the tribute money in the

fish's mouth, narrated by the first Gospel.(10) Luke states that "Peter

{454}

and John "are sent to prepare the Passover, whilst Mark has only "two

disciples;"(1) and in the account of the last Supper, Luke gives the

address of Jesus to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to

have you (all) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee

that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy

brethren."(2) Of this Mark does not say a word. Again, after the denial,

Luke reads: "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter

remembered the word of the Lord, &c, and Peter went out and wept

bitterly;"(3) whereas Mark omits the reproachful look of Jesus, and

makes the penitence of Peter depend merely on the second crowing of the

cock, and further modifies the penitence by the omission of "bitterl"--"

And when he thought thereon he wept."(4) There are other instances

to which we need not refer. Not only are some of the most important

episodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels as a

principal actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there

is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of

Petrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions

are due to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does

Irenaeus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel

was only written after the death of Peter,(5) but also there is no

modesty in omitting passages of importance in the history of Jesus,

simply because Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for

instance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial

{455}

of his master, which could not but have filled a sad place in the

Apostle's memory. On the other hand, there is no adequate record of

special matter, which the intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings

of Jesus possessed by Peter might have supplied, to counterbalance the

singular omissions. There is infinitely more of the spirit of Peter

in the first Gospel than there is in the second. The whole internal

evidence, therefore, shows that this part of the tradition of the

Presbyter John transmitted by Papias does not apply to our Gospel.

The discrepancy, however, is still more marked when we compare with

our actual second Gospel the account of the work of Mark which Papias

received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote down from memory some parts

[--Greek--] of the teaching of Peter regarding the life of Jesus, but as

Peter adapted his instructions to the actual circumstances [--Greek--], and

did not give a consecutive report [--Greek--] of the sayings or doings of

Jesus, Mark was only careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself

to arrange in historical order [--Greek--] his narrative of the things

which were said and done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as

he remembered them. This description would lead us to expect a work

composed of fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without

regular sequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is

the most prominent feature in the description, and forms the burden

of the whole. Mark writes "what he remembered;" "he did not arrange

in order the things that were either said or done by Christ;" and then

follow the apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a

hearer or follower of the Lord, but derived his

{456}

information from the occasional preaching of Peter, who did not attempt

to give a consecutive narrative. Now it is impossible in the work of

Mark here described to recognize our present second Gospel, which does

not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two

Synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident character of

orderly arrangement Each of the Synoptics compared with the other two

would present a similar degree of variation, but none of them

could justly be described as not arranged in order or as not being

consecutive. The second Gospel opens formally, and after presenting

John the Baptist as the messenger sent to prepare the way of the Lord,

proceeds to the baptism of Jesus, his temptation, his entry upon public

life, and his calling of the disciples. Then, after a consecutive

narrative of his teaching and works, the history ends with a full and

consecutive account of the last events in the life of Jesus, his

trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, There is in the Gospel every

characteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement, from the striking

introduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the

solemn close of the marvellous history.(1) The great majority of

critics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the

Presbyter John recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical

Gospel at all.(2) Many

{457}

of those who affirm that the description of Papias may apply to our

second Gospel(1) do so with hesitation, and few maintain that we now

possess the original work without considerable subsequent alteration.

Some of these critics, however, feeling the difficulty of identifying

our second Gospel with the work here described, endeavour

{458}

to reconcile the discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the

account of Papias. They suggest that the first part, in which the want

of chronological order is pointed out, refers to the rough notes which

Mark made during the actual preaching and lifetime of Peter, and that

the latter part applies to our present Gospel, which he later remodelled

into its present shape.(1) This most unreasonable and arbitrary

application of the words of Papias is denounced even by apologists.(2)

It has been well argued that the work here described as produced by Mark

in the character of [--Greek--] is much more one of the same family as the

Clementine Homilies than of our Gospels.(3) The work was no systematic

narrative of the history of Jesus, nor report of his teaching, but the

dogmatic preaching of the Apostle, illustrated and interspersed with

passages from the discourses of Jesus or facts from his life.(4) Of this

character seems actually to have been that ancient work "The Preaching

of Peter" [--Greek--], which was used by Heracleon,(5) and by Clement(6) of

Alexandria as an authentic canonical work,(7) denounced by Origen(8)

{459}

on account of the consideration in which it was held by-many, but still

quoted with respect by Gregory of Nazianzum.(1)

There can be no doubt that the [--Greek--] although it failed to obtain a

permanent place in the canon, was one of the most ancient works of the

Christian Church, dating probably from the first century, from which

indeed the Clementine Homilies themselves were in all likelihood

produced,(2) and, like the work described by Papias, it also was held

to have been composed in Rome in connection with the preaching there of

Peter and Paul.3 It must be noted, moreover, that Papias does not call

the work ascribed to Mark a Gospel, but merely a record of the preaching

of Peter.

It is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work

referred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the present Gospel

according to Mark became substituted for it. The merely negative

evidence that our actual Gospel is not the work described by Papias

is sufficient for our purpose. Any one acquainted with the thoroughly

uncritical character of the Fathers, and with the literary history of

the early Christian Church, will readily conceive the facility with

which this can have been accomplished. The great mass of intelligent

critics are agreed that our Synoptic Gospels have assumed their present

form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier

evangelical works. These changes have not been effected without traces

{460}

being left by which the various materials may be separated and

distinguished, but the more primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared,

naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. The critic,

however, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not

bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals,

or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the

primitive Gospel.

Teschendorf asks: "How then has neither Eusebius nor any other

theologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions of

Papias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. and Mk.)?"(1) The

absolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction,

however childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous

character of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their

unquestioning application of the tradition of Papias to our Gospels

anything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent

acquiescence elevated into an argument. We have already in the course

of these pages seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical

character of the Fathers, and we cannot afford space to give instances

of the absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could

be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious

acceptance, if it assumed a pious form or tended to edification. No

period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious

works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every

Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master

himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery.

False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously

{461}

circulated, and such pious falsification was not even intended or

regarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. It was

only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once,

as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the

canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, whilst spurious ones

usurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism. The

Fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have

been of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted

is of no critical value.(1) In an age-when the multiplication of copies

of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of

difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility

the more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place of the

original notes as the work of Mark.

The account given by Papias of the work ascribed to Matthew is as

follows: "Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every

one interpreted them as he was able."(2) Critics are divided in opinion

as to whether this tradition was, like that regarding Mark, derived from

the Presbyter John,(3) or is given merely on

1 Canon Westcott himself admits that "the proof of the Canon

is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of

the first two centuries." He says: "The spirit of the

ancient world was essentially uncritical." On the Canon, p.

7 f.

{462}

the authority of Papias himself.(1) Eusebius joins the account of Mark

to that given by Matthew merely by the following words: "These facts

Papias relates concerning Mark; but regarding Matthew he has said as

follows:"(2) Eusebius distinctly states that the account regarding Mark

is derived from the Presbyter, and the only reason for ascribing to

him also that concerning Matthew is that it is not excluded by the

phraseology of Eusebius, and the two passages being given by him

consecutively--however they may have stood in the work of Papias--it is

reasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived from the

same source. The point is not of much importance, but it is clear that

there is no absolute right to trace this statement to the Presbyter

John, as there is in the case of the tradition about Mark.

This passage has excited even more controversy than that regarding Mark,

and its interpretation and application are still keenly debated. The

intricacy and difficulty of the questions which it raises are freely

admitted by some of the most earnest defenders of the Canonical Gospels,

but the problem, so far as our examination is concerned, can be solved

without much trouble. The dilemma in which apologists find themselves

when they attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by

Papias to our Canonical Gospel is the great difficulty which complicates

the matter and prevents a

{463}

clear and distinct solution of the question. We shall avoid minute

discussion of details, contenting ourselves with the broader features of

the argument, and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the

bearing of the evidence of Papias upon the claim to authenticity of our

Canonical Gospel.

The first point which we have to consider is the nature of the work

which is here described. Matthew is said to have composed the [--Greek--]

or Oracles, and there can be little doubt from the title of his own

book: "Exposition of the Lord's Oracles" [--Greek--], that these oracles

referred to by Papias were the Discourses of Jesus. Does the word Xoyta,

however, mean strictly Oracles or discourses alone, or does it include

within its fair signification also historical narrative? "Were the

"Xoyta" here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of Jesus,

or a complete Gospel like that in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew?

That the natural interpretation of the word is merely "Oracles" is

indirectly admitted, even by the most thorough apologists, when they

confess the obscurity of the expression--obscurity, however, which

simply appears to exist from the difficulty of straining the word to

make it apply to the Gospel. "In these sentences," says Tischendorf,

referring to the passage about Matthew, "there is much obscurity; for

instance, it is doubtful whether we have rightly translated 'Discourses

of the Lord,'" and he can only extend the meaning to include historical

narrative by leaving the real meaning of the word and interpreting it by

supposed analogy.

There can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word Xoyta

anciently and at the time of Papias was

{464}

simply: words or oracles of a sacred character, and however much the

signification became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all

applied to doings as well as sayings. There are many instances of this

original and limited signification in the New Testament;(1) and there

is no linguistic precedent for straining the expression, used at that

period, to mean anything beyond a collection of sayings of Jesus which

were estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any reason for

thinking that [--Greek--] was here used in any other sense.(2) It is argued

{465}

on the other hand, that in the preceding passage upon Mark, a more

extended meaning of the word is indicated. The Presbyter John says that

Mark, as the interpreter of Peter, wrote without order "the things which

were either said or done by Christ" ([--Greek--]), and then, apologizing

for him, he goes on to say that Peter, whom he followed, adapted his

teaching to the occasion, "and not as making a consecutive record of the

oracles [--Greek--] of the Lord." Here, it is said, the word [--Greek--]

is used in reference both to sayings and doings, and therefore in

the passage on Matthew [--Greek--] must not be understood to mean only

[--Greek--], but also includes, as in the former case, the [--Greek--]. For

these and similar reasons,--in very many cases largely influenced by

the desire to see in these Xoyta our actual Gospel according to

Matthew--many critics have maintained that [--Greek--] in this place may be

understood to include historical narrative as well as discourses.(1) The

arguments by which they arrive at this

{466}

conclusion, however, seem to us to be based upon thorough misconception

of the direct meaning of the passage. Few or none of these critics would

deny that the simple interpretation of [--Greek--], at that period, was

oracular sayings.(1) Papias shows his preference for discourses in the

very title of his lost book, "Exposition of the [--Greek--] of the Lord,"

and in the account which he gives of the works attributed to Mark and

Matthew, the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest. Now,

in the passage regarding Mark, instead of [--Greek--] being made the

equivalent of [--Greek--] and [--Greek--], the very reverse is the fact. The

Presbyter says Mark wrote what he remembered of the things which were

said or done by Christ, although not in order, and he apologizes for his

doing this on the ground that he had not himself been a _hearer_ of the

Lord, but merely reported what he had heard from Peter, who adapted his

teaching to the occasion, and did _not_ attempt to give a consecutive

record of the oracles [--Greek--] of the Lord. Mark, therefore, could

not do so either. Matthew, on the contrary, he states, did compose the

oracles [--Greek--]. There is an evident contrast made: Mark

{467}

wrote [--Greek--] because he had not the means of writing the oracles, but

Matthew composed the [--Greek--].(1) Papias clearly distinguishes the work

of Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done,

from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses.(2)

It is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds, and from a foregone

conclusion, to maintain that a work commencing with a detailed history

of the birth and infancy of Jesus, his genealogy, and the preaching of

John the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute history of his

betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, and which relates all

the miracles and has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration

that Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, could be entitled

[--Greek--]: the oracles or discourses of the Lord.(3)

Partly for these, but also for other important reasons, some of which

shall presently be referred to, the great majority of critics deny that

the work described by Papias can be the same as the Gospel in our canon

bearing the name of Matthew.(4) Whilst of those who

{468}

suppose that the (Aramaic) original of which Papias speaks may have been

substantially similar to it in construction, very few affirm that

the work did not receive much subsequent manipulation, addition, and

alteration, necessarily including translation, before it assumed the

form in which the Gospel now lies before us, and many of them altogether

deny its actual apostolic origin.(1)

The next most important and obvious point is that the work described in

this passage was written by Matthew

{469}

in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect, and each one who did not understand

that dialect was obliged to translate as best he could. Our Gospel

according to Matthew, however, is in Greek. Tischendorf, who is obliged

to acknowledge the Greek originality of our actual Gospel, and that it

is not a translation from another language, recognizes the inevitable

dilemma in which this fact places apologists, and has, with a few

other critics, no better argument with which to meet it than the simple

suggestion that Papias must have been mistaken in saying that Matthew

wrote in Hebrew.(1) Just as much of the testimony as is convenient or

favourable is eagerly claimed by such apologists, and the rest, which

destroys its applicability to our Gospel, is set aside as a mistake.

Tischendorf perceives the difficulty, but not having arguments to meet

it, he takes refuge in feeling. "In this," he says, "there lies before

us one of the most complicated questions, whose detailed treatment would

here not be in place. For our part, we are fully at rest concerning it,

in the conviction that the assumption by Papias of a Hebrew original

text of Matthew, which already in his time cannot have been limited

to himself and was soon repeated by other men, arises only from a

misunderstanding."(3) It is difficult to comprehend why it should be

considered out of place in a work specially written to establish the

authenticity of the Gospels to discuss fully so vital a point, and its

deliberate evasion in such a manner alone can be deemed out of place on

such an occasion.(3)

{470}

We may here briefly remark that Teschendorf and others(1) repeat with

approval the disparaging expressions against Papias which Eusebius,

for dogmatic reasons, did not scruple to use, and in this way they seek

somewhat to depreciate his testimony, or at least indirectly to warrant

their free handling of it. It is true that Eusebius says that Papias

was a man of very limited comprehension(2) [--Greek--], but this is

acknowledged to be on account of his Millenarian opinions,(3) to which

Eusebius was vehemently opposed. It must be borne in mind, however, that

the Chiliastic passage from Papias quoted by Irenaeus, and in which

he certainly saw nothing foolish, is given on the authority of the

Presbyter John, to whom, and not to Papias, any criticism upon it must

be referred. If the passage be not of a very elevated character, it is

quite in the spirit of that age. The main point, however, is that in

regard to the testimony of Papias we have little to

{471}

do with his general ability, for all that was requisite was the power

to see, hear, and accurately state very simple facts. He repeats what

is told him by the Presbyter, and in such matters we presume that the

Bishop of Hierapolis must be admitted to have been competent.(1)

There is no point, however, on which the testimony of the Fathers is

more invariable and complete than that the work of Matthew was written

in Hebrew or Aramaic. The first mention of any work ascribed to Matthew

occurs in the account communicated by Papias, in which, as we have

seen, it is distinctly said that Matthew wrote "in the Hebrew dialect."

Irenaeus, the next writer who refers to the point, says: "Matthew also

produced a written Gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own dialect,"

and that he did not derive his information solely from Papias may be

inferred from his going on to state the epoch of Matthew's writings:

"when Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome."(2)

The evidence furnished by Pantaenus is certainly independent of Papias.

Eusebius states with regard to him: "Of these Pantaenus is said to have

been one, and to have penetrated as far as India (Southern Arabia),

where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew,

which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the

knowledge of Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, as it

is said, had preached, and left them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew

letters" [--Greek--]

{472}

[--Greek--].(1) Jerome gives a still more circumstantial account of this.

"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had there

(in India) preached the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the

Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters (quod Hebraicis

Uteris scriptum), and which on returning to Alexandria he brought with

him."(2) It is quite clear that this was no version specially made by

Bartholomew, for had he translated the Gospel according to Matthew from

the Greek, for the use of persons in Arabia, he certainly would not have

done so into Hebrew.(3) Origen, according to Eusebius, "following the

ecclesiastical canon," states what he has understood from tradition

[--Greek--]

of the Gospels, and says: "The first written was that according to

Matthew, once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ,

who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew

language."(4) Eusebius in another place makes a similar statement in

his own name: "Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews when he

was about to go also to others, delivered to them his Gospel written

in their native language, and thus compensated those from whom he was

departing for the want of his presence by the writing."(5) Cyril of

Jerusalem says: "Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew

language."(6) Epiphanius, referring to the fact that the Nazarenes

called the only Gospel which they

{473}

recognized the "Gospel according to the Hebrews," continues: "As in very

truth we can affirm that Matthew alone in the New Testament set

forth and proclaimed the Gospel in the Hebrew language and in Hebrew

characters;"(1) and elsewhere he states that "Matthew wrote the

Gospel in Hebrew."(2) The same tradition is repeated by Chrysostom,(3)

Augustine,(4) and others.

Whilst the testimony of the Fathers was thus unanimous as to the fact

that the Gospel ascribed to Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, no

question ever seems to have arisen in their minds as to the character of

the Greek version; much less was any examination made with the view of

testing the accuracy of the translation. "Such inquiries were not in

the spirit of Christian learned men generally of that time,"(5) as

Tischendorf remarks in connection with the belief current in the early

Church, and afterwards shared by Jerome, that the Gospel according to

the Hebrews was the original of the Greek Gospel according to Matthew.

The first who directly refers to the point, frankly confessing the total

ignorance which generally prevailed, was Jerome. He states: "Matthew,

who was also called Levi, who from a publican became an Apostle, was

the first who wrote a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in Hebrew language

and letters, on account of those from amongst the circumcision who had

believed; but who afterwards translated it into Greek is not

{474}

sufficiently certain."(1) It was only at a much later period, when doubt

began to arise, that the translation was wildly ascribed to the Apostles

John, James, and others.(3)

The expression in Papias that "everyone interpreted them (the [--Greek--])

as he was able" [--Greek--] has been variously interpreted by different

critics, like the rest of the account. Schleier-macher explained the

[--Greek--] as translation by enlargement: Matthew merely collected the

Xoyta ([--Greek--]), and everyone added the explanatory circumstances of

time and occasion as best he could.(3) This view, however, has not

been largely adopted. Others consider that the expression refers to the

interpretation which was given on reading it at the public meetings of

Christians for worship,(4) but there can be no doubt that, coming after

the statement that the work was written in the Hebrew dialect, [--Greek--]

can only mean simple translation.(5) Some maintain that the passage

infers the existence of many written translations, amongst which very

probably was ours;(6) whilst others affirm that the phrase merely

signifies that as there was no recognized

{475}

translation, each one who had but an imperfect knowledge of the

language, yet wished to read the work, translated the Hebrew for himself

orally as best he could.(1) Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter

use the verb in the past tense, [--Greek--], as contrasting the time when

it was necessary for each to interpret as best he could with the period

when, from the existence of a recognized translation, it was no longer

necessary for them to do so;(2) whilst others deny that any written

translation of an authentic character was known to Papias at all.(3)

Now the words in Papias are merely: "Matthew composed the Xoyta in the

Hebrew dialect,(4) and everyone interpreted them as he was able." The

statement is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear

that it conveys the fact that when the work was composed, translation

was requisite, and as each one translated "as he was able," that no

recognized translation existed to which all might have recourse. There

is no contrast either necessarily or, we think, probably implied in

the use of the past tense. The composition of the Xoyta being of course

referred to in the

4 In connection with this it may be of interest to remember

that, in the account of his conversion and the vision which

he saw on his way to Damascus which Paul gives to King

Agrippa in the Acts of the Apostles, he states that Jesus

spoke to him "in the Hebrew dialect" [--Greek--], Acts xxvi.

14.

{476}

past tense, the same tense is simply continued in completing the

sentence. The purpose is obviously to convey the fact that the work was

composed in the Hebrew language. But even if it be taken that Papias

intentionally uses the past tense in reference to the time when

translations did not exist, nothing is gained, Papias may have known of

many translations, but there is absolutely not a syllable which warrants

the conclusion that Papias was acquainted with an authentic Greek

version, although it is possible that he may have known of the existence

of some Greek translations of no authority. The words used, however,

imply that, if he did, he had no respect for any of them.

Thus the account of Papias, supported by the perfectly unanimous

testimony of the Fathers, declares that the work composed by Matthew

was written in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect. The only evidence which

asserts that Matthew wrote any work at all, distinctly asserts that he

wrote it in Hebrew. It is quite impossible to separate the statement

of the authorship from the language. The two points are so indissolubly

united that they stand or fall together. If it be denied that Matthew

wrote in Hebrew, it cannot be asserted that he wrote at all. It is

therefore perfectly certain from this testimony that Matthew cannot be

declared the direct author of the Greek canonical Gospel bearing his

name.(1) At the very best it can only be a translation, by an unknown

hand, of a work the original of which was early lost. None of the

earlier Fathers ever ventured a conjecture as to how, when, or by

whom the translation was effected. Jerome explicitly states that the

translator of the work was unknown. The

{477}

deduction is clear: our Greek Gospel, in so far as it is associated with

Matthew at all, cannot at the utmost be more than a translation, but as

the work of an unknown translator, there cannot, in the absence of the

original, or of satisfactory testimony of its accuracy, bo any assurance

that the translation faithfully renders the work of Matthew, or

accurately conveys the sense of the original. All its Apostolical

authority is gone. Even Michaelis long ago recognized this: "If the

original text of Matthew be lost, and we have nothing but a Greek

translation: then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to

the words: yea, it is possible that in various places the true meaning

of the Apostle has been missed by the translator."(1) This was felt

and argued by the Manicheans in the fourth century,(2) and by the

Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation.(3) A wide argument might

be opened out as to the dependence of the other two Gospels on this

unauthenticated work.

The dilemma, however, is not yet complete. It was early remarked that

our first Canonical Gospel bore no real marks of being a translation at

all, but is evidently an original independent Greek work. Even men like

Erasmus, Calvin, Cajctan, and Oecolampadius, began to deny the statement

that our Gospels showed any traces of Hebrew origin, and the researches

of later scholars have so fully confirmed their doubts that few now

maintain the primitive belief in a translation. We do not propose here

to enter fully into this argument. It is sufficient to say that the

great majority of competent critics declare that our first Canonical

Gospel is no translation, but an

{478}

original Greek text;(1) whilst of those who consider that they find

traces of translation and of Hebrew origin,

{479}

some barely deny the independent originality of the Greek Gospel, and

few assert more than substantial agreement with the original, with more

or less variation and addition often of a very decided character.(1) The

case, therefore, stands thus: The whole of the evidence which warrants

our believing that Matthew wrote any

{480}

work at all, distinctly, invariably, and emphatically asserts that he

wrote that work in Hebrew or Aramaic; a Greek Gospel, therefore, as

connected with Matthew, can only be a translation by an unknown hand,

whose accuracy we have not, and never have had, the means of verifying.

Our Greek Gospel, however, being an independent original Greek text,

there is no ground whatever for ascribing it even indirectly to Matthew

at all, the whole evidence of antiquity being emphatically opposed, and

the Gospel itself laying no claim, to such authorship.

One or other of these alternatives must be adopted for our first Gospel,

and either is absolutely fatal to its direct Apostolic origin. Neither

as a translation from the Hebrew nor as an original Greek text can it

claim Apostolic authority. This has been so well recognized, if not

admitted, that some writers, with greater zeal than discretion, have

devised fanciful theories to obviate the difficulty. These maintain that

Matthew himself wrote both in Hebrew and in Greek,(1) or at least that

the translation was made during his own lifetime and under his own

eye,(2) and so on. There is not, however, a particle of evidence for any

of these assertions, which

{481}

are merely the arbitrary and groundless conjectures of embarrassed

apologists.

It is manifest that upon this evidence both those who assert the Hebrew

original of Matthew's work and those who maintain that our Gospel is not

a translation but an original Greek composition, should logically deny

its apostolicity. We need not say that this is not done, and that for

dogmatic and other foregone conclusions many profess belief in the

Apostolic authorship of the Gospel, although in doing so they wilfully

ignore the facts, and in many cases merely claim a substantial but not

absolute Apostolic origin for the work.(1) A much greater number of the

most able and learned critics, however, both from external and internal

evidence deny the Apostolic origin of our first Canonical Gospel.(3)

{482}

There is another fact to which we may briefly refer, which from another

side shows that the work of Matthew

{483}

with which Papias was acquainted was different from our Gospel. In a

fragment from the fourth book of his lost work which is preserved to us

by Oecumenius and Theophylact, Papias relates the circumstances of the

death of Judas Iscariot in a manner which is in contradiction to the

account in the first Gospel. In Matthew xxvii. 5, the death of the

traitor is thus related: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the

temple and departed and went and hanged himself."(1) The narrative in

Papias is as follows: "Judas walked about in this world a great example

of impiety; for his body having swollen so that, on an occasion, when

a waggon was moving on its way, he could not pass it, he was crushed

by the waggon and his bowels gushed out."(2) Theophylact, in connection

with this passage, adds other details also apparently taken from the

work of Papias, as for instance that, from his excessive corpulency, the

eyes of Judas were so swollen that they could not see, and so sunk in

his head that they could not be perceived even by the aid of the optical

instruments of physicians; and that the rest of his body was covered

with running sores and maggots, and so on in the manner of the early

Christian ages, whose imagination conjured up the wildest "special

{484}

providences" to punish the enemies of the faith.(1) As Papias expressly

states that he eagerly inquired what the Apostles, and amongst them

what Matthew, said, we may conclude that he would not have deliberately

contradicted the account given by that Apostle had he been acquainted

with any work attributed to him which contained it.(2)

It has been argued, from some very remote and imaginary resemblance

between the passage from the preface to the work of Papias quoted by

Eusebius with the prologue to Luke, that Papias was acquainted with that

Gospel;(3) but nothing could be more groundless than such a conclusion

based upon such evidence, and there is not a word in our fragments of

Papias which warrants such an assertion.(4) Eusebius, who never fails

to state what the Fathers say about the works of the New Testament, does

not mention that Papias knew either the third or fourth Gospels. Is

it possible to suppose that if Papias had been acquainted with those

Gospels he would not have asked for information about them from the

Presbyters, or that Eusebius would not have recorded it as he did that

regarding the works ascribed to Matthew and Mark? Eusebius states,

however, that Papias "made use of testimonies from the first Epistle of

John and, likewise, from that of Peter."(5) As Eusebius,

{485}

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. Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth

century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered

the Apocalypse inspired.(1) No reference is made to this by Eusebius,

but although from his Millenarian tendencies it is very probable that

Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic

book, this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value.

We find, however, that Papias, like Hegesippus and others of the

Fathers, was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews.(2)

Eusebius says: "He (Papias) has likewise related another history of a

woman accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the

Gospel according to the Hebrews."(3) This is generally believed to

be the episode inserted in the later MSS. of the fourth Gospel, viii.

1--11.

Whatever books Papias knew, however, it is certain, from his own express

declaration, that he ascribed little importance to them, and preferred

tradition as a more beneficial source of information regarding

evangelical history. "For I held that what was to be derived from

{486}

books," he says, "did not so profit me as that from the living and

abiding voice."(1) If, therefore, it could even have been shown that

Papias was acquainted with any of our Canonical Gospels, it must at

the same time have been admitted that he did not recognize them as

authoritative documents. 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 which he mentions being, however, a mere collection

of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle(2)

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.

2 We may merely remark that Papias does not call the

Matthew who wrote the[--Greek--] an Apostle. In this passage he

speaks of the Apostle, but he does not distinctly identify

him with the Matthew of the other passage.

END OF VOL. I.