IV.

_PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS._

Dr. Lightfoot has devoted two long chapters to the evidence of Papias,

although with a good deal of divergence to other topics in the second.

I need not follow him minutely here, for I have treated the subject

fully in _Supernatural Religion_, [117:1] to which I beg leave to

refer any reader who is interested in the discussion; and this is

merely Dr. Lightfoot's reply. I will confine myself here to a few

words on the fundamental question at issue.

Papias, in the absence of other testimony, is an important witness of

whom theologians are naturally very tenacious, inasmuch as he is the

first writer who mentions the name of anyone who was believed to have

written a Gospel. It is true that what he says is of very little

weight, but, since no one else had said anything at all on the point,

his remarks merit attention which they would not otherwise receive.

Eusebius states that, in his last work, [117:2] "Exposition of the Lord's

Oracles" ([Greek: Logiôn kuriakôn exêgêsis]), Papias wrote as follows:

"And the elder said this also: 'Mark, having become the interpreter

of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered,

without, however, recording in order what was either said or done

by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him;

but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, who adapted his

instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but had no design of

giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles [or discourses]

([Greek: all' ouch hôsper suntaxin tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logiôn]

or [Greek: logôn).' So, then, Mark made no mistake while he thus

wrote down some things as he remembered them; for he made it his

one care not to omit anything that he heard, or to set down any

false statement therein." [118:1]

The first question which suggests itself is: Does the description here

given correspond with the Gospel "according to Mark" which we now

possess? Can our second Gospel be considered a work composed "without

recording in order what was either said or done by Christ"? A negative

answer has been given by many eminent critics to these and similar

enquiries, and the application of the Presbyter's words to it has

consequently been denied by them. It does not follow from this that

there has been any refusal to accept the words of Papias as referring to

a work which may have been the basis of the second Gospel as we have it.

However, I propose to waive all this objection, for the sake of

argument, on the present occasion, and to consider what might be the

value of the evidence before us, if it be taken as referring to our

second Gospel.

In the first place, the tradition distinctly states that Mark, who

is said to have been its author, was neither an eye-witness of the

circumstances recorded, nor a hearer of the words of Jesus, but that

he merely recorded what he remembered of the casual teaching of Peter.

It is true that an assurance is added as to the general care and accuracy

of Mark in recording all that he heard and not making any false

statement, but this does not add much value to his record. No one

supposes that the writer of the second Gospel deliberately invented

what he has embodied in his work, and the certificate of character can

be received for nothing more than a general estimate of the speaker.

The testimony of the second Gospel is, according to this tradition,

confessedly at second hand, and consequently utterly inadequate to

attest miraculous pretensions. The tradition that Mark derived his

information from the preaching of Peter is not supported by internal

evidence, and has nothing extraneous to strengthen its probability.

Because some person, whose very identity is far from established, says

so, is not strong evidence of the fact. It was the earnest desire of

the early Christians to connect Apostles with the authorship of the

Gospels, and as Mark is represented as the interpreter of Peter, so

Luke, or the third evangelist, is connected more or less closely with

Paul, in forgetfulness of the circumstance that we have no reason

whatever for believing that Paul ever saw Jesus. Comparison of the

contents of the first three Gospels, moreover, not only does not render

more probable this account of the composition of the second synoptic as

it lies before us, but is really opposed to it. Into this I shall not

here go.

Setting aside, therefore, all the reasons for doubting the applicability

of the tradition recorded by Papias regarding the Gospel said to have

been written by Mark, I simply appeal to those who have rightly

appreciated the nature of the allegations for which evidence is required

as to the value of such a work, compiled by one who had neither himself

seen nor heard Jesus. It is quite unnecessary to proceed to the closer

examination of the supposed evidence.

"But concerning Matthew the following statement is made [by Papias]:

'So then Matthew ([Greek: Matthaios men oun]) composed the Oracles

in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he could.'"

[119:1]

Dr. Lightfoot points out that there is no absolute reason for supposing

that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the

Presbyter, and, although I think it probable that it was, I agree with

him in this. The doubt, however, is specially advanced because, the

statement of Papias being particularly inconvenient to apologists,

Dr. Lightfoot is evidently anxious to invalidate it. He accepts it in so

far as it seems to permit of his drawing certain inferences from it, but

for the rest he proceeds to weaken the testimony. "But it does not follow

that his account of the origin was correct. It may be; it may not have

been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know what he

said." [120:1] What a pity it is that Dr. Lightfoot does not always

exercise this rigorous logic. If he did he would infallibly agree with

the conclusions of _Supernatural Religion_. I shall presently state what

inference Dr. Lightfoot wishes to draw from a statement the general

correctness of which he does not consider as at all certain. If this

doubt exist, however, of what value can the passage from Papias be as

evidence?

I cannot perceive that, if we do not reject it altogether on the ground

of possible or probable incorrectness, there can be any reasonable doubt

as to what the actual statement was. "Matthew composed the Oracles in

the Hebrew language," and not in Greek, "and each one interpreted them

as he could." The original work of Matthew was written in Hebrew: our

first synoptic is a Greek work: therefore it cannot possibly be the

original composition of Matthew, whoever Matthew may have been, but at

the best can only be a free translation. A free translation, I say,

because it does not bear any of the traces of close translation. Our

synoptic, indeed, does not purport to be a translation at all, but if

it be a version of the work referred to by Papias, or the Presbyter, a

translation it must be. As it is not in its original form, however, and

no one can affirm what its precise relation to the work of Matthew may

be, the whole value of the statement of Papias is lost.

The inference which Dr. Lightfoot considers himself entitled to draw

from the testimony of Papias is in most curious contrast with his

severe handling of that part of the testimony which does not suit him.

Papias, or the Presbyter, states regarding the Hebrew Oracles of

Matthew that "each one interpreted them as he could." The use of the

verb "interpreted" in the past tense, instead of "interprets" in the

present, he considers, clearly indicates that the time which Papias

contemplates is not the time when he writes his book. Each one

interpreted as he could when the Oracles were written, but the

necessity of which he speaks had passed away; and Dr. Lightfoot arrives

at the conclusion: "In other words, it implies the existence of a

recognised Greek translation _when Papias wrote_ ... But if a Greek

St. Matthew existed in the time of Papias we are forbidden by all

considerations of historical probability to suppose that it was any

other than our St. Matthew." [121:1] It is very probable that, at the

time when Papias wrote, there may have been several translations of the

"Oracles" and not merely one, but from this to the assertion that the

words imply a "recognised" version which was necessarily "our St.

Matthew" is a remarkable jump at conclusions. It is really not worth

while again to discuss the point. When imagination is allowed to

interpret the hidden meaning of such a statement the consequence cannot

well be predicated. This hypothesis still leaves us to account for the

substitution of a Greek Gospel for the Hebrew original of Matthew, and

Dr. Lightfoot does not assist us much. He demurs to my statement that

our first Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have

been translated from the Hebrew at all: "If he had said that it is not

a homogeneous Greek version of a homogeneous Hebrew original this would

have been nearer the truth." [122:1]

That Hebrew original is a sad stumbling-block, and it must be got rid

of at all costs. Dr. Lightfoot is full of resources. We have seen that

he has suggested that the account of Papias of the origin may not have

been correct. Regarding the translation or the Greek Gospel we do not

know exactly what Papias said. "He may have expressed himself in

language quite consistent with the phenomena." How unlimited a field

for conjecture is thus opened out. We do not know more of what Papias

said than Eusebius has recorded, and may therefore suppose that he may

have said something more, which may have been consistent with any

theory we may advance. "Or, on the other hand," Dr. Lightfoot

continues, "he may, as Hilgenfeld supposes, have made the mistake which

some later Fathers made of thinking that the Gospel according to the

Hebrews was the original of our St. Matthew." [122:2] Who would think

that this is the critic who vents so much righteous indignation upon me

for pointing out possible or probable alternative interpretations of

vague evidence extracted from the Fathers? It is true that Dr. Lightfoot

continues: "In the absence of adequate data, it is quite vain to

conjecture. But meanwhile we are not warranted in drawing any conclusion

unfavourable either to the accuracy of Papias or to the identity of

the document itself." [122:3] He thus seeks to reserve for himself

any support he thinks he can derive from the tradition of Papias,

and set aside exactly as much as he does not like. In fact, he clearly

demonstrates how exceedingly loose is all this evidence from the

Fathers, and with what ease one may either base magnificent conclusions

upon it, or drive a coach and four through the whole mass.

In admitting for a moment that Papias may have mistaken the Gospel

of the Hebrews "for the original of our St. Matthew," Dr. Lightfoot,

in his attempt to get rid of that unfortunate Hebrew work of Matthew,

has perhaps gone further than is safe for himself. Apart from the general

flavour of inaccuracy which he imparts to the testimony of Papias,

the obvious inference is suggested that, if he made this mistake,

Papias is far from being a witness for the accuracy of the translation

which Dr. Lightfoot supposes to have then been "recognised," and which

he declares to have been our first Gospel. It is well known at least

that, although the Gospel of the Hebrews bore more analogy to our

present Gospel "according to Matthew" than to any of the other three,

it very distinctly differed from it. If, therefore, Papias could

quietly accept our Greek Matthew as an equivalent for the Gospel

of the Hebrews, from which it presented considerable variation, we

are entitled to reject such a translation as evidence of the contents

of the original. That Papias was actually acquainted with the Gospel

according to the Hebrews may be inferred from the statement of Eusebius

that he relates "a story about a woman accused of many sins before the

Lord" (doubtless the same which is found in our copies of St. John's

Gospel, vii. 53-viii. 11), "which the Gospel according to the Hebrews

contains." [123:1] If he exercised any critical power at all, he could

not confound the Greek Matthew with it, and if he did not, what becomes

of Dr. Lightfoot's argument?

Dr. Lightfoot argues at considerable length against the interpretation,

accepted by many eminent critics, that the work ascribed to Matthew and

called the "Oracles" ([Greek: logia]) could not be the first synoptic

as we now possess it, but must have consisted mainly or entirely of

Discourses. The argument will be found in _Supernatural Religion_,

[124:1] and need not here be repeated. I will confine myself to some

points of Dr. Lightfoot's reply. He seems not to reject the suggestion

with so much vigour as might have been expected. "The theory is not

without its attractions," he says; "it promises a solution of some

difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would

justify its acceptance." [124:2] Indeed, he proceeds to say that it "is

encumbered with the most serious difficulties." Dr. Lightfoot does not

think that only [Greek: logoi] ("discourses" or "sayings") could be

called [Greek: logia] ("oracles"), and says that usage does not warrant

the restriction. [124:3] I had contended that "however much the

signification (of the expression 'the oracles,' [Greek: ta logia])

became afterwards extended, it was not then at all applied to doings as

well as sayings," and that "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 oracular or Divine."

[124:4] To this Dr. Lightfoot replies that if the objection has any

force it involves one or both of the two assumptions: "_first_, that

books which were regarded as Scripture could not at this early date be

called 'oracles,' unless they were occupied entirely with Divine

sayings; _secondly_, that the Gospel of St. Matthew, in particular,

could not at this time be regarded as Scripture. Both assumptions alike

are contradicted by facts." [125:1] The second point he considers

proved by the well-known passage in the Epistle of Barnabas. For the

discussion regarding it I beg leave to refer the reader to my volumes.

[125:2] I venture to say that it is impossible to prove that Matthew's

Gospel was, at that time, considered "Scripture," but, on the contrary,

that there are excellent reasons for affirming that it was not.

Regarding the first point Dr. Lightfoot asserts:

"The first is refuted by a large number of examples. St. Paul, for

instance, describes it as the special privilege of the Jews that

they had the keeping of 'the oracles of God' (Rom. iii. 2). Can we

suppose that he meant anything else but the Old Testament Scriptures

by this expression? Is it possible that he would exclude the books

of Genesis, of Joshua, of Samuel and Kings, or only include such

fragments of them as professed to give the direct sayings of God?

Would he, or would he not, comprise under the term the account of

the creation and fall (1 Cor. xi. 8 _sq._), of the wanderings in the

wilderness (1 Cor. x. 1 _sq._), of Sarah and Hagar (Gal. iv. 21

_sq._)? Does not the main part of his argument in the very next

chapter (Rom. iv.) depend more on the narrative of God's dealings

than His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews

refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of God' (v. 12), his

meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the Divine

teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts

of the Old Testament. But if the language of the New Testament

writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with

their contemporary Philo. In one place, he speaks of the words in

Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek:

logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the

_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15: 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest

anyone finding him should kill him.' [125:3] From this and other

passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a

Scripture. Similarly Clement of Rome writes: 'Ye know well the

sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God;' [125:4] and

immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12

_sq._, Exod. xxxii. 7 _sq._, of which the point is not any Divine

precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later

Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of

the Lord." [126:1]

He then goes on to refer to Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and

Basil, but I need not follow him to these later writers, but confine

myself to that which I have quoted.

"When Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans iii. 2, 'They were

entrusted with the oracles of God,' can he mean anything else but

the Old Testament Scriptures, including the historical books?" argues

Dr. Lightfoot. I maintain, on the contrary, that he certainly does not

refer to a collection of writings at all, but to the communications or

revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately

to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact,

according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the

Divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to

mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts vii. 38,

where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on

Mount Sinai, "who received living oracles ([Greek: logia zônta]) to give

unto us." Of this nature were the "oracles of God" which were entrusted

to the Jews. Further, the phrase: "the first principles of the oracles

of God" (Heb. v. 12), is no application of the term to narrative, as

Dr. Lightfoot affirms, however much the author may illustrate his own

teaching by Old Testament history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly

explains his meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when

he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets,

at the end of these days spake unto us in His Son." Dr. Lightfoot also

urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" ([Greek: logion]) to the

_narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, &c. The fact is, however, that Philo

considered almost every part of the Old Testament as allegorical, and

held that narrative or descriptive phrases veiled Divine oracles. When

he applies the term "oracle" to any of these it is not to the narrative,

but to the Divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained

in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant

manner of Alexandrian typologists. Dr. Lightfoot does not refer to the

expression of 1 Pet. iv. 11, "Let him speak as the oracles of God"

([Greek: hôs logia Theou]), which shows the use of the word in the

New Testament. He does point out the passage in the "Epistle of Clement

of Rome," than which, in my opinion, nothing could more directly tell

against him. "Ye know well the sacred Scriptures and have studied the

oracles of God." The "oracles of God" are pointedly distinguished from

the sacred Scriptures, of which they form a part. These oracles are

contained in the "sacred Scriptures," but are not synonymous with the

whole of them. Dr. Lightfoot admits that we cannot say how much

"Polycarp" included in the expression: "pervert the oracles of the

Lord," but I maintain that it must be referred to the teaching of Jesus

regarding "a resurrection and a judgment," and not to historical books.

In replying to Dr. Lightfoot's chapter on the Silence of Eusebius, I

have said all that is necessary regarding the other Gospels in

connection with Papias. Papias is the most interesting witness we have

concerning the composition of the Gospels. He has not told us much, but

he has told us more than any previous writer. Dr. Lightfoot has not

scrupled to discredit his own witness, however, and he is quite right in

suggesting that no great reliance can be placed upon his testimony. It

comes to this: We cannot rely upon the correctness of the meagre account

of the Gospels supposed to have been written by Mark and Matthew, and we

have no other upon which to fall back. Regarding the other two Gospels,

we have no information whatever from Papias, whether correct or

incorrect, and altogether this Father does little or nothing towards

establishing the credibility of miracles and the reality of Divine

Revelation.