HEGESIPPUS--PAPIAS.
Dr. Lightfoot has rendered a great service to criticism by his
masterly exposure of the fallacies in the argument which has been
drawn from the silence of Eusebius in respect to the use of the
Canonical Gospels by the early writers [Endnote 138:1]. The author
of 'Supernatural Religion' is not to be blamed for using this
argument. In doing so he has only followed in the wake of the
Germans who have handed it on from one to the other without
putting it to a test so thorough and conclusive as that which has
now been applied [Endnote 138:2]. For the future, I imagine, the
question has been set at rest and will not need to be reopened
[Endnote 138:3].
Dr. Lightfoot has shown, with admirable fulness and precision,
that the object of Eusebius was only to note quotations in the
case of books the admission of which into the Canon had been or
was disputed. In the case of works, such as the four Gospels, that
were universally acknowledged, he only records what seem to him
interesting anecdotes or traditions respecting their authors or
the circumstances under which they were composed. This distinction
Dr. Lightfoot has established, not only by a careful examination
of the language of Eusebius, but also by comparing his statements
with the actual facts in regard to writings that are still extant,
and where we are able to verify his procedure. After thus testing
the references in Eusebius to Clement of Rome, the Ignatian
Epistles, Polycarp, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus,
Dr. Lightfoot arrives, by a strict and ample induction, at the
conclusion that the silence of Eusebius in respect to quotations
from any canonical book is so far an argument _in its favour_
that it shows the book in question to have been generally
acknowledged by the early Church. Instead of being a proof that
the writer did not know the work in reference to which Eusebius is
silent, the presumption is rather that he did, like the rest of
the Church, receive it. Eusebius only records what seems to him
specially memorable, except where the place of the work in or out
of the Canon has itself to be vindicated.
But if this holds good, then most of what is said against the use
of the Gospels by Hegesippus falls to the ground. Eusebius
expressly says [Endnote 140:1] that Hegesippus made occasional use
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews ([Greek: ek te tou kath'
Hebraious euangeliou ... tina tithaesin]). But apart from the
conclusion referred to above, the very language of Eusebius
([Greek: tithaesin tina ek]) is enough to suggest that the use of
the Gospel according to the Hebrews was subordinate and
subsidiary. Eusebius can hardly have spoken in this way of
'_the_ Gospel of which Hegesippus made use' in all the five
books of his 'Memoirs.' The expression tallies exactly with what
we should expect of a work used _in addition to_ but not
_to the exclusion_ of our Gospels. The fact that Eusebius
says nothing about these shows that his readers would take it for
granted that Hegesippus, as an orthodox Christian, received them.
With this conclusion the fragments of the work of Hegesippus that
have come down to us agree. The quotations made in them are
explained most simply and naturally, on the assumption that our
Gospels have been used. The first to which we come is merely an
allusion to the narrative of Matt. ii; 'For Domitian feared the
coming of the Christ as much as Herod.' Those therefore who take
the statement of Eusebius to mean that Hegesippus used only the
Gospel according to the Hebrews are compelled to seek for the
account of the Massacre of the Innocents in that Gospel. It
appears however from Epiphanius that precisely this very portion
of the first Gospel was wanting in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews as used both by the Ebionites and by the Nazarenes. 'But
if it be doubtful whether some forms of that Gospel contained the
two opening chapters of Matthew, it is certain that Jerome found
them in the version which he translated' [Endnote 141:1]. I am
afraid that here, as in so many other cases, the words 'doubtful'
and 'certain' are used with very little regard to their meanings.
In support of the inference from Jerome, the author refers to De
Wette, Schwegler, and an article in a periodical publication by
Ewald. De Wette expressly says that the inference does _not_
follow ('Aus Comm. ad Matt. ii. 6 ... lässt sich _nicht_
schliessen dass er hierbei das Evang. der Hebr. verglichen
habe.... Nicht viel besser beweisen die St. ad Jes. xi. 1; ad
Abac. iii. 3') [Endnote 141:2]. He thinks that the presence of
these chapters in Jerome's copy cannot be satisfactorily proved,
but is probable just from this allusion in Hegesippus--in regard
to which De Wette simply follows the traditional, but, as we have
seen, erroneous assumption that Hegesippus used only the Gospel
according to the Hebrews. Schwegler [Endnote 141:3] gives no
reasons, but refers to the passages quoted from Jerome in Credner.
Credner, after examining these passages, comes to the conclusion
that 'the Gospel of the Nazarenes did _not_ contain the
chapters' [Endnote 141:4]. Ewald's periodical I cannot refer to,
but Hilgenfeld, after an elaborate review of the question, decides
that the chapters were omitted [Endnote 141:5]. This is the only
authority I can find for the 'certainty that Jerome found them' in
his version.
On the whole, then, it seems decidedly more probable (certainties
we cannot deal in) that the incident referred to by Hegesippus was
missing from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. That Gospel
therefore was not quoted by him, but, on the contrary, there is a
presumption that he is quoting from the Canonical Gospel. The
narrative of the parallel Gospel of St. Luke seems, if not to
exclude the Massacre of the Innocents, yet to imply an ignorance
of it.
The next passage that appears to be quotation occurs in the
account of the death of James the Just; 'Why do ye ask me
concerning Jesus the Son of Man? He too sits in heaven on the
right hand of the great Power and will come on the clouds of
heaven' ([Greek: Ti me eperotate peri Iaesou tou huiou tou
anthropou? kai autos kathaetai en to ourano ek dexion taes
megalaes dunameos, kai mellei erchesthai epi ton nephelon tou
ouranou]). It seems natural to suppose that this is an allusion to
Matt. xxvi. 64, [Greek: ap' arti opsesthe ton huion tou anthropou
kathaemenon ek dexion taes dunameos, kai erchomenon epi ton
vephelon tou ouranou]. The passage is one that belongs to the
triple synopsis, and the form in which it appears in Hegesippus
shows a preponderating resemblance to the version of St. Matthew.
Mark inserts [Greek: kathaemenon] between [Greek: ek dexion] and
[Greek: taes dunameos], while Luke thinks it necessary to add
[Greek: tou theou]. The third Evangelist omits the phrase [Greek:
epi ton nephelon tou ouranou], altogether, and the second
substitutes [Greek: meta] for [Greek: epi]. In fact the phrase
[Greek: epi ton vephelon] occurs in the New Testament only in St.
Matthew; the Apocalypse, like St. Mark, has [Greek: meta] and
[Greek: epi] only with the singular.
In like manner, when we find Hegesippus using the phrase [Greek:
prosopon ou lambaneis], this seems to be a reminiscence of Luke
xx. 21, where the synoptic parallels have [Greek: blepeis].
A more decided reference to the third Gospel occurs in the dying
prayer of St. James; [Greek: parakalo, kurie thee pater, aphes
autois; ou gar oidasiti poiousin], which corresponds to Luke
xxiii. 34, [Greek: pater, aphes autois; ou gar oidasin ti
poiousin]. There is the more reason to believe that Hegesippus'
quotation is derived from this source that it reproduces the
peculiar use of [Greek: aphienai] in the sense of 'forgive'
without an expressed object. Though the word is of very frequent
occurrence, I find no other instance of this in the New Testament
[Endnote 143:1], and the Clementine Homilies, in making the same
quotation, insert [Greek: tas hamartias auton]. The saying is well
known to be peculiar to St. Luke. There is perhaps a balance of
evidence against its genuineness, but this is of little
importance, as it undoubtedly formed part of the Gospel as early
as Irenaeus, who wrote much about the same time as Hegesippus.
The remaining passage occurs in a fragment preserved from
Stephanus Gobarus, a writer of the sixth century, by Photius,
writing in the ninth. Referring to the saying 'Eye hath not seen,'
&c., Gobarus says 'that Hegesippus, an ancient and apostolical
man, asserts--he knows not why--that these words are vainly
spoken, and that those who use them give the lie to the sacred
writings and to our Lord Himself who said, "Blessed are your eyes
that see and your ears that hear,"' &c. 'Those who use these
words' are, we can hardly doubt, as Dr. Lightfoot after Routh has
shown [Endnote 144:1], the Gnostics, though Hegesippus would seem
to have forgotten I Cor. ii. 9. The anti-Pauline position assigned
to Hegesippus on the strength of this is, we must say, untenable.
But for the present we are concerned rather with the second
quotation, which agrees closely with Matt. xiii. 26 ([Greek: humon
de makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoti blepousin, kai ta ota humon hoti
akouousin]). The form of the quotation has a slightly nearer
resemblance to Luke x. 23 ([Greek: makarioi hoi ophthalmoi hoi
blepontes ha blepete k.t.l.]), but the marked difference in the
remainder of the Lucan passage increases the presumption that
Hegesippus is quoting from the first Gospel [Endnote 144:2].
The use of the phrase [Greek: ton theion graphon] is important and
remarkable. There is not, so far as I am aware, any instance of so
definite an expression being applied to an apocryphal Gospel. It
would tend to prepare us for the strong assertion of the Canon of
the Gospels in Irenaeus; it would in fact mark the gradually
culminating process which went on in the interval which separated
Irenaeus from Justin. To this interval the evidence of Hegesippus
must be taken to apply, because though writing like Irenaeus under
Eleutherus (from 177 A.D.) he was his elder contemporary, and had
been received with high respect in Rome as early as the episcopate
of Anicetus (157-168 A.D.).
The relations in which Hegesippus describes himself as standing to
the Churches and bishops of Corinth and Rome seem to be decisive
as to his substantial orthodoxy. This would give reason to think
that he made use of our present Gospels, and the few quotations
that have come down to us confirm that view not inconsiderably,
though by themselves they might not be quite sufficient to prove
it.
There is one passage that may be thought to point to an apocryphal
Gospel, 'From these arose false Christs, false prophets, false
apostles;' which recalls a sentence in the Clementines, 'For there
shall be, as the Lord said, false apostles, false prophets,
heresies, ambitions.' It is not, however, nearer to this than to
the canonical parallel, Matt. xxiv. 24 ('There shall arise false
Christs and false prophets').
2.
In turning from Hegesippus to Papias we come at last to what seems
to be a definite and satisfactory statement as to the origin of
two at least of the Synoptic Gospels, and to what is really the
most enigmatic and tantalizing of all the patristic utterances.
Like Hegesippus, Papias may be described as 'an ancient and
apostolic man,' and appears to have better deserved the title. He
is said to have suffered martyrdom under M. Aurelius about the
same time as Polycarp, 165-167 A.D. [Endnote 145:1] He wrote a
commentary on the Discourses or more properly Oracles of the Lord,
from which Eusebius extracted what seemed to him 'memorable'
statements respecting the origin of the first and second Gospels.
'Matthew,' Papias said [Endnote 146:1], 'wrote the oracles
([Greek: ta logia]) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one
interpreted them as he was able.' 'Mark, as the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, all that he
remembered that was said or done by Christ. For he neither heard
the Lord nor attended upon Him, but later, as I said, upon Peter,
who taught according to the occasion and not as composing a
connected narrative of the Lord's discourses; so that Mark made no
mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them. For he
took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he
heard or to falsify any part of them.'
* * * * *
Let us take the second of these statements first. According to it
the Gospel of St. Mark consisted of notes taken down, or rather
recollected, from the teaching of Peter. It was not written 'in
order,' but it was an original work in the sense that it was first
put in writing by Mark himself, having previously existed only in
an oral form.
Does this agree with the facts of the Gospel as it appears to us
now? There is a certain ambiguity as to the phrase 'in order.' We
cannot be quite sure what Papias meant by it, but the most natural
conclusion seems to be that it meant chronological order. If so,
the statement of Papias seems to be so far borne out that none of
the Synoptic Gospels is really in exact chronological order; but,
strange to say, if there is any in which an approach to such an
order is made, it is precisely this of St. Mark. This appears from
a comparison of the three Synoptics. From the point at which the
second Gospel begins, or, in other words, from the Baptism to the
Crucifixion, it seems to give the outline that the other two
Gospels follow [Endnote 147:1]. If either of them diverges from it
for a time it is only to return. The early part of St. Matthew is
broken up by the intrusion of the so-called Sermon on the Mount,
but all this time St. Mark is in approximate agreement with St.
Luke. For a short space the three Gospels go together. Then comes
a second break, where Luke introduces his version of the Sermon on
the Mount. Then the three rejoin and proceed together, Matthew
being thrown out by the way in which he has collected the parables
into a single chapter, and Luke later by the place which he has
assigned to the incident at Nazareth. After this Matthew and Mark
proceed side by side, Luke dropping out of the ranks. At the
confession of Peter he takes his place again, and there is a close
agreement in the order of the three narratives. The incident of
the miracle-worker is omitted by Matthew, and then comes the
insertion of a mass of extraneous matter by Luke. When he resumes
the thread of the common narrative again all three are together.
The insertion of a single parable on the part of Matthew, and
omissions on the part of Luke, are the only interruptions. There
is an approximate agreement of all three, we may say, for the rest
of the narrative. We observe throughout that, in by far the
preponderating number of instances, where Matthew differs from the
order of Mark, Luke and Mark agree, and where Luke differs from
the order of Mark, Matthew and Mark agree. Thus, for instance, in
the account of the healings in Peter's house and of the paralytic,
in the relation of the parables of Mark iv. 1-34 to the storm at
sea which follows, of the healing of Jairus' daughter to that of
the Gadarene demoniac and to the mission of the Twelve in the
place of Herod's reflections (Mark vi. 14-16), in the warning
against the Scribes and the widow's mite (Mark xii. 38-44), the
second and third Synoptics are allied against the first. On the
other hand, in the call of the four chief Apostles, the death of
the Baptist, the walking on the sea, the miracles in the land of
Gennesareth, the washing of hands, the Canaanitish woman, the
feeding of the four thousand and the discourses which follow, the
ambition of the sons of Zebedee, the anointing at Bethany, and
several insertions of the third Evangelist in regard to the last
events, the first two are allied against him. While Mark thus
receives such alternating support from one or other of his fellow
Evangelists, I am not aware of any clear case in which, as to the
order of the narratives, they are, united and he is alone, unless
we are to reckon as such his insertion of the incident of the
fugitive between Matt. xxvi. 56, 57, Luke xxii. 53, 54.
It appears then that, so far as there is an order in the Synoptic
Gospels, the normal type of that order is to be found precisely in
St. Mark, whom Papias alleges to have written not in order.
But again there seems to be evidence that the Gospel, in the form
in which it has come down to us, is not original but based upon
another document previously existing. When we come to examine
closely its verbal relations to the other two Synoptics, its
normal character is in the main borne out, but still not quite
completely. The number of particulars in which Matthew and Mark
agree together against Luke, or Mark and Luke agree together
against Matthew, is far in excess of that in which Matthew and
Luke are agreed against Mark. Mark is in most cases the middle
term which unites the other two. But still there remains a not
inconsiderable residuum of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in
combination and Mark at variance. The figures obtained by a not
quite exact and yet somewhat elaborate computation [Endnote 149:1]
are these; Matthew and Mark agree together against Luke in 1684
particulars, Luke and Mark against Matthew in 944, but Matthew and
Luke against Mark in only 334. These 334 instances are distributed
pretty evenly over the whole of the narrative. Thus (to take a
case at random) in the parallel narratives Matt. xii. 1-8, Mark
ii. 23-28, Luke vi. 1-5 (the plucking of the ears on the Sabbath
day), there are fifty-one points (words or parts of words) common
to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and
Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke. In
the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points
are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and
Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and
Luke. Many of these coincidences between the first and third
Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme. Thus, in the last
section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11),
one is the insertion of the article [Greek: taen] ([Greek:
sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek: sou] ([Greek: taen
cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek: de] for [Greek: kai], and one
that of [Greek: eipen] for [Greek: legei]. In the paragraph
before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke
are made up thus, two [Greek: kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai
esthiein]), [Greek: eipon] (=[Greek: eipan]), [Greek: poiein,
eipen, met' autou] (=[Greek: sun auto]), [Greek: monous] (=[Greek:
monois]). But though such points as these, if they had been few in
number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the
whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally
unimportant. Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic,
such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon
autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and
be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek:
alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous]. In the
account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word
[Greek: tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in
Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two
Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek:
kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important
clause [Greek: lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en
haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]: in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1)
Herod's title is [Greek: tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek:
basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek: hoi ochloi
aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek: to perisseuon (-san)]
are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of
the Passion it has [Greek: apo] where the other two have [Greek:
hupo], and [Greek: meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek:
tae tritae haemera]: in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits
the noticeable [Greek: kai diestrammenae]: in the second prophecy
of the Passion it omits [Greek: mellei], in the paragraph about
offences, [Greek: elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai].
These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to
say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second
Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the
normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its
primary character throughout. The theory that we have in the
second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not
tenable.
No doubt this is an embarrassing result. The question is easy to
ask and difficult to answer--If our St. Mark does not represent
the original form of the document, what does represent it? The
original document, if not quite like our Mark, must have been very
nearly like it; but how did any writer come to reproduce a
previous work with so little variation? If he had simply copied or
reproduced it without change, that would have been intelligible;
if he had added freely to it, that also would have been
intelligible: but, as it is, he seems to have put in a touch here
and made an erasure there on principles that it is difficult for
us now to follow. We are indeed here at the very _crux_ of
Synoptic criticism.
For our present purpose however it is not necessary that the
question should be solved. We have already obtained an answer on
the two points raised by Papias. The second Gospel _is_
written in order; it is _not_ an original document. These two
characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape
the document to which Papias alludes.
Does his statement accord any better with the phenomena of the
first Gospel? He asserts that it was originally written in Hebrew,
and that the large majority of modern critics deny to have been
the case with our present Gospel. Many of the quotations in it
from the Old Testament are made directly from the Septuagint and
not from the Hebrew. There are turns of language which have the
stamp of an original Greek idiom and could not have come in
through translation. But, without going into this question as to
the original language of the first Gospel, a shorter method will
be to ask whether it can have been an original document at all?
The work to which Papias referred clearly was such, but the very
same investigation which shows that our present St. Mark was not
original, tells with increased force against St. Matthew. When a
document exists dealing with the same subject-matter as two other
documents, and those two other documents agree together and differ
from it on as many as 944 separate points, there can be little
doubt that in the great majority of those points it has deviated
from the original, and that it is therefore secondary in
character. It is both secondary and secondary on a lower stage
than St. Mark: it has preserved the features of the original with
a less amount of accuracy. The points of the triple synopsis on
which Matthew fails to receive verification are in all 944; those
on which Mark fails to receive verification 334; or, in other
words, the inaccuracies of Matthew are to those of Mark nearly as
three to one. In the case of Luke the proportion is still greater--
as much as five to one.
This is but a tithe of the arguments which show that the first
Gospel is a secondary composition. An original composition would
be homogeneous; it is markedly heterogeneous. The first two
chapters clearly belong to a different stock of materials from the
rest of the Gospel. A broad division is seen in regard to the Old
Testament quotations. Those which are common to the other two
Synoptists are almost if not quite uniformly taken from the
Septuagint; those, on the other hand, which seem to belong to the
reflection of the Evangelist betray more or less distinctly the
influence of the Hebrew [Endnote 153:1]. Our Gospel is thus seen
to be a recension of another original document or documents and
not an original document itself.
Again, if our St. Matthew had been an original composition and had
appeared from the first in its present full and complete form, it
would be highly difficult to account for the omissions and
variations in Mark and Luke. We should be driven back, indeed,
upon all the impossibilities of the 'Benutzungs-hypothese.' On the
one hand, the close resemblance between the three compels us to
assume that the authors have either used each other's works or
common documents; but the differences practically preclude the
supposition that the later writer had before him the whole work of
his predecessor. If Luke had had before him the first two chapters
of Matthew he could not have written his own first two chapters as
he has done.
Again, the character of the narrative is such as to be inconsistent
with the view that it proceeds from an eye-witness of the events.
Those graphic touches, which are so conspicuous in the fourth Gospel,
and come out from time to time in the second, are entirely wanting
in the first. If parallel narratives, such as the healing of the
paralytic, the cleansing of the Temple, or the feeding of the five
thousand, are compared, this will be very clearly seen. More; there
are features in the first Gospel that are to all appearance unhistorical
and due to the peculiar method of the writer. He has a way of
reduplicating, so to speak, the personages of one narrative in
order to make up for the omission of another [Endnote 154:1]. For
instance, he is silent as to the healing of the demoniac at Capernaum,
but, instead of this, he gives us two Gadarene demoniacs, at the same
time modifying the language in which he describes this latter incident
after the pattern of the former; in like manner he speaks of the
healing of two blind men at Jericho, but only because he had passed
over the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida. Of a somewhat similar
nature is the adding of the ass's colt to the ass in the account
of the Triumphal Entry. There are also fragmentary sayings
repeated in the Gospel in a way that would be natural in a later
editor piecing together different documents and finding the same
saying in each, but unnatural in an eye- and ear-witness drawing
upon his own recollections. Some clear cases of this kind would be
Matt. v. 29, 30 (= Matt. xviii. 8, 9) the offending member, Matt.
v. 32 (= Matt. xix. 9) divorce, Matt. x. 38, 39 (= Matt. xvi. 24,
25) bearing the cross, loss and gain; and there are various others.
These characteristics of the first Gospel forbid us to suppose
that it came fresh from the hands of the Apostle in the shape in
which we now have it; they also forbid us to identify it with the
work alluded to by Papias. Neither of the two first Gospels, as we
have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to
such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them.
* * * * *
But now a further enquiry opens out upon us. The language of
Papias does not apply to our present Gospels; will it apply to
some earlier and more primary state of those Gospels, to documents
_incorporated in_ the works that have come down to us but not
co-extensive with them? German critics, it is well known,
distinguish between 'Matthäus'--the present Gospel that bears the
name of St. Matthew--and 'Ur-Matthäus,' or the original work of
that Apostle, 'Marcus'--our present St. Mark--and 'Ur-Marcus,' an
older and more original document, the real production of the
companion of St. Peter. Is it to these that Papias alludes?
Here we have a much more tenable and probable hypothesis. Papias
says that Matthew composed 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) in
the Hebrew tongue. The meaning of the word [Greek: logia] has been
much debated. Perhaps the strictest translation of it is that
which has been given, 'oracles'--short but weighty and solemn or
sacred sayings. I should be sorry to say that the word would not
bear the sense assigned to it by Dr. Westcott, who paraphrases it
felicitously (from his point of view) by our word 'Gospel'
[Endnote 155:1]. It is, however, difficult to help feeling that
the _natural_ sense of the word has to be somewhat strained
in order to make it cover the whole of our present Gospel, and to
bring under it the record of facts to as great an extent as
discourse. It seems at least the simplest and most obvious
interpretation to confine the word strictly or mainly to
discourse. 'Matthew composed the discourses (those brief yet
authoritative discourses) in Hebrew.'
At this point we are met by a further coincidence. The common
matter in the first three Gospels is divided into a triple
synopsis and a double synopsis--the first of course running
through all three Gospels, the second found only in St. Matthew
and St. Luke. But this double synopsis is nearly, though not
quite, confined to discourse; where it contains narration proper,
as in the account of John the Baptist and the Centurion of
Capernaum, discourse is largely mingled with it. But, if the
matter common to Matthew and Luke consists of discourse, may it
not be these very [Greek: logia] that Papias speaks of? Is it not
possible that the two Evangelists had access to the original work
of St. Matthew and incorporated its material into their own
Gospels in different ways? It would thus be easy to understand how
the name that belonged to a special and important part of the
first Gospel gradually came to be extended over the whole. Bulk
would not unnaturally be a great consideration with the early
Christians. The larger work would quickly displace the smaller; it
would contain all that the smaller contained with additions no
less valuable, and would therefore be eagerly sought by the
converts, whose object would be rather fulness of information than
the best historical attestation. The original work would be simply
lost, absorbed, in the larger works that grew out of it.
This is the kind of presumption that we have for identifying the
Logia of Papias with the second ground document of the first
Gospel--the document, that is, which forms the basis of the double
synopsis between the first Gospel and the third. As a hypothesis
the identification of these two documents seems to clear up
several points. It gives a 'local habitation and a name' to a
document, the separate and independent existence of which there is
strong reason to suspect, and it explains how the name of St.
Matthew came to be placed at the head of the Gospel without
involving too great a breach in the continuity of the tradition.
It should be remembered that Papias is not giving his own
statement but that of the Presbyter John, which dates back to a
time contemporary with the composition of the Gospel. On the other
hand, by the time of Irenaeus, whose early life ran parallel with
the closing years of Papias, the title was undoubtedly given to
the Gospel in its present form. It is therefore as difficult to
think that the Gospel had no connection with the Apostle whose
name it bears, as it is impossible to regard it as entirely his
work. The Logia hypothesis seems to suggest precisely such an
intermediate relation as will satisfy both sides of the problem.
There are, however, still difficulties in the way. When we attempt
to reconstruct the 'collection of discourses' the task is very far
from being an easy one. We do indeed find certain groups of
discourse in the first Gospel--such as the Sermon on the Mount ch.
v-vii, the commission of the Apostles ch. x, a series of parables
ch. xiii, of instructions in ch. xviii, invectives against the
Pharisees in ch. xxvi, and long eschatological discourses in ch.
xxiv and xxv, which seem at once to give a handle to the theory
that the Evangelist has incorporated a work consisting specially
of discourses into the main body of the Synoptic narrative. But
the appearance of roundness and completeness which these
discourses present is deceptive. If we are to suppose that the
form in which the discourses appear in St. Matthew at all nearly
represents their original structure, then how is it that the same
discourses are found in the third Gospel in such a state of
dispersion? How is it, for instance, that the parallel passages to
the Sermon on the Mount are found in St. Luke scattered over
chapters vi, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvi, with almost every possible
inversion and variety of order? Again, if the Matthaean sections
represent a substantive work, how are we to account for the
strange intrusion of the triple synopsis into the double? What are
we to say to the elaborately broken structure of ch. x? On the
other hand, if we are to take the Lucan form as nearer to the
original, that original must have been a singular agglomeration of
fragments which it is difficult to piece together. It is easy to
state a theory that shall look plausible so long as it is confined
to general terms, but when it comes to be worked out in detail it
will seem to be more and more difficult and involved at every
step. The Logia hypothesis in fact carries us at once into the
very nodus of Synoptic criticism, and, in the present state of the
question, must be regarded as still some way from being
established.
The problem in regard to St. Mark and the triple synopsis is
considerably simpler. Here the difficulty arises from the
necessity of assuming a distinction between our present second
Gospel and the original document on which that Gospel is based. I
have already touched upon this point. The synoptical analysis
seems to conduct us to a ground document greatly resembling our
present St. Mark, which cannot however be quite identical with it,
as the Canonical Gospel is found to contain secondary features.
But apart from the fact that these secondary features are so
comparatively few that it is difficult to realise the existence of
a work in which they, and they only, should be absent, there is
this further obstacle to the identification even of the ground
document with the Mark of Papias, that even in that original shape
the Gospel still presented the normal type of the Synoptic order,
though 'order' is precisely the characteristic that Papias says
was, in this Gospel, wanting.
Everywhere we meet with difficulties and complexities. The
testimony of Papias remains an enigma that can only be solved--if
ever it is solved--by close and detailed investigations. I am
bound in candour to say that, so far as I can see myself at
present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural
Religion' against his critics [Endnote 159:1], that the works to
which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their
present form.
What amount of significance this may have for the enquiry before
us is a further question. Papias is repeating what he had heard
from the Presbyter John, which would seem to take us up to the
very fountainhead of evangelical composition. But such a statement
does not preclude the possibility of subsequent changes in the
documents to which it refers. The difficulties and restrictions of
local communication must have made it hard for an individual to
trace all the phases of literary activity in a society so widely
spread as the Christian, even if it had come within the purpose of
the writer or his informant to state the whole, and not merely the
essential part, of what he knew.