816 must add that it exhibits no signs that the portion before the call of Matthew was written from hearsay, and that after the call of Matthew by an eye-vitness. But there seems the following strong argument in favour of the tradition of Papias as to thc authorship of Matthew: if there was no basis for it, if it was a mere fiction or guess, why not select, as the author, some more distinguished apostle, l'ctc1‘, John, or James? This argument is neutralized by the following consideration. The apostles (Acts iv. 13) were known in the earliest days to have been unlcarncd and ignorant men ; and although the Holy Spirit gave them power to speak and teach, it was less natural that they should be inspired with power to write and to compose connected treatises. But M atthew being a publican, and necessarily ready with his pen, might naturally be supposed in the post- apostolic generation to be a skilful writer; so that if an _early tradition with general apostolic authority was connnitted to writing, the church would naturally select Matthew the publican and ready writer as the special author of it. Nevertheless, the testimony of Papias is important as attesting the belief (1) in a Hebrew origin for the Logia or the Gospel scriptures, and (2) in an early multipli- city of “interpretations.” The apologetic tone in which Papias introduces the traditions, which he “ will not shrink from placing along with the interpreta- tions” of the scriptures, indicates that the written scriptures were gradually subordinating tradition. He nowhere expresses an opinion that the Logia are unauthoritative, but he implies that they require “ interpretation,” and adds (almost as though it were an idiosyncrasy) that he set a great store on supplementary tradi- tion from the sources nearest to the truth,—not only taking plea- sure iu those who taught the commandments that came from the Lord (who was) the very truth (i.e., the disciples of the Lord), but also questioning any who hill “ attached themselves to the elders,” whom he used to examine closely on the utterances of Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and on the sayings of Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord.‘ ‘ Eus., II. 17., iii. 39: 013K ¢iKmia'w 66' am Kai iiaa 7ro-ris rrtipa Trim 7rp6o'- [3u-répwu Ka£Bs Epatlov Kai Kahibs e',um".uiveua'a, auurtifai 1-ais 6'pw;- veiais, diafiefiaiofmevos 7repi at'1'r&3v a'} Ueiav' of; yap 70?? 1'1‘: 7roMci Xéyouatu Exaipou, ¢'ba7rep oi 7ro))oi, a'}}ti ‘refs 'ra')u)9T} 6tdao'Koua'w, odds -rois -rtis a'7)o'rpias 6'12-rolktis pvrmovefiouaiv, dhha 1-oi‘? -nis ‘Irapfz Toix Kupiou 1-37 7ria'-rei dedopévas Kai a'7r’ abrfis ‘Irapa-yi'yvop.éuas Ti}: cilknfleias. ei dc’ 7l'0U Kai 7rap11Ko)ouUuKci;s -rts Tois 7rpea'fiu-répms E-',oi, -robs 'r&3u vrpea-Bu-re'pwv a'vc'Kpwov ikiiyous" 1-L’ '_v6pe'as 1') Ti IIé‘rpo$‘ si-trey F1 -ri d>i)i7r7ros 1') 11' 9wp.iz‘s 1") ’ItiKw[3o9 1') Ti 'Iw(ium1s F1 Ma-r9ai‘os 17 Tu; Erspos Tiiiv 703 Kupiou p.afhrriI:u, ('1' -re '_-lpur-riwii Kai ('1 7rpsa13t':- -repos 'Iwt'wvn9 oi -rofi Kupiou p.a9n-rai )c'-youa-z. It is maintained by able scholars (from whom dissent can be expressed only with great diffidcncc) that the )e"youa-L indicates that Aristion and John the elder were living, while the Eiwsv indicates that Andrew, Peter, John the apostle. Matthew, and all the rest of the apostles were dead at the time “ when Papias began his investiga- tions" (Wcstcott, Canon, p. 69). Now, John the apostle is supposed to have died at a very advanced age, about 98 A.l)., and Papias (Lightfoot, (’ontemporarg/ Reriett, May 1875) to have been born about 60-70 A.D., and to have written (Westcott, ut sup.) about 140-150 A.D. We have therefore to suppose on this h_vpothesis (a) that Papias did not “ begin his investigations" till he was twenty- eight or thirty-eight years old (:'.e., not till seven or seventeen years after he had attained to manhood), although the apostle John was living all that time in his immediate neighbourhood; (b) that two personal disciples of Jesus outlived the aged apostle John for a period long enough to enable Papias to conduct a systematic investigation into their traditions during their lifetime. “Impro- bable " is too mild a word for such a hypothesis. It seems very much more probable that )c'-youmv is simply the graphic present used for variety. Papias desires to make a distinction between the dicta of the apostles and the less authoritative utterances of Aristion and John the older, who were not apostles. For this purpose he not only (1) mentions them separately, but also (2) varies the construction, changing 11' into a’ -re, and (3) ei-Ire into Ac’-yet. A lmndrcd instances might be given from the Gospel of St John alone, where sire and Xéyei are used indiffcrently and alternately for the mere purpose of variety; see John iv. 9, 10, ll, 13, 1.5, 17 (bis), and the whole of the gospel passim. And for the use of Xéyei in a dependent sentence following an import. indic., com- pare Plato, Apol. 21 B., -irrrépouv -ri -Iro-re Xe’-yet. "I was in doubt as to what (the oracle) meant." It is true that Euscbius, though he denies Ircna2us's assertion that Papias was a hcarcr of John the apostle, maintained that Papias heard John the elder. But he appears to have no evidence for this statement except the sentence just quoted, and the fact that Papias set down certain traditions of John the elder, mentioning him by name. His words are: “ ‘Apia- rriwuos dis Kai '1-o3 7rpecr[3u-re'pou 'lwdwou at‘;-r1iKoov e'au'r¢iv qnmri 7eué¢J_'9aL. '0vop.ao'-ri yofxu 7ro)}¢iKts at'n'&w ;wnu.ov6t'Ja'as éu -rois ab-rou o'u'y'yptip.p.ao'I. -t'i9na'w aI'J'r&w vrapaddaeis. This is quite insufficient in face of the great difficulties in such a supposition. '1‘ he only tradition of an elder quoted by Euscbius from Papias with any words of preface begins thus: "The elder said this also." Such a preface is quite consistent with the supposi- tion that Papias had heard the tradition, not from the elder himself, but from one who had attached himself to the elder (7rapnKo)ou0nKcbs- 1-¢_3 -rrpea-fiw -rt-"ptp); and the above-quoted sentence of Papias itself better suits such a supposition, for the "cross-examining of those who had attached themselves to the elders " naturally applies to all the names that follow, and more especially to John, since he is expressly included in the class of “cldcrs." “I used to cross-examine any that came in my way who had attached themselves to the elders (asking them), what said Andrew, . . . and about the sayings of Aristian and John the elder ;" surely the natural inference is that Aristion and GOSPELS [SYNOPTICA L. It must be added that Papias, besides recording the raising of a, (lead man by Philip, and the drinking of poison without injury by Justus surnatned Barsabas, is said by Euscbius to have narrated several “ strange parables and teachings of the Saviour," and other fabulous matters, originating from a literal understanding of figura- tive cxprcssions. Ile also published “ a story about. a woman accused in the presence of the Lord for many sins, which is con- tained in the Gospel according to the llcbrews ” (liuscb., lb.) It. has been demonstrated by Dr Lightfoot that Euscbius, in treating of the disputed and undisputed writings of the earliest titnes, adopted one course for the former and another for the latter. (1) As to the disputed books, the antilcgomcna, he pledged himself to “ record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their class;" but (2) as regards the undisputed canonical books, he only professes to mention them, “ when such a writer has something f0 tell about them " (rfva. rrepl. 'r¢3v £'v5ta0-/pcwv sip-prrai) ('0/Ill.‘/:ip(r7'(1)'y I-Mricw, Jan. 1875. Vc are not therefore to infer frotn the silence of Euscbius that Papias did not know or quote the Gospels of Luke and John, but only that he said nothing about them; which of course might arise from citl1c1'of two causes, either because he did not know of their existence, or because, knowing their existence, he “had nothing to say about them.” Vhat bearing this may have on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel we shall see hereafter. But, so far, we sec written scriptures still (1) supplanted by oral tradition; ( 2) freely criticized as inadequate; and (3) accompanied by memoirs of various interpretations from some Hebrew original; though rapidly emerging, if they have not already ctnergcd, to authoritative deiinitencss. One fact is of the highest importance. VVc have seen that Papias was of a curious disposition, discontented with the written 1'Cc0l‘tl:~: before him, and anxious to supplctncnt them by traditions. lie was also, according to Euscbius, a man of no great judgment, fond of re- cording wonders, and, by his own account, fond of recording novelties. If therefore there had been any other non-canonical Gospel at that time, rivalling our present Gospels, a11d known to Papias, it seems probable, if not certain, that he would have used such a book ; and, if he had done so, Euscbius could 11ot (in the execution of his plan) have failed to mention such a use ; but Eusebiusmakes no mention of the use of any non-canonical gospel by Papias. Even in the narrative of the sinful woman mentioned above, which was found in the Gospel according to the llcbrcws, Euscbius expressly avoids saying that he derived the narrative from that Gospel. lie merely says that Papias “has published a narrative which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (it is probably the narrative interpolated it1 Jo. viii. 1-11); whereas, almost in the same sen- tence, he says that Pa 11115 “I1as 11scd testimonies from the First Epistle of John.” T liS negative evidence from the silence of Papias is strongly in favour of our Gospels. In the works of Justin Martyr (who is supposed to have written his Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho, 145-147 A.n.; so Hort, quoted by Vestcott, Canon, p. 98) we find definite and abundant mention of written documents containing the facts of the Gospel narratives, but no assigned names of authors. The Gospel is by him considered as a whole, somctimcs called eba-y'ye')ua, sometimes €iIa'y'ys')zov, but frequently ‘rd d.1ro;w11p.ovet5p.a'ra 'r¢ivv d.1roo"rd)a‘V, and once (when he is referring to Mark’s Gospel) 7:‘: &1ro,uv-q)uoyei3-
- La.'ra fie’-rpou. Bearing in mind Xcnophon’s well-known &.-n-o,uv-n-
p.oveu5)ua.-ra. Ewxpai-rous, from which title “the word had already been borrowed by several writers” (Vcstcott, Cane-n, 108), we might naturally infer that the memoirs were not written by the apostle.--, but about the apostles or rather about their teaching; and this view is confirmed by what Papias says (above) about Mark, that he &1re)uv-ipiéveuae, “ recorded from mcmory,” the teaching of l’eter.'-' This probably was originally the meaning of the title as applied to our Gospels; but it seems to have been understood differently by Justin, as though it meant “ written by the apostles." For in describing the descent of the Holy Spirit ot1 J csus at His baptism he 11scs the words, “ The apostles wrote.” It might indeed be said that he has in his mind Matthew and John, for Jolm also records John arcincludcd in the “cldc:-s." If this be so, every difliculty vnnishcs_ Papias, though placed before Polycarp by Euscbius, may have been naturally so placed because he died before the aged Polycarp, so that his work fell in :1 period preceding Polycarp; but he may have been born about the same time or later, say 80 A.D. In that case the last of the apostles would have passed away before Papias was nineteen; and when Papias began his investigations he would neces- sarily have to rely on the pupils of the elders, since the elders themselves, whether apostles, us Andrew and Peter, or mere elders, as Aristioil and .lohn, had all passed away. If, however, it should appear after all that Papias did hear John the elder, it follows that, when Ircntcus dcscribcd Papias as “the hcarcr of John,” he either (I) meant John the elder, or (2) confused John the elder with John the apostle. In either case most important consequences might follow, bearing upon the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. For it follows that, if here, then on other occasions, when speaking of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, lrenmus either (I) may have meant John the elder where we at present suppose mm to mean John the apostle, or (2) may have confused John the elder with John the apostle. 3 Clement-of Alexandria (Eus..II. 11., vi. 14) expressly says that Peter had no part. in the composition, and did not even encourage it. There seems to haw
been an early and not unnatural tendency to deprec'at - the Second Gospel.