Chapter VI: Papias of Hierapolis (2)

5. I have already suggested [205:2] that the notice relating to St Mark in Papias might have been given to explain some peculiarities in the Second Gospel, _as compared with St John_. This conjecture, standing alone, appears to have a very slight value, but it assumes a higher importance when we find that a writer who was a younger contemporary of Papias speaks of St Mark's Gospel in this same way and with this same motive.

The extract from the Muratorian fragment relating to the Gospels has been given above [205:3]. The writer is obviously desirous of accounting for the differences in the four Evangelists. As the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, we cannot say what he wrote about the First Gospel. But the half sentence which alone survives of his account of the Second Gospel tells its own tale; 'Quibus interfuit et ita tamen posuit.' It is evident that he, like Papias, describes St Mark as dependent on the oral preaching of St Peter for his information respecting Christ's life. He 'set down' such facts as he knew from having been 'present' when the Apostle related them to his hearers. If the words themselves had left any room for doubt, it would be cleared up by his account of the Third Gospel, which follows immediately. St Luke, he tells us, was a follower of St Paul, and so wrote his Gospel; 'but _neither_ did _he_ ([Greek: all' oud' autos]) see the Lord in the flesh,' and so he gave such information as came within his reach. On the other hand, he declares that the Fourth Gospel was written by John, a personal _disciple_ of Christ, at the instance and with the sanction of other personal disciples like himself. Hence, he argues, though there must necessarily be differences in detail, yet this does not affect the faith of believers, since there is perfect accordance on the main points, and all the Gospels alike are inspired by the same Spirit. At the same time, the authority of the Fourth Gospel is paramount, as the record of an immediate eye-witness; and this claim John asserts for himself in the opening of his Epistle, when he declares that he has written what he himself had seen and heard.

Probably, if the notice of St Mark had not been mutilated, the coincidence would have been found to be still greater. Even as it stands, this account throws great light on the notice of Papias. The Muratorian writer lays stress on the secondary character of St Mark's account; so does Papias. The Muratorian writer quotes from the First Epistle of St John in evidence; so did Papias. We are not told with what object Papias adduced this testimony from the Epistle; but it is at least a plausible hypothesis that he had the same end in view as the Muratorian writer. It should be observed also that Eusebius mentions Papias as quoting not only the First Epistle of St John, but also the First Epistle of St Peter. May not the two have been connected together in the context of Papias, as they are in the notice of Eusebius? 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, 'But afterwards, _as I said_, he followed Peter.' Would he not naturally have quoted, as illustrating these relations, the reference to the Evangelist in the Apostle's own letter, 'Marcus my son saluteth you' (1 Pet. v. 13)? If the whole of the Muratorian writer's notice of the Second Gospel had been preserved, we should not improbably have found a parallelism here also. But, however this may be, the resemblance is enough to suggest that the Muratorian writer was acquainted with the work of Papias, and that he borrowed his contrast between the secondary evidence of St Mark and the primary evidence of St John from this earlier writer. And such a contrast offers a highly natural explanation of Papias' motive. The testimony of the elder respecting the composition of St Mark's Gospel was introduced by him, as we saw, to explain its phenomena. Though strictly accurate in its relation of facts, as far as it went, this Gospel had, he tells us, two drawbacks, which it owed to its secondary character. The account could not be taken as _complete_, and the order could not be assumed to be strictly _chronological_. In other words, compared with other evangelical narratives which Papias had in view, it showed _omissions_ and _transpositions_. A comparison with St John's narrative would yield many instances of both. We have ample evidence that within a very few years after Papias wrote, the differences between St John and the Synoptic Gospels had already begun to attract attention. The Muratorian writer is a competent witness to this, nor does he stand alone. Claudius Apollinaris, who succeeded Papias in the see of Hierapolis, perhaps immediately, certainly within a very few years, mentions that on the showing of some persons 'the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another' [207:1]. He is referring especially to the account of the Crucifixion in St Matthew and St John respectively.

It is much to be regretted that the Muratorian writer's account of St Matthew also has not been preserved; for here again we should expect much light to be thrown on the corresponding account in Papias. Why did Papias introduce this notice of the Hebrew original of St Matthew? We may suspect that the same motive which induced him to dwell on the secondary character of St Mark's knowledge led him also to call attention to the fact that St Matthew's Gospel was not an original, but a translation. I turn to an exegetical work of Eusebius, and I find this father dealing with the different accounts of two Evangelists in this very way. He undertakes to solve the question, why St Matthew (xxviii. 1) says that the resurrection was revealed to Mary Magdalene on the evening of (or 'late on') the sabbath ([Greek: opse sabbatôn]), whereas St John (xx. 1) places this same incident on the first day of the week [Greek: tê mia tôn sabbatôn]; and among other explanations which he offers is the following:--

The expression 'on the evening of the sabbath' is due to the
translator of the Scripture; for the Evangelist Matthew published
[Greek: paredôke] his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue; but the person
who rendered it into the Greek language changed it, and called the
hour dawning on the Lord's day [Greek: opse sabbatôn] [208:1].

He adds, that each Evangelist corrects any misapprehension which might arise--St Matthew by adding 'as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week,' St John by a similar qualifying expression 'when it was yet dark.' Being acquainted with the work of Papias, Eusebius might have borrowed this mode of explanation, if not this very explanation, from him.

But it may be urged that on this hypothesis the motive of Papias must have appeared in the context, and that, if it had so appeared, Eusebius must have quoted it. The reply is simple. Papias must in any case have had some object or other in citing this testimony of the presbyter, and none is given. But I would answer further, that under the supposed circumstances Eusebius was not likely to quote the context. As a matter of fact, he has not done so in a very similar case, where he tears out a fragment from a passage in Irenæus which intimately affects the relations of the Evangelists to one another [209:1]. He commences in the middle of a sentence, and extracts just as much as serves his immediate purpose, leaving out everything else. On this point, I am glad that I can reckon beforehand on the assent of the author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself. Speaking of this extract from Irenæus, he says, 'Nothing could be further from the desire or intention of Eusebius than to represent any discordance between the Gospels [209:2].' I do not indeed join in the vulgar outcry against the dishonesty of Eusebius. Wherever I have been able to investigate the charge, I have found it baseless. We have ample evidence that Eusebius was prepared to face the difficulties in harmonizing the Gospels, when the subject came properly before him. But here he might fairly excuse himself from entering upon a topic which had no bearing on his immediate purpose, and which once started would require a lengthy discussion to do justice to it. Moreover it is obvious that he is very impatient with Papias. He tells us twice over that he has confined his extracts to the very narrowest limits which bare justice to his subject would allow [209:3]; he warns his readers that there are a great many traditions in Papias which he has passed over; and he refers them to the book itself for further information. Though exceptionally long in itself compared with his notices of other early Christian writers, his account of Papias is, we may infer, exceptionally brief in proportion to the amount of material which this father afforded for such extracts.

6. I have said nothing yet about the direct testimony of a late anonymous writer, which (if it could be accepted as trustworthy) would be decisive on the point at issue.

In an argument prefixed to this Gospel in a Vatican MS, which is assigned to the ninth century, we read as follows:--

The Gospel of John was made known (manifestatum), and given to the
Churches by John while he yet remained in the body (adhuc in
corpore constituto); as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a
beloved disciple of John, has related in his exoteric, that is, in
his last five books (in exotericis, id est, in extremis quinque
libris); but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of John,
correctly (descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte). But
Marcion the heretic, when he had been censured (improbatus) by him,
because he held heretical opinions (eo quod contraria sentiebat),
was cast off by John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him
from the brethren that were in Pontus [210:1].

No stress can be laid on testimony derived from a passage which contains such obvious anachronisms and other inaccuracies; but the mention of Papias here courts inquiry, and time will not be ill spent in the endeavour to account for it. It will be worth while, at all events, to dispose of an erroneous explanation which has found some favour. When attention was first called to this passage by Aberle and Tischendorf, Overbeck met them with the hypothesis that the notice was taken from a spurious work ascribed to Papias. He supposed that some one had forged five additional books in the name of this father, in which he had gathered together a mass of fabulous matter, and had entitled them 'Exoterica,' attaching them to the genuine five books. To this work he assigned also the notice respecting the four Maries which bears the name of Papias [210:2]. This explanation might have been left to itself if it had remained as a mere hypothesis of Overbeck's, but it has been recently accepted by Hilgenfeld. He speaks of these five 'exoteric' books, as attached to 'the five esoteric or genuine books;' and to this source he attributes not only the account of the four Maries, but also a notice relating to the death of St John which is given by Georgius Hamartolos on the authority of Papias [211:1].

This however seems to be altogether a mistake. We find no notice or trace elsewhere of any such spurious work attributed to Papias. Moreover these titles are quite unintelligible. There is no reason why the five genuine books should be called 'esoteric,' or the five spurious books 'exoteric.' About the notice of the four Maries again Hilgenfeld is in error. It is not taken from any forged book fathered upon the bishop of Hierapolis, but from a genuine work of another Papias, a Latin lexicographer of the eleventh century. This is not a mere hypothesis, as Hilgenfeld assumes, but an indisputable fact, as any one can test who will refer to the work itself, of which MSS exist in some libraries, and which was printed four times in the fifteenth century [211:2]. Nor again does the passage in Georgius Hamartolos give any countenance to this theory. This writer, after saying that St John survived the rest of the twelve and then suffered as a martyr ([Greek: marturiou katêxiôtai]), continues:--

For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, having been an eye-witness of
him, says in the second book [Greek: logô] of the 'Oracles of the
Lord' ([Greek: tôn kuriakôn logiôn]) that he was slain by the Jews,
having, as is clear, with his brother James, fulfilled the
prediction of Christ.... 'Ye shall drink my cup,' etc. [211:3]

Here we have an obvious error. The fate which really befell James is attributed to John. Georgius Hamartolos therefore cannot be quoting directly from Papias, for Papias cannot have reported the _martyrdom_ of John. But, on the other hand, Papias seems plainly to have been the ultimate source of his information. The work is precisely and correctly quoted. The general tenor accords with the main object of Papias' book--the exposition of a saying of Christ, and the illustration of it by a story derived from tradition. This being so, the error is most easily explained by a lacuna. In the intermediate authority from whom Georgius got the reference, some words must have dropped out; a line or two may have been omitted in his copy; and the sentence may have run in the original somewhat in this way; [Greek: Papias ... phaskei hoti Iôannês [men hupo tou Rhômaiôn basileôs katedikasthê marturôn eis Patmon, Iakôbos de] hupo Ioudaiôn anêrethê], 'Papias says that John [was condemned by the Roman emperor (and sent) to Patmos for bearing witness (to the truth) while James] was slain by the Jews' [212:1].

The hypothesis of a spurious Papias therefore is wholly unsupported; and we must seek some other explanation of the statement in the Vatican MS. This passage seems to be made up of notices gathered from different sources. The account of Marcion, with which it closes, involves an anachronism (to say nothing else), and seems to have arisen from a confusion of the interview between St John and Cerinthus and that between Polycarp and Marcion, which are related by Irenæus in the same context [213:1]. The earlier part, referring to Papias, is best explained in another way--by clerical errors and mistranslation rather than by historical confusion. The word 'exotericis' ought plainly to be read 'exegeticis' [213:2]. In some handwritings of the seventh or eighth century, where the letters have a round form, the substitution of OT for EG would be far from difficult [213:3]. In this case _extremis_, which should perhaps be read _externis_, is the Latin interpretation of the false reading _exotericis_. Thus purged of errors, the reference to Papias presents no difficulties. We may suppose that Papias, having reported some saying of St John on the authority of the elders, went on somewhat as follows: 'And this accords with what we find in his own Gospel, which he gave to the Churches when he was still in the body' [Greek: eti en tô sômati kathestôtos]. In this contrast between the story repeated after his death and the Gospel taken down from his lips during his lifetime, we should have an explanation of the words _adhuc in corpore constituto_, which otherwise seem altogether out of place. The word _constituto_ shows clearly, I think, that the passage must have been translated from the Greek. If St John's authorship of the Gospel had been mentioned in this incidental way, Eusebius would not have repeated it, unless he departed from his usual practice. On the other hand, the statement that Papias was the amanuensis of the Evangelist can hardly be correct, though it occurs elsewhere [213:4]. Whether it was derived from a misunderstanding of Papias, or of some one else, it would be impossible to say. But I venture to suggest a solution. Papias may have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which _they_ wrote down from his lips' ([Greek: ho apegraphon apo tou stomatos autou]); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous [Greek: apegraphon], interpreted it, '_I_ wrote down,' thus making Papias himself the amanuensis [214:1]. The _dictation_ of St John's Gospel is suggested, as I have said already [214:2], by internal evidence also. Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence. Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I considered in a former paper [214:3], it is discredited by its companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not, like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding centuries.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ closes with an argument, which he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John:--

Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the
Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility'
([Greek: to axiopiston]) of that book, or in other words, its
Apostolic origin.... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the
book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show
that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the
author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a
witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel [214:4].

This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second. In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown [215:1] that his principles required him to notice quotations from and references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both _to a single author_, and (what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, _a contemporary of St John_ [215:2]. Thus the very opponents of the Gospel in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the use of the Gospel of St John in his case [216:1]. Melito again commented on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by Irenæus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books appears in Dionysius of Alexandria [216:2], who wrote about the middle or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the Apocalypse.