The following pa.s.sage will ill.u.s.trate the att.i.tude of the author of _Supernatural Religion_ towards this question:--

This work was less based on written records of the teaching of Jesus than on that which Papias had been able to collect from tradition, which he considered more authentic, for, like his contemporary Hegesippus, Papias avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted [155:2].

I venture to ask in pa.s.sing, where our author obtained his information that Hegesippus 'avowedly prefers tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted.' Certainly not from any fragments or notices of this writer which have been hitherto published.

After quoting the extract from the preface of Papias which has been given above, our author resumes:--

It is clear from this that, even if Papias knew any of our Gospels, he attached little or no value to them, and that he knew absolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament. His work was evidently intended to furnish a more complete collection of the discourses of Jesus from oral tradition than any previously existing, with his own expositions; and this is plainly indicated by his own words, and by the t.i.tle of his work, [Greek: Logion kuriakon exegesis] [156:1].

'The natural and only reasonable course,' he adds in a note, 'is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.' He has appealed to Caesar, and to Caesar he shall go.

What then is the natural interpretation of the t.i.tle 'Exposition of Oracles of' (or 'relating to') 'the Lord'? Would any one, without a preconceived theory, imagine that 'exposition' here meant anything else but explanation or interpretation? It is possible indeed, that the original word [Greek: exegesis] might, in other connections, be used in reference to a narrative, but its common and obvious sense is the same which it bears when adopted into English as 'exegesis.' In other words, it expresses the idea of a commentary on some text. The expression has an exact parallel, for instance, in the language of Eusebius when, speaking of Dionysius of Corinth, he says that this writer introduces into his letter to the Church of Amastris 'expositions of Divine Scriptures' ([Greek: graphon theion exegeseis]), or when he says that Irenaeus quotes a certain 'Apostolic elder' and gives his 'expositions of Divine Scriptures' (the same expression as before) [156:2]. It is used more than once in this sense, and it is not used in any other, as we shall see presently, by Irenaeus [156:3]. Moreover Anastasius of Sinai distinctly styles Papias an 'exegete,' meaning thereby, as his context shows, an 'interpreter' of the Holy Scriptures [157:1].

'The t.i.tle of his work' therefore does not 'indicate' anything of the kind which our author a.s.sumes it to indicate [157:2]. It does not suggest a more authentic narrative, but a more correct interpretation of an existing narrative. And the same inference is suggested still more strongly, when from the t.i.tle we turn to the words of the preface; '_But_ I will not scruple _also_ to give a place _along with my interpretations_ ([Greek: sunkatataxai tais hermeneiais]) to all that I learnt carefully and remembered carefully in time past from the elders.'

Here the sense of 'exegesis' in the t.i.tle is explained by the use of the unambiguous word 'interpretations.' But this is not the most important point. The interpretations must have been interpretations of something.

Of what then? Certainly not of the oral traditions, for the interpretations are presupposed, and the oral traditions are mentioned subsequently, being introduced to ill.u.s.trate the interpretations. The words which I have italicised leave no doubt about this. The 'also,'

which (by the way) our author omits, has no significance otherwise. The expression 'along with the interpretations' is capable only of one meaning. In other words, the only account which can be given of the pa.s.sage, consistently with logic and grammar, demands the following sequence.--(1) The text, of which something was doubtless said in the preceding pa.s.sage, for it is a.s.sumed in the extract itself. (2) The interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work. (3) The oral traditions, which, as the language here shows, were subordinate to the interpretations, and which Papias mentions in a slightly apologetic tone. These oral traditions had obviously a strong attraction for Papias; he introduced them frequently to confirm and ill.u.s.trate his explanations. But only the most violent wresting of language can make them the text or basis of these interpretations [158:1].

A good example of the method thus adopted by Papias and explained in his preface is accidentally preserved by Irenaeus [158:2]. This father is discoursing on the millennial reign of Christ. His starting point is the saying of our Lord at the last supper, 'I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of this vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) He takes the words literally, and argues that they must imply a terrestrial kingdom, since only men of flesh can drink the fruit of the vine. He confirms this view by appealing to two other sayings of Christ recorded in the Gospels--the one the promise of a recompense in the resurrection of the just to those who call the poor and maimed and lame and blind to their feast (Luke xiv. 13, 14); the other the a.s.surance that those who have forsaken houses or lands for Christ's sake shall receive a hundredfold now _in this present time_ (Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 29, 30; Luke xviii. 30) [158:3], which last expression, he maintains, can only be satisfied by an earthly reign of Christ. He then attempts to show that the promises to the patriarchs also require the same solution, since hitherto they have not been fulfilled. These, he says, evidently refer to the reign of the just in a renewed earth, which shall be blessed with abundance.

As the elders relate, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and to say, 'The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand shoots, and on each shoot ten thousand branches, and on each branch again ten thousand twigs, and on each twig ten thousand cl.u.s.ters, and on each cl.u.s.ter ten thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall yield five-and-twenty measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall have taken hold of one of their cl.u.s.ters, another shall cry, "I am a better cl.u.s.ter; take me, bless the Lord through me." Likewise also a grain of wheat shall produce ten thousand heads,' etc. These things Papias, who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient worthy, witnesseth in writing in the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed by him. And he added, saying, 'But these things are credible to them that believe.' And when Judas the traitor did not believe, and asked, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?' he relates that the Lord said, 'They shall see, who shall come to these [times].'

I shall not stop to inquire whether there is any foundation of truth in this story, and, if so, how far it has been trans.m.u.ted, as it pa.s.sed through the hands of the elders and of Papias. It is sufficient for my purpose to remark that we here find just the three elements which the preface of Papias would lead us to expect: _first_, the saying or sayings of Christ recorded in the written Gospels: _secondly_, the interpretation of these sayings, which is characteristically millennial; _thirdly_, the ill.u.s.trative story, derived from oral tradition, which relates 'what John said,' and to which the author 'gives a place along with his interpretation' [159:1].

So far everything seems clear. But if this be so, what becomes of the disparagement of written Gospels, which is confidently a.s.serted by our author and others? When the preface of Papias is thus correctly explained, the 'books' which he esteems so lightly a.s.sume quite a different aspect. They are no longer Evangelical records, but works commenting on such records. The contrast is no longer between oral and written Gospels, but between oral and written _aids to interpretation_.

Papias judged rightly that any doctrinal statement of Andrew or Peter or John, or any anecdote of the Saviour which could be traced distinctly to their authority, would be far more valuable to elucidate his text than the capricious interpretations which he found in current books. If his critical judgment had corresponded to his intention, the work would have been highly important.

The leading object of Papias therefore was not to subst.i.tute a correct narrative for an imperfect and incorrect, but to counteract a false exegesis by a true. But where did he find this false exegesis? The opening pa.s.sage of Irenaeus supplies the answer. This father describes the Gnostic teachers as 'tampering with the oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta logia Kuriou]), showing themselves bad expositors of things well said'

([Greek: exegetai kakoi ton kalos eiremenon ginomenoi]) [160:1]. Here we have the very t.i.tle of Papias' work reproduced. Papias, like Irenaeus after him, undertook, we may suppose, to stem the current of Gnosticism.

If, while resisting the false and exaggerated spiritualism of the Gnostics, he fell into the opposite error, so that his Chiliastic doctrine was tainted by a somewhat gross materialism, he only offended in the same way as Irenaeus, though probably to a greater degree. The Gnostic leaders were in some instances no mean thinkers; but they were almost invariably bad exegetes. The Gnostic fragments in Irenaeus and Hippolytus are crowded with false interpretations of Christ's sayings as recorded in the Gospels. Simonians, Ophites, Basilideans, Valentinians, Gnostics of all sects, are represented there, and all sin in the same way. These remains are only the accidental waifs and strays of a Gnostic literature which must have been enormous in extent. As by common consent the work of Papias was written in the later years of his life, a very appreciable portion of this literature must have been in existence when he wrote. More especially the elaborate work of Basilides on 'the Gospel,' in twenty-four books, must have been published some years.

Basilides flourished, we are told, during the reign of Hadrian [161:1]

(A.D. 117-138). Such a lengthy work would explain the sarcastic allusion in Papias to those 'who have so very much to say' ([Greek: tois ta polla legousin]) [161:2], and who are afterwards described as 'teaching foreign commandments [161:3].' There are excellent reasons for believing this to be the very work from which the fragments quoted by Hippolytus, as from Basilides, are taken [161:4]. These fragments contain false interpretations of pa.s.sages from St Luke and St John, as well as from several Epistles of St Paul. But, however this may be, the general character of the work appears from the fact that Clement of Alexandria quotes it under the t.i.tle of 'Exegetics' [161:5]. It is quite possible too, that the writings of Valentinus were in circulation before Papias wrote, and exegesis was a highly important instrument with him and his school. If we once recognize the fact that Papias wrote when Gnosticism was rampant, the drift of his language becomes clear and consistent.

This account of the 'books' which Papias disparages seems to follow from the grammatical interpretation of the earlier part of the sentence. And it alone is free from difficulties. It is quite plain for instance, that Eusebius did not understand our Gospels to be meant thereby; for otherwise he would hardly have quoted this low estimate without expostulation or comment. And again, the hypothesis which identifies these 'books' with written Evangelical records used by Papias charges him with the most stupid perversity. It makes him prefer the second-hand report of what Matthew had said about the Lord's discourses to the account of these discourses which Matthew himself had deliberately set down in writing [162:1]. Such a report might have the highest value outside the written record; but no sane man could prefer a conversation repeated by another to the immediate and direct account of the same events by the person himself. Nor again, is it consistent with the language which Papias himself uses of the one Evangelical doc.u.ment about which (in his extant fragments) he does express an opinion. Of St Mark's record he says that the author 'made no mistake,' and that it was his one anxiety 'not to omit anything that he had heard, or to set down any false statement therein.' Is this the language of one speaking of a book to which 'he attached little or no value'? [163:1]

But, if Papias used written doc.u.ments as the text for his 'expositions,'

can we identify these? To this question his own language elsewhere supplies the answer at least in part. He mentions Evangelical narratives written by Mark and Matthew respectively; and it is therefore the obvious inference that our first two Gospels at all events were used for his work.

An obvious inference, but fiercely contested nevertheless. It has been maintained by many recent critics, that the St Mark of Papias was not our St Mark, nor the St Matthew of Papias our St Matthew; and as the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has adopted this view, some words will be necessary in refutation of it.

The language then, which Papias uses to describe the doc.u.ment written by St Mark, is 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 hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]

_or_ [Greek: logon]). 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.

Eusebius introduces this pa.s.sage by a statement that it 'refers to Mark, the writer of the Gospel;' and the authority whom Papias here quotes is apparently the Presbyter John, who has been mentioned immediately before.

Now it will be plain, I think, to any reader of common sense, that Papias is giving an account of the circ.u.mstances under which the Evangelical narrative in question was composed. There were two phenomena in it which seemed to him to call for explanation. In the first place, it is not a _complete_ narrative. In the second place, the events are not recorded in _strict chronological order_. These two phenomena are explained by St Mark's position and opportunities, which were necessarily limited. His work was composed from reminiscences of St Peter's preaching; and, as this preaching was necessarily fragmentary and adapted to the immediate requirements of his hearers (the preacher having no intention of giving a continuous narrative), the writer could not possess either the materials for a complete account or the knowledge for an accurate chronological arrangement. Papias obviously has before him some other Gospel narrative or narratives, which contained sayings or doings of Christ not recorded by St Mark, and moreover related those which he did record in a different order. For this discrepancy he desires to account. The motive and the treatment have an exact parallel, as I shall show hereafter, in the account of the Gospels given by the author of the Muratorian Canon.

This is the plain and simple inference from the pa.s.sage; and we have only to ask whether this description corresponds with the phenomena of our St Mark. That it does so correspond, I think, can hardly be denied.

As regards _completeness_, it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that any one of our Canonical Gospels records many doings, and above all, many sayings, which are omitted in St Mark. As regards _order_ again, it may, I believe, safely be said that no writer of a 'Life of Christ' finds himself able to preserve the sequence of events exactly as it stands in St Mark. His account does not profess to be strictly chronological. There are indeed chronological links in the narrative here and there; but throughout considerable parts of our Lord's ministry the successive incidents are quite unconnected by notices of time. In short, the Gospel is just what we should expect, if the author had derived his information in the way reported by the Presbyter. But our author objects, that it 'does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics,' and that it 'throughout has the most evident character of orderly arrangement'

[165:1]. Persons may differ as to what is important or unimportant; but if the reader will refer to any one of the common harmonies, those of Anger and Tischendorf for instance, he will see that constant transpositions are necessary in one or other of the Synoptic Gospels to bring them into accordance, and will be able to judge for himself how far this statement is true. 'Orderly arrangement' of some sort, no doubt, there is; but it is just such as lay within the reach of a person obtaining his knowledge at second-hand in this way. Our author himself describes it lower down as 'artistic and orderly arrangement.' I shall not quarrel with the phrase, though somewhat exaggerated. Any amount of 'artistic arrangement' is compatible with the notice of Papias, which refers only to historical sequence. 'Artistic arrangement' does not require the direct knowledge of an eye-witness. It will be observed however, that our author speaks of a comparison with 'the order of the other two Synoptics.' But what, if the comparison which Papias had in view was wholly different? What, if he adduced this testimony of the Presbyter to explain how St Mark's Gospel differed not from another Synoptic narrative, but _from St John_? I shall return to this question at a later point in these investigations.

Our author is no stranger to the use of strong words: 'If our present Gospel,' he writes, 'cannot be proved to be the very work referred to by the Presbyter John, as most certainly it cannot, the evidence of Papias becomes fatal to the claims of the second Canonical Gospel' [165:2]. The novelty of the logic in this sentence rivals the boldness of the a.s.sumption.

Yet so entirely satisfied is he with the result of his arguments, that he does not consider it 'necessary to account for the manner in which the work to which the Presbyter John referred disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark became subst.i.tuted for it' [166:1]. But others are of a more inquiring turn of mind. They will be haunted with this difficulty, and will not be able thus to shelve the question. They will venture to ask how it is that not any, even the faintest, indication of the existence of this other Mark can be traced in all the remains of Christian antiquity. They will observe too, that if the date which our author himself adopts be correct, Irenaeus was already grown up to manhood when Papias wrote his work. They will remember that Irenaeus received his earliest Christian education from a friend of Papias, and that his great authorities in everything which relates to Christian tradition are the a.s.sociates and fellow-countrymen of Papias.

They will remark that, having the work of Papias in his hands and holding it in high esteem, he nevertheless is so impressed with the conviction that our present four Gospels, and these only, had formed the t.i.tle-deeds of the Church from the beginning, that he ransacks heaven and earth for a.n.a.logies to this sacred number. They will perhaps carry their investigations further, and discover that Irenaeus not only possessed our St Mark's Gospel, but possessed it also with its present ending, which, though undoubtedly very early, can hardly have been part of the original work. They will then pa.s.s on to the Muratorian author, who probably wrote some years before Irenaeus, and, remembering that Irenaeus represents the combined testimony of Asia Minor and Gaul, they will see that they have here the representative of a different branch of the Church, probably the Roman. Yet the Muratorian writer agrees with Irenaeus in representing our four Gospels, and these only, as the traditional inheritance of the Church; for though the fragment is mutilated at the beginning, so that the names of the first two Evangelists have disappeared, the ident.i.ty cannot be seriously questioned. They will then extend their horizon to Clement in Alexandria and Tertullian in Africa; and they will find these fathers also possessed by the same belief. Impressed with this convergency of testimony from so many different quarters, they will be utterly at a loss to account for the unanimity of these early witnesses--all sharing in the same delusion, all ignorant that a false Mark has been silently subst.i.tuted for the true Mark during their own lifetime, and consequently a.s.suming as an indisputable fact that the false Mark was received by the Church from the beginning. And they will end in a revolt against the attempt of our author to impose upon them with his favourite commonplace about the 'thoroughly uncritical character of the fathers.'

Indeed, they will begin altogether to suspect this wholesale denunciation; for they will observe that our author is convicted out of his own context. They will remark how he repels an inconvenient question of Tischendorf by a scornful reference to 'the frivolous character of the _only_ criticism in which they [Eusebius and the other Christian Fathers] _ever_ indulged [167:1].' Yet they will remember at the same time to have read in this very chapter on Papias a highly intelligent criticism of Eusebius, with which this father confronts a statement of Irenaeus, and which our author himself adopts as conclusive [167:2].

They will recall also, in this same context, a reference to a pa.s.sage in Dionysius of Alexandria, where this 'great Bishop' antic.i.p.ates by nearly sixteen centuries the criticisms of our own age concerning the differences of style between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse [167:3].

From St Mark we pa.s.s to St Matthew. Papias has something to tell us of this Gospel also; but here again we are asked to believe that we have a case of mistaken ident.i.ty.

After the notice relating to St Mark, Eusebius continues:--

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.'

The a.s.sumption that this statement, like the former, was made on the authority of the Presbyter, depends solely on the close proximity in which the two extracts stand in Eusebius. It must therefore be regarded as highly precarious. In Papias' own work the two extracts may have been wide apart. Indeed the opening particles in the second pa.s.sage prove conclusively that it cannot have followed immediately on the first. Just as the [Greek: hos ephen] in the extract relating to St Mark showed that it was a fragment torn from its context, so we have the similar evidence of a violent severance here in the words [Greek: men oun]. The ragged edge is apparent in both cases [168:1]. This fact must be borne in mind in any criticisms which the pa.s.sages suggest.

In this extract then Papias speaks of a state of things in which each man interpreted the original Hebrew for himself. There can have been no authoritative Greek Gospel of St Matthew at that time, if his account be correct. So far his meaning is clear. But it is equally clear that the time which he is here contemplating is not the time when he writes his book, but some earlier epoch. He says not 'interprets,' but 'interpreted.' This past tense 'interpreted,' be it observed, is not the tense of Eusebius reporting Papias, but of Papias himself. Everything depends on this distinction; yet our author deliberately ignores it. He does indeed state the grammatical argument correctly, as given by others:--

Some consider that Papias or the Presbyter use the verb in the past tense, [Greek: hermeneuse], 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 [169:1].

Yet a few lines after, when he comes to comment upon it, he can write as follows:--

The statement [of Papias] is perfectly simple and direct, and it is at least quite clear that it conveys the fact that 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 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 [169:2].

Our author has here imposed upon himself by a grammatical trick. Hard pressed by the argument, he has covered his retreat under an ambiguous use of tenses. The words 'each one translated as he was able' are perfectly clear in the direct language of Papias; but adopted without alteration into the oblique statement of our author, they are altogether obscure. 'Translation _was_ requisite.' Yes, but at what time? The fact is that no careful reader can avoid asking why Papias writes 'interpreted,' and not 'interprets.' The natural answer is that the necessity of which he speaks had already pa.s.sed away. In other words, it implies the existence of a recognized Greek translation, _when Papias wrote_. Whence our author got his information that Papias 'had no respect for' any such translation, it is difficult to say. Certainly not from 'the words used'; for Papias says nothing about it, and we only infer its existence from the suppressed contrast implied in the past tense.

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. As in the case of St Mark, so here the contrary hypothesis is weighted with an acc.u.mulation of improbabilities. The argument used there might be repeated _totidem verbis_ here. It was enough that we were asked to accept the theory of a mistaken ident.i.ty once; but the same demand is renewed again. And the improbability of this double mistake is very far greater than the sum of the improbabilities in the two several cases, great as this sum would be.

The testimony of Papias therefore may be accepted as valid so far as regards the recognition of our St Matthew in his own age. But it does not follow that his account of the origin was correct. It may or may not have been. This is just what we cannot decide, because we do not know exactly what he said. It cannot be inferred with any certainty from this fragmentary excerpt of Eusebius, what Papias supposed to be the exact relation of the Greek Gospel of St Matthew which he had before him to the Hebrew doc.u.ment of which he speaks. Our author indeed says that our First Gospel bears all the marks of an original, and cannot have been translated from the Hebrew at all. This, I venture to think, is far more than the facts will sustain. If he had said that it is not a h.o.m.ogeneous Greek version of a h.o.m.ogeneous Hebrew original, this would have been nearer to the truth. But we do not know that Papias said this. He may have expressed himself in language quite consistent with the phenomena.

Or on the other hand 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. 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 ident.i.ty of the doc.u.ment itself.

Our author however maintains that the Hebrew St Matthew of which Papias speaks was not a Gospel at all--_i.e._ not a narrative of our Lord's life and ministry--but a mere collection of discourses or sayings. It is urged that the expression, 'Matthew compiled the oracles' ([Greek: xunegrapsato ta logia]), requires this interpretation. If this explanation were correct, the notice would suggest that Papias looked upon the Greek Gospel as not merely a translation, but an enlargement, of the original doc.u.ment. In this case it would be vain to speculate how or when or by whom he supposed it to be made; for either he did not give this information, or (if he did) Eusebius has withheld it. This hypothesis was first started, I believe, by Schleiermacher, and has found favour with not a few critics of opposite schools. Attempts have been made from time to time to restore this supposed doc.u.ment by disengaging those portions of our First Gospel, which would correspond to this idea, from their historical setting. The theory is not without its attractions: it promises a solution of some difficulties; but hitherto it has not yielded any results which would justify its acceptance.

Our author speaks of those critics who reject it as 'in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these [Greek: logia] our actual Gospel according to St Matthew' [171:1]. This is true in the same sense in which it is true that those who take opposite views are largely influenced in very many cases by the opposite desire. But such language is only calculated to mislead. By no one is the theory of a collection of discourses more strongly denounced than by Bleek [171:2], who apparently considers that Papias did not here refer to a Greek Gospel at all. 'There is nothing,' he writes, 'in the manner in which Papias expresses himself to justify this supposition; he would certainly have expressed himself as he does, if he meant an historical work like our New Testament Gospels, if he were referring to a writing whose contents were those of our Greek Gospel according to Matthew.' Equally decided too is the language of Hilgenfeld [171:3], who certainly would not be swayed by any bias in this direction.

Indeed this theory is enc.u.mbered with the most serious difficulties. In the first place, there is no notice or trace elsewhere of any such 'collection of discourses.' In the next place, all other early writers from Pantaenus and Irenaeus onwards, who allude to the subject, speak of St Matthew as writing a Gospel, not a mere collection of sayings, in Hebrew. If they derived their information in every case from Papias, it is clear that they found no difficulty in interpreting his language so as to include a narrative: if they did not (as seems more probable, and as our author himself holds [172:1]), then their testimony is all the more important, as of independent witnesses to the existence of a Hebrew St Matthew, which was a narrative, and not a mere collection of discourses.

Nor indeed does the expression itself drive us to any such hypothesis.

Hilgenfeld, while applying it to our First Gospel, explains it on grounds which at all events are perfectly tenable. He supposes that Papias mentions only the _sayings_ of Christ, not because St Matthew recorded nothing else, but because he himself was concerned only with these, and St Matthew's Gospel, as distinguished from St Mark's, was the great storehouse of materials for his purpose [172:2]. I do not however think that this is the right explanation. It supposes that only [Greek: logoi] ('discourses' or 'sayings') could be called [Greek: logia]

('oracles'); but usage does not warrant this restriction. Thus we are expressly told that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, Patriarch of Antioch (about A.D. 525-545), consisted of 'the Old Testament and the Oracles of the Lord ([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) and the Preachings of the Apostles' [172:3]. Here we have the very same expression which occurs in Papias; and it is obviously employed as a synonyme for the Gospels. Our author does not mention this close parallel, but he alleges 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 again, 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 [173:1].' This objection, if it has any force, must involve one or both of these two a.s.sumptions; _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 a.s.sumptions alike are contradicted by facts.

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 G.o.d' (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 G.o.d? 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 much more on the narrative of G.o.d's dealings than of His words? Again, when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to 'the first principles of the oracles of G.o.d'