(v. 12), his meaning is explained by his practice; for he elicits the divine teaching quite as much from the history as from the direct precepts of the Old Testament. But, if the language of the New Testament writers leaves any loophole for doubt, this is not the case with their contemporary Philo. In one place he speaks of the words in Deut. x. 9, 'The Lord G.o.d is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' ([Greek: logion]) the _narrative_ in Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord G.o.d set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him' [174:1]. From this and other pa.s.sages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly Clement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of G.o.d,' [174:2] and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. x.x.xii. 7 sq, of which the point is not any divine precept or prediction, but _the example of Moses_. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the Lord.' [174:3] How much he included under this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not write [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] 'the Dominical oracles,' or [Greek: ta logia] 'the oracles' simply--the two expressions which occur in Papias--but [Greek: ta logia tou Kuriou], 'the oracles of the Lord,'

which form of words would more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker.

Again Irenaeus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] [174:4]; and though he does not define his exact meaning, yet as the 'oracles of G.o.d' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a saying, but an incident in the Gospels--the healing of the ruler's daughter--we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find that the Scriptures in one pa.s.sage are called 'the oracles of truth,'

while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the 'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles' [174:5]. Similarly Origen speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the oracles of G.o.d' [175:1]. In the context of the latter of the two pa.s.sages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles', 'oracles of the Spirit,'

[175:2] as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of pa.s.sages might be largely extended.

This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If Papias ent.i.tled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather 'of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father, as we have seen [175:3], describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order the things said or done by Christ' ([Greek: ou mentoi taxei ta hupo tou Christou e lechthenta e prachthenta]). This, he states, was not within the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles' ([Greek: ouch hosper suntaxin ton kuriakon poioumenos logion]). Here the obvious inference is that [Greek: ta kuriaka logia] in the second clause is equivalent to [Greek: ta hupo tou Christou e lechthenta e prachthenta]

the first, just as the [Greek: suntaxin] in the second clause corresponds to the [Greek: taxei] in the first. Our author however, following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the oracles,' explains it differently [176:1].

There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote [Greek: e lechthenta e prachthenta], because he had not the means of writing discourses, but Matthew composed the [Greek: logia]. Papias clearly distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses [176:2].

This interpretation depends altogether on the a.s.sumption that the extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same context; but this is only an a.s.sumption. Moreover it introduces into the extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in question is [Greek: suntaxin], which picks up the previous [Greek: taxei], and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work relating sayings only; and [Greek: logion], as bringing out this idea, would demand the most emphatic place ([Greek: ouch hosper ton logion suntaxin poioumenos]); whereas in its present position it is entirely subordinated to other words in the clause.

The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' ([Greek: ta logia]) can be used as co-extensive with 'the Scriptures' ([Greek: hai graphai]) in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles'

([Greek: ta kuriaka logia]) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical Scriptures' (_Dominicae Scripturae_, [Greek: ai kuriakai graphai])--an expression occurring in Irenaeus and in Dionysius of Corinth [177:1]--or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the _second_ of the two a.s.sumptions which I mentioned above--namely, that no Evangelical record could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture.

This a.s.sumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first pa.s.sage the quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural reference--'as it is written' [177:2]. To what contortions our author puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the proper time comes [177:3]. At present it is sufficient to say that the only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two quotations, which are found there, is the a.s.sumption that St Matthew could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words, it is a _pet.i.tio principii_. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on any showing, was written before the date which our author himself a.s.signs to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70, or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century.

If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it could _a fortiori_ be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.

VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

_Continued._

[OCTOBER, 1875.]

It has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different.

Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer.

I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius' [178:1], that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that the a.s.sumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure [178:2], while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give, traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would not have cared to record the fact.

All this I have proved, and the author of _Supernatural Religion_ is unable to disprove it. In the preface to his last edition [179:1] he does indeed devote several pages to my argument; but I confess that I am quite at a loss to understand how any writer can treat the subject as it is there treated by him. Does he or does he not realize the distinction which underlies the whole of my argument--the distinction between _traditions about_ the Gospels on the one hand, and _quotations from_ the Gospels on the other?

At times it appears as if this distinction were clearly before him. He quotes a pa.s.sage from my article, in which it is directly stated [179:2], and even argues upon it. I gave a large number of instances where ancient authors whose writings are extant do quote our Canonical Scriptures, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes anonymously, sometimes by name, and where nevertheless Eusebius does not mention the circ.u.mstance. This is his mode of dealing with such facts--

That he omitted to mention a reference to the Epistle to the Corinthians in the Epistle of Clement of Rome, or the reference by Theophilus to the Gospel of John, and other supposed quotations, might be set down as much to oversight as intention [179:3].

Does it not occur to him that he is here cutting the throat of his own argument? The reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians is the single direct reference by name to the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament in Clement; the reference to the Gospel of St John again is the single direct reference by name in the extant work of Theophilus.

What would be said of a traveller who paid a visit to the Gorner-Grat for the express purpose of observing and recording the appearance of the Alps from this commanding position, and returned from his survey without having noticed either the Matterhorn or Monte Rosa? If Eusebius could have overlooked these most obvious notices, he could have overlooked anything. His gross and habitual carelessness would then cover any omission. Nor again, I venture to think, will our author deceive any fairly intelligent person, who has read my article with moderate care, by his convenient because cloudy expression, 'other supposed quotations.' I need only remind my readers that among these 'other supposed quotations' are included (to take only one instance) numerous and direct references by name to the Acts of the Apostles and to eleven Epistles of St Paul in Irenaeus [180:1], of which Eusebius says not a word, and they will judge for themselves by this example what dependence can be placed on the author's use of language.

But our author speaks of the 'ability' of my article, as a reason for discrediting its results. I am much obliged to him for the compliment, but I must altogether decline it. It is the ability of facts which he finds so inconvenient. I brought to the task nothing more than ordinary sense. I found our author declaring, as others had declared before him, that under certain circ.u.mstances Eusebius would be sure to act in a particular way. I turned to Eusebius himself, and I found that, whenever we are able to test his action under the supposed circ.u.mstances, he acts in precisely the opposite way. I discovered that he not only sometimes, but systematically, ignores mere quotations from the four Gospels and the Acts and the thirteen Epistles of St Paul, however numerous and however precise. I cannot indeed recollect a single instance where he adduces a quotation for the mere purpose of authenticating any one of these books.

But our author asks [180:2],

Is it either possible or permissible to suppose that, had Papias known anything of the other two Gospels [the third and fourth], he would not have inquired about them from the presbyters and recorded their information? And is it either possible or permissible to suppose that if Papias had recorded any similar information regarding the composition of the third and fourth Gospels, Eusebius would have omitted to quote it?

To the first question I answer that it is both possible and permissible to make this supposition. I go beyond this, and say that it is not only possible and permissible, but quite as probable as the opposite alternative. In the absence of all definite knowledge respecting the motive of Papias, I do not see that we are justified in giving any preference to either hypothesis over the other. There is no reason for supposing that Papias made these statements respecting St Mark and St Matthew in his preface rather than in the body of his work, or that they were connected and continuous, or that he had any intention of giving an exhaustive account of all the doc.u.ments with which he was acquainted. On the contrary, these notices bear every mark of being incidental. If we take the pa.s.sage relating to St Mark for instance, the natural inference is that Papias in the course of his expositions stumbled on a pa.s.sage where this Evangelist omitted something which was recorded by another authority, or gave some incident in an order different from that which he found elsewhere, and that in consequence he inserted the notice of the presbyter respecting the composition of this Gospel, to explain the divergence. He might, or might not, have had opportunities of inquiring from the presbyters respecting the Gospel of St Luke. They might, or might not, have been able to communicate information respecting it, beyond the fact which every one knew, and which therefore no one cared to repeat, that it was written by a companion of St Paul. He might, or might not, have found himself confronted with a difficulty which led him to repeat his information, a.s.suming he had received any from them.

As regards the second question, I agree with our author. I am indeed surprised that after ascribing such incredible carelessness to Eusebius as he has done a few pages before, he should consider it impossible and impermissible to suppose him guilty of any laches here. But I myself have a much higher opinion of the care manifested by Eusebius in this matter. So far as I can see, it would depend very much on the nature of the information, whether he would care to repeat it. If Papias had reported any 'similar' information respecting the two last Gospels, I should certainly expect Eusebius to record it. But if (to give an ill.u.s.tration) Papias had merely said of the fourth Evangelist that 'John the disciple of the Lord wished by the publication of the Gospel to root out that error which had been disseminated among men by Cerinthus, and long before by those who are called Nicolaitans,' or language to that effect, it would be no surprise to me if Eusebius did not reproduce it; because Irenaeus uses these very words of the fourth Gospel [182:1], and Eusebius does not allude to the fact.

But our author argues that, 'if there was a Fourth Gospel in his knowledge, he [Papias] must have had something to tell about it'

[182:2]. Perhaps so, but it does not follow either that he should have cared to tell this something gratuitously, or that any occasion should have arisen which led him to tell it. Indeed, this mode of arguing altogether ignores the relations in which the immediate circle addressed by Papias stood to St John. It would have been idle for Papias to have said, as Irenaeus says, 'John the disciple of the Lord, who also lay upon His breast, published his Gospel, while living in Ephesus of Asia'

[182:3]. It would have been as idle as if a writer in this Review were to vouchsafe the information that 'Napoleon I was a great ruler of the French who made war against England.' On the hypothesis of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, such information would have been altogether superfluous. Papias might incidentally, when quoting the Gospel, have introduced his quotation in words from which a later generation could gather these facts; but he is not at all likely to have communicated them in the form of a direct statement. And, if he did not, there is no reason to think that Eusebius would have quoted the pa.s.sage.

So far however, our author seems to recognize the distinction which I drew between stories about, and quotations from, the Gospels. But elsewhere, when the practical consequences become inconvenient, he boldly ignores it. Take, for instance, the following pa.s.sage:--

The only inference which I care to draw from, the silence of Eusebius is precisely that which Dr Lightfoot admits that, both from his promise and his practice, I am ent.i.tled to deduce. When any ancient writer 'has something to _tell about_' the Gospels, 'any _anecdote_ of interest respecting them,' Eusebius will record it. This is the only information of the slightest value to this work which could be looked for in these writers [183:1].

What? does our author seriously maintain that, supposing Papias to have quoted the Fourth Gospel several times by name as the work of John the Apostle, this fact would not be of 'the slightest value' in its bearing on the question at issue between us--the antiquity and genuineness of that Gospel--because, forsooth, he did not give any anecdote respecting its composition?

So again a few pages later, he writes--

Eusebius fulfils his pledge, and states what disputed works were used by Hegesippus and what he said about them, and one of these was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. He does not, however, record a remark of any kind regarding our Gospels, and the legitimate inference, and it is the only one I care to draw, is that Hegesippus did not say anything about them [183:2].

Yes; 'did not say anything _about_ them,' in the sense of not recording any traditions respecting them, though he may have quoted them scores of times and by name. If this is the only inference which our author cares to draw, I cannot object. But it is not the inference which his words would suggest to the incautious reader; and it is not the inference which will a.s.sist his argument at all. Moreover this pa.s.sage ignores another distinction, which I showed to be required by the profession and practice alike of Eusebius. Eusebius relates of Hegesippus that he 'sets down some things from the Gospel according to the Hebrews' [183:3]; but, as our author correctly says, he does not directly mention his using our four Canonical Gospels. This is entirely in accordance with his procedure elsewhere. I showed that he makes it his business to note every single quotation from an apocryphal source, whereas he deliberately ignores any number of quotations from the Canonical Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. How else (to take a single instance) can we explain the fact that, in dealing with Irenaeus, he singles out the one anonymous quotation from the Shepherd of Hermas [184:1], and is silent about the two hundred quotations (a very considerable number of them by name) from the Pauline Epistles?

But the pa.s.sage which I have just given is not the only one in which the unwary reader will be entirely misled by this juggle between two meanings of the preposition 'about'. Thus our author has in several instances [184:2] tacitly altered the form of expression in his last edition; but the alteration is made in such a way as, while satisfying the letter of my distinction, to conceal its true significance. Thus he writes of Dionysius [184:3]--

EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION [184:4].

| It is certain that, had Dionysius | It is certain that had Dionysius _mentioned_ books of the New | _said anything about_ books Testament, Eusebius would, as | of the New Testament, Eusebius usual, have stated the fact. | would, as usual, have stated the | fact.

And again of Papias [184:5]--

EARLIER EDITIONS. | LAST EDITION.

| Eusebius, who never fails to | Eusebius, who never fails to _enumerate the works of the New | _state what the Fathers say about Testament to which the Fathers | the works of_ the New Testament, refer_, does not pretend that | does not mention that Papias Papias knew either the Third or | knew either the Third or Fourth Fourth Gospels. | Gospels.

These alterations tell their own tale. One meaning of the expression, 'say about,' is suggested to the reader by the context and required by the author's argument, while another is alone consistent with the facts.

Elsewhere however the distinction is not juggled away, but boldly ignored. Thus he still writes--

The presumption therefore naturally is that, as Eusebius did not mention the fact, he did not find any reference to the Fourth Gospel in the work of Papias [185:1].

I have shown that there is not any presumption--even the slightest--on this side.

Elsewhere he affirms still more boldly of Hegesippus--

It is certain that had he mentioned our Gospels, and we may say particularly the Fourth, the fact would have been recorded by Eusebius [185:2].

I have proved that, so far from this being certain, the probability is all the other way.

I confess that I cannot understand this treatment of the subject. It may indeed serve an immediate purpose. It may take in an unwary reader, or even a stray reviewer. I must suppose that it has even deceived the writer himself. But _magna est veritas_. My paper on the Silence of Eusebius was founded on an induction of facts; and therefore I feel confident that, unwelcome as these results are to the author of _Supernatural Religion_, and unexpected as they may be to many others, they must be ultimately accepted in the main.

The absence therefore of any direct mention by Eusebius respecting the use of the Third and Fourth Gospels by Papias affords no presumption one way or the other; and we must look elsewhere for light on the subject.

Unfortunately the fragments and notices of the work of Papias which have been preserved are very scanty. They might easily be compressed into less than two ordinary octavo pages, though the work itself extended to five books. It must therefore be regarded as a mere accident, whether we find in these meagre reliques the indications which we seek.

As regards St Luke, these indications are precarious and inadequate.

They may afford a presumption that Papias used this Gospel, but they will not do more. Independent writers indeed, like Credner and Hilgenfeld, are satisfied, from certain coincidences of expression in the preface of Papias, that he was acquainted with this Evangelist's record, though he did not attach any value to it; but I agree with the author of _Supernatural Religion_ in thinking that the inference is not warranted by the expressions themselves. It seems to me much more to the purpose that an extant fragment of Papias, in which he speaks of the overthrow of Satan and his angels, and their fall to the earth, appears to have been taken from an exposition of Luke x. 18 [186:1]. At least there is no other pa.s.sage in the Gospels to which it can so conveniently be referred. But obviously no great stress can be laid on this fact. It must indeed seem highly improbable that Papias should have been unacquainted with a Gospel which Marcion, a contemporary and a native of Asia Minor, thought fit to adapt to his heretical teaching, and which at this time is shown by the state of the text to have been no recent doc.u.ment [186:2]. But this is a consideration external to the evidence derivable from Papias himself.