{442}
same sense as that in the two Gospels, differs as materially from them both as they do from each other, and as we might expect a quotation taken from a different though kindred source, like the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to do. The whole of the pa.s.sages which we have examined, indeed, exhibit the same natural variation.
We have already referred to the expressions of Hegesippus regarding the heresies in the early Church: "From these sprang the false Christs, and false prophets, and _false apostles_ who divided the unity of the Church by corrupting doctrines concerning G.o.d and his Christ."(1) We have shown how this recalls quotations in Justin of sayings of Jesus foreign to our Gospels, in common with similar expressions in the Clementine Homilies,(2) Apostolic Const.i.tutions,(3) and Clementine Recognitions,(4) and we need not discuss the matter further. This community of reference, in a circle known to have made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, to matters foreign to our Synoptics, furnishes collateral ill.u.s.tration of the influence of that Gospel.
Tischendorf, who so eagerly searches for every trace, real or imaginary, of the use of our Gospels and of the existence of a New Testament Canon, pa.s.ses over in silence, with the exception of a short note(5) devoted to the denial that Hegesippus was opposed to Paul, this first writer of Christian Church history, whose evidence, could it have been adduced, would have been so valuable. He does not pretend that Hegesippus made use of the Canonical Gospels, or knew of any other Holy Scriptures
{443}
than those of the Old Testament, but, on the other hand, he does not mention that he possessed, and quoted from, the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is no reason for supposing that Hegesippus found a New Testament Canon in any of the Christian communities which he visited, and such a rule of faith certainly did not yet exist in Rome in a.d.
160-170.(1) There is no evidence whatever to show that Hegesippus recognized any other evangelical work than the Gospel according to the Hebrews, as the written source of his knowledge of the words of the Lord.(2)
2.
The testimony of Papias is of great interest and importance in connection with our inquiry, inasmuch as he is the first ecclesiastical writer who mentions the tradition that Matthew and Mark composed written records of the life and teaching of Jesus; but no question has been more continuously contested than that of the ident.i.ty of the works to which he refers with our actual Canonical Gospels. Papias was Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia,(3) in the first half of the second century, and is said to have suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius about a.d.
164-167.(4) About the middle of the second century(5)5 he wrote a work in five books, ent.i.tled
{444}
"Exposition of the Lord"s Oracles "(l) [--Greek--], which, with the exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and Irenaeus, is unfortunately, no longer extant. In the preface to his book he stated: "But I shall not hesitate also to set beside my interpretations all that I rightly learnt from the Presbyters, and rightly remembered, earnestly testifying to their truth. For I was not, like the mult.i.tude, taking pleasure in those who speak much, but in those who teach the truth, nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in those who record those delivered by the Lord to the faith, and which come from the truth itself. If it happened that any one came who had followed the Presbyters, I inquired minutely after the words of the Presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say, for I held that what was to be derived from books did not so profit me as that from the living and abiding voice"(2). [--Greek--]
It is clear from this that Papias preferred tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted, that he attached little or
{445}
no value to any Gospels with which he had met,(1) and that he knew absolutely nothing of Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament.(2) His work was evidently intended to furnish a collection of the discourses of Jesus completed from oral tradition, with his own expositions, and this is plainly indicated both by his own words, and by the statements of Eusebius who, amongst other things, mentions that Papias sets forth strange parables of the Saviour and teachings of his from unwritten tradition [--Greek--].(3) It is not, however, necessary to discuss more closely the nature of the work, for there is no doubt that written collections of discourses of Jesus existed before it was composed of which it is probable he made use.
The most interesting part of the work of Papias which is preserved to us is that relating to Matthew and
1 With reference to the last sentence of Papias, Teschendorf asks: "What books does he refer to here, perhaps our Gospels ? According to the expression this is not impossible, but from the whole character of the book in the highest degree improbable." (Wann wurden, u. s. w.t p. 109.) We know little or nothing of the "whole character" of the book, and what we do know is contradictory to our Gospels. The natural and only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.
{446}
Mark. After stating that Papias had inserted in his book accounts of Jesus given by Aristion, of whom nothing is known, and by the Presbyter John, Eusebius proceeds to extract a tradition regarding Mark communicated by the latter. There has been much controversy as to the ident.i.ty of the Presbyter John, some affirming him to have been the Apostle,(1) but the great majority of critics deciding that he was a totally different person.(2) Irenseus, who, sharing the Chiliastic opinions of Papias, held him in high respect, boldly calls him "the hearer of John" (meaning the Apostle) "and a companion of Polycarp"
[--Greek--](3) but this is expressly contradicted by Eusebius, who points out that, in the preface to his book, Papias by no means a.s.serts that he was himself a hearer of the Apostles, but merely that he received their doctrines from those who had personally known them;(3) and after making the quotation from Papias which we have given
{447}
above, he goes on to point out that the name of John is twice mentioned, once together with Peter, James, and Matthew, and the other Apostles, "evidently the Evangelist," and the other John he mentions separately, ranking him amongst those who are not Apostles, and placing Aristion before him, distinguishing him clearly by the name of Presbyter.(1) He further refers to the statement of the great Bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius,(2) that at Ephesus there were two tombs, each bearing the name of John, thereby leading to the inference that there were two men of the name.(3) There can be no doubt that Papias himself in the pa.s.sage quoted mentions two persons of the name of John, distinguishing the one from the other, and cla.s.sing the one amongst the Apostles and the other after Aristion, an unknown "disciple of the Lord," and, but for the phrase of Irenaeus, so characteristically uncritical and a.s.sumptive, there probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning of the pa.s.sage. The question is not of importance to us, and we may leave it, with the remark that a writer who suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius, c. a.d. 165, can scarcely have been a hearer of the Apostles.(4)
The account which the Presbyter John is said to have
{448}
given of Mark"s Gospel is as follows: ""This also the Presbyter said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, though he did not arrange in order the things which were either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; but afterwards, as I said,(1) accompanied Peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and not as making a consecutive record of the Lord"s oracles. Mark, therefore, committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For of one point he was careful, to omit none of the things which he heard, and not to narrate any of them falsely." These facts Papias relates concerning Mark."(2) The question to decide is, whether the work here described is our Canonical Gospel or not.
The first point in this account is the statement that Mark was the interpreter of Peter [--Greek--]. Was he merely the secretary of the Apostle writing in a manner from his dictation, or does the pa.s.sage mean that he translated the Aramaic narrative of Peter into
1 Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Bev., 1875, p. 842), in the course of a highly fanciful argument says, in reference to this "as I said": "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." It is quite clear that he refers back, but only to the preceding sentence in which he "had already said something of the relations" in stating the fact that: "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote, &c."
{449}
Greek?(1) The former is the more probable supposition and that which is most generally adopted, but the question is not material here. The connection of Peter with the Gospel according to Mark was generally affirmed in the early Church, as was also that of Paul with the third Gospel,{2} with the evident purpose of claiming apostolic origin for all the Canonical Gospels.(3) Irenaeus says: "After their decease (Peter and Paul), Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter delivered to, us in writing that which had been preached by Peter."(4) Eusebius quotes a similar tradition from Clement of Alexandria, embellished however with further particulars. He says: "... The cause for which the Gospel according to Mark was written was this: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and proclaimed the Gospel by the Spirit, those who were present being many, requested Mark, as he had followed him from afar and remembered what he had said, to write down what he had spoken; and when he had composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had asked it of him; which when Peter knew he neither absolutely hindered nor encouraged it*"(5) Tertullian repeats the same tradition. He says:
{450}
"And the Gospel which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter"s, whose interpreter Mark was.... for it may rightly appear that works which disciples publish are of their masters."(l) We have it again from Origen: "The second (Gospel) is according to Mark, written as Peter directed him."(2) Eusebius gives a more detailed and advanced version of the same tradition. "So much, however, did the effulgence of piety illuminate the minds of those (Romans) who heard Peter, that it did not content them to hear but once, nor to receive only the unwritten doctrine of the divine teaching, but with reiterated entreaties they besought Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed, as the companion of Peter, that he should leave them a written record of the doctrine thus orally conveyed. Nor did they cease their entreaties until they had persuaded the man, and thus became the cause of the writing of the Gospel called according to Mark. They say, moreover, that the Apostle (Peter) having become aware, through revelation to him of the Spirit, of what had been done, was delighted with the ardour of the men, and ratified the work in order that it might be read in the churches. This narrative is given by Clement in the sixth book of his Inst.i.tutions, whose testimony is supported by that of Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis."(3)
{451}
The account given by Clement, however, by no means contained these details, as we have seen. In his "Demonstration of the Gospel" Eusebius, referring to the same tradition, affirms that it was the modesty of Peter which prevented his writing a Gospel himself.(1) Jerome almost repeats the preceding account of Eusebius: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being entreated by the brethren of Rome, wrote a short Gospel according to what he had received from Peter, which when Peter heard, he approved, and gave his authority for its being read in the Churches, as Clement writes in the sixth book of his Inst.i.tutions,"(3) &c. Jerome moreover says that Peter had Mark for an interpreter, "whose Gospel was composed: Peter narrating and he writing"
(cujus evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente compositum est).(3) It is evident that all these writers merely repeat with variations the tradition regarding the first two Gospels which Papias originated.
Irenaeus dates the writing of Mark after the death of Peter and Paul in Rome. Clement describes Mark as writing during Peter"s life, the Apostle preserving absolute neutrality. By the time of Eusebius, however, the tradition has acquired new and miraculous elements and a more decided character--Peter is made aware of the undertaking of Mark through a revelation of the Spirit, and instead of being neutral is delighted and lends the work the weight of his authority. Eusebius refers to Clement and Papias as giving the same account, which they do
{452}
not, however, and Jerome merely repeats the story of Eusebius without naming him, and the tradition which he had embellished thus becomes endorsed and perpetuated. Such is the growth of tradition;(l) it is impossible to overlook the mythical character of the information we possess as to the origin of the second Canonical Gospel.(2)
In a Gospel so completely inspired by Peter as the tradition of Papias and of the early Church indicates, we may reasonably expect to find unmistakable traces of Petrine influence, but on examination it will be seen that these are totally wanting.(3) Some of the early Church did not fail to remark this singular discrepancy between the Gospel and the tradition of its dependence on Peter, and in reply Eusebius adopts an apologetic tone.(4) For instance, in the brief account of the calling of Simon in
1 A similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as to the place in which the Gospel was written, Irenaeus and others dating it from Rome, and others (as Chrysostom, in Matth. Homil., i.), a.s.signing it to Egypt. Indeed some MSS.
of the second Gospel have the words [--Greek--] in accordance with this tradition as to its origin. Cf. Scholz, Einl. N.
T., i. p. 201. Various critics have argued for its composition at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. We do not go into the discussion as to whether Peter ever was in Rome.
{453}
Mark, the distinguishing addition: "called Peter," of the first Gospel is omitted,(1) and still more notably the whole narrative of the miraculous draught of fishes, which gives the event such prominence in the third Gospel.(2) In Matthew, Jesus goes into the house of "Peter" to cure his wife"s mother of a fever, whilst in Mark it is "into the house of Simon and Andrew," the less honourable name being still continued.(3) Matthew commences the catalogue of the twelve by the pointed indication: "The first, Simon, who is called Peter,"(4) thus giving him precedence, whilst Mark merely says: "And Simon he surnamed Peter."(5) The important episode of Peter"s walking on the sea, of the first Gospel,(6) is altogether ignored by Mark. The enthusiastic declaration of Peter: "Thou art the Christ,"(7) is only followed by the chilling injunction to tell no one, in the second Gospel,(8) whilst Matthew not only gives greater prominence to the declaration of Peter, but gives the reply of Jesus: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona," &c,--of which Mark apparently knows nothing,--and then proceeds to the most important episode in the history of the Apostle, the celebrated words by which the surname of Peter was conferred upon him: "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church," &c.(9) The Gospel supposed to be inspired by Peter, however, totally omits this most important pa.s.sage; as it also does the miracle of the finding the tribute money in the fish"s mouth, narrated by the first Gospel.(10) Luke states that "Peter
{454}
and John "are sent to prepare the Pa.s.sover, whilst Mark has only "two disciples;"(1) and in the account of the last Supper, Luke gives the address of Jesus to Peter: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you (all) that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."(2) Of this Mark does not say a word. Again, after the denial, Luke reads: "And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter, and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, &c, and Peter went out and wept bitterly;"(3) whereas Mark omits the reproachful look of Jesus, and makes the penitence of Peter depend merely on the second crowing of the c.o.c.k, and further modifies the penitence by the omission of "bitterl"--"
And when he thought thereon he wept."(4) There are other instances to which we need not refer. Not only are some of the most important episodes in which Peter is represented by the other Gospels as a princ.i.p.al actor altogether omitted, but throughout the Gospel there is the total absence of anything which is specially characteristic of Petrine influence and teaching. The argument that these omissions are due to the modesty of Peter is quite untenable, for not only does Irenaeus, the most ancient authority on the point, state that this Gospel was only written after the death of Peter,(5) but also there is no modesty in omitting pa.s.sages of importance in the history of Jesus, simply because Peter himself was in some way concerned in them, or, for instance, in decreasing his penitence for such a denial
{455}
of his master, which could not but have filled a sad place in the Apostle"s memory. On the other hand, there is no adequate record of special matter, which the intimate knowledge of the doings and sayings of Jesus possessed by Peter might have supplied, to counterbalance the singular omissions. There is infinitely more of the spirit of Peter in the first Gospel than there is in the second. The whole internal evidence, therefore, shows that this part of the tradition of the Presbyter John transmitted by Papias does not apply to our Gospel.
The discrepancy, however, is still more marked when we compare with our actual second Gospel the account of the work of Mark which Papias received from the Presbyter. Mark wrote down from memory some parts [--Greek--] of the teaching of Peter regarding the life of Jesus, but as Peter adapted his instructions to the actual circ.u.mstances [--Greek--], and did not give a consecutive report [--Greek--] of the sayings or doings of Jesus, Mark was only careful to be accurate, and did not trouble himself to arrange in historical order [--Greek--] his narrative of the things which were said and done by Jesus, but merely wrote down facts as he remembered them. This description would lead us to expect a work composed of fragmentary reminiscences of the teaching of Peter, without regular sequence or connection. The absence of orderly arrangement is the most prominent feature in the description, and forms the burden of the whole. Mark writes "what he remembered;" "he did not arrange in order the things that were either said or done by Christ;" and then follow the apologetic expressions of explanation--he was not himself a hearer or follower of the Lord, but derived his
{456}
information from the occasional preaching of Peter, who did not attempt to give a consecutive narrative. Now it is impossible in the work of Mark here described to recognize our present second Gospel, which does not depart in any important degree from the order of the other two Synoptics, and which, throughout, has the most evident character of orderly arrangement Each of the Synoptics compared with the other two would present a similar degree of variation, but none of them could justly be described as not arranged in order or as not being consecutive. The second Gospel opens formally, and after presenting John the Baptist as the messenger sent to prepare the way of the Lord, proceeds to the baptism of Jesus, his temptation, his entry upon public life, and his calling of the disciples. Then, after a consecutive narrative of his teaching and works, the history ends with a full and consecutive account of the last events in the life of Jesus, his trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, There is in the Gospel every characteristic of artistic and orderly arrangement, from the striking introduction by the prophetic voice crying in the wilderness to the solemn close of the marvellous history.(1) The great majority of critics, therefore, are agreed in concluding that the account of the Presbyter John recorded by Papias does not apply to our second Canonical Gospel at all.(2) Many
{457}
of those who affirm that the description of Papias may apply to our second Gospel(1) do so with hesitation, and few maintain that we now possess the original work without considerable subsequent alteration.
Some of these critics, however, feeling the difficulty of identifying our second Gospel with the work here described, endeavour