{458}
to reconcile the discrepancy by a fanciful interpretation of the account of Papias. They suggest that the first part, in which the want of chronological order is pointed out, refers to the rough notes which Mark made during the actual preaching and lifetime of Peter, and that the latter part applies to our present Gospel, which he later remodelled into its present shape.(1) This most unreasonable and arbitrary application of the words of Papias is denounced even by apologists.(2)
It has been well argued that the work here described as produced by Mark in the character of [--Greek--] is much more one of the same family as the Clementine Homilies than of our Gospels.(3) The work was no systematic narrative of the history of Jesus, nor report of his teaching, but the dogmatic preaching of the Apostle, ill.u.s.trated and interspersed with pa.s.sages from the discourses of Jesus or facts from his life.(4) Of this character seems actually to have been that ancient work "The Preaching of Peter" [--Greek--], which was used by Heracleon,(5) and by Clement(6) of Alexandria as an authentic canonical work,(7) denounced by Origen(8)
{459}
on account of the consideration in which it was held by-many, but still quoted with respect by Gregory of n.a.z.ianzum.(1)
There can be no doubt that the [--Greek--] although it failed to obtain a permanent place in the canon, was one of the most ancient works of the Christian Church, dating probably from the first century, from which indeed the Clementine Homilies themselves were in all likelihood produced,(2) and, like the work described by Papias, it also was held to have been composed in Rome in connection with the preaching there of Peter and Paul.3 It must be noted, moreover, that Papias does not call the work ascribed to Mark a Gospel, but merely a record of the preaching of Peter.
It is not necessary for us to account for the manner in which the work referred to by the Presbyter John disappeared, and the present Gospel according to Mark became subst.i.tuted for it. The merely negative evidence that our actual Gospel is not the work described by Papias is sufficient for our purpose. Any one acquainted with the thoroughly uncritical character of the Fathers, and with the literary history of the early Christian Church, will readily conceive the facility with which this can have been accomplished. The great ma.s.s of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptic Gospels have a.s.sumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. These changes have not been effected without traces
{460}
being left by which the various materials may be separated and distinguished, but the more primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared, naturally supplanted by the later and amplified versions. The critic, however, who distinguishes between the earlier and later matter is not bound to perform the now impossible feat of producing the originals, or accounting in any but a general way for the disappearance of the primitive Gospel.
Teschendorf asks: "How then has neither Eusebius nor any other theologian of Christian antiquity thought that the expressions of Papias were in contradiction with the two Gospels (Mt. and Mk.)?"(1) The absolute credulity with which those theologians accepted any fiction, however childish, which had a pious tendency, and the frivolous character of the only criticism in which they indulged, render their unquestioning application of the tradition of Papias to our Gospels anything but singular, and it is only surprising to find their silent acquiescence elevated into an argument. We have already in the course of these pages seen something of the singularly credulous and uncritical character of the Fathers, and we cannot afford s.p.a.ce to give instances of the absurdities with which their writings abound. No fable could be too gross, no invention too transparent, for their unsuspicious acceptance, if it a.s.sumed a pious form or tended to edification. No period in the history of the world ever produced so many spurious works as the first two or three centuries of our era. The name of every Apostle, or Christian teacher, not excepting that of the great Master himself, was freely attached to every description of religious forgery.
False gospels, epistles, acts, martyrologies, were unscrupulously
{461}
circulated, and such pious falsification was not even intended or regarded as a crime, but perpetrated for the sake of edification. It was only slowly and after some centuries that many of these works, once, as we have seen, regarded with pious veneration, were excluded from the canon; and that genuine works shared this fate, whilst spurious ones usurped their places, is one of the surest results of criticism. The Fathers omitted to inquire critically when such investigation might have been of value, and mere tradition credulously accepted and transmitted is of no critical value.(1) In an age-when the multiplication of copies of any work was a slow process, and their dissemination a matter of difficulty and even danger, it is easy to understand with what facility the more complete and artistic Gospel could take the place of the original notes as the work of Mark.
The account given by Papias of the work ascribed to Matthew is as follows: "Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew dialect, and every one interpreted them as he was able."(2) Critics are divided in opinion as to whether this tradition was, like that regarding Mark, derived from the Presbyter John,(3) or is given merely on
1 Canon Westcott himself admits that "the proof of the Canon is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of the first two centuries." He says: "The spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical." On the Canon, p.
7 f.
{462}
the authority of Papias himself.(1) Eusebius joins the account of Mark to that given by Matthew merely by the following words: "These facts Papias relates concerning Mark; but regarding Matthew he has said as follows:"(2) Eusebius distinctly states that the account regarding Mark is derived from the Presbyter, and the only reason for ascribing to him also that concerning Matthew is that it is not excluded by the phraseology of Eusebius, and the two pa.s.sages being given by him consecutively--however they may have stood in the work of Papias--it is reasonable enough to suppose that the information was derived from the same source. The point is not of much importance, but it is clear that there is no absolute right to trace this statement to the Presbyter John, as there is in the case of the tradition about Mark.
This pa.s.sage has excited even more controversy than that regarding Mark, and its interpretation and application are still keenly debated. The intricacy and difficulty of the questions which it raises are freely admitted by some of the most earnest defenders of the Canonical Gospels, but the problem, so far as our examination is concerned, can be solved without much trouble. The dilemma in which apologists find themselves when they attempt closely to apply the description of this work given by Papias to our Canonical Gospel is the great difficulty which complicates the matter and prevents a
{463}
clear and distinct solution of the question. We shall avoid minute discussion of details, contenting ourselves with the broader features of the argument, and seeking only to arrive at a just conclusion as to the bearing of the evidence of Papias upon the claim to authenticity of our Canonical Gospel.
The first point which we have to consider is the nature of the work which is here described. Matthew is said to have composed the [--Greek--]
or Oracles, and there can be little doubt from the t.i.tle of his own book: "Exposition of the Lord"s Oracles" [--Greek--], that these oracles referred to by Papias were the Discourses of Jesus. Does the word Xoyta, however, mean strictly Oracles or discourses alone, or does it include within its fair signification also historical narrative? "Were the "Xoyta" here referred to a simple collection of the discourses of Jesus, or a complete Gospel like that in our Canon bearing the name of Matthew?
That the natural interpretation of the word is merely "Oracles" is indirectly admitted, even by the most thorough apologists, when they confess the obscurity of the expression--obscurity, however, which simply appears to exist from the difficulty of straining the word to make it apply to the Gospel. "In these sentences," says Tischendorf, referring to the pa.s.sage about Matthew, "there is much obscurity; for instance, it is doubtful whether we have rightly translated "Discourses of the Lord,"" and he can only extend the meaning to include historical narrative by leaving the real meaning of the word and interpreting it by supposed a.n.a.logy.
There can be no doubt that the direct meaning of the word Xoyta anciently and at the time of Papias was
{464}
simply: words or oracles of a sacred character, and however much the signification became afterwards extended, that it was not then at all applied to doings as well as sayings. There are many instances of this original and limited signification in the New Testament;(1) and 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 estimated as oracular or divine, nor is there any reason for thinking that [--Greek--] was here used in any other sense.(2) It is argued
{465}
on the other hand, that in the preceding pa.s.sage upon Mark, a more extended meaning of the word is indicated. The Presbyter John says that Mark, as the interpreter of Peter, wrote without order "the things which were either said or done by Christ" ([--Greek--]), and then, apologizing for him, he goes on to say that Peter, whom he followed, adapted his teaching to the occasion, "and not as making a consecutive record of the oracles [--Greek--] of the Lord." Here, it is said, the word [--Greek--]
is used in reference both to sayings and doings, and therefore in the pa.s.sage on Matthew [--Greek--] must not be understood to mean only [--Greek--], but also includes, as in the former case, the [--Greek--]. For these and similar reasons,--in very many cases largely influenced by the desire to see in these Xoyta our actual Gospel according to Matthew--many critics have maintained that [--Greek--] in this place may be understood to include historical narrative as well as discourses.(1) The arguments by which they arrive at this
{466}
conclusion, however, seem to us to be based upon thorough misconception of the direct meaning of the pa.s.sage. Few or none of these critics would deny that the simple interpretation of [--Greek--], at that period, was oracular sayings.(1) Papias shows his preference for discourses in the very t.i.tle of his lost book, "Exposition of the [--Greek--] of the Lord,"
and in the account which he gives of the works attributed to Mark and Matthew, the discourses evidently attracted his chief interest. Now, in the pa.s.sage regarding Mark, instead of [--Greek--] being made the equivalent of [--Greek--] and [--Greek--], the very reverse is the fact. The Presbyter says Mark wrote what he remembered of the things which were said or done by Christ, although not in order, and he apologizes for his doing this on the ground that he had not himself been a _hearer_ of the Lord, but merely reported what he had heard from Peter, who adapted his teaching to the occasion, and did _not_ attempt to give a consecutive record of the oracles [--Greek--] of the Lord. Mark, therefore, could not do so either. Matthew, on the contrary, he states, did compose the oracles [--Greek--]. There is an evident contrast made: Mark
{467}
wrote [--Greek--] because he had not the means of writing the oracles, but Matthew composed the [--Greek--].(1) 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.(2)
It is impossible upon any but arbitrary grounds, and from a foregone conclusion, to maintain that a work commencing with a detailed history of the birth and infancy of Jesus, his genealogy, and the preaching of John the Baptist, and concluding with an equally minute history of his betrayal, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection, and which relates all the miracles and has for its evident aim throughout the demonstration that Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus, could be ent.i.tled [--Greek--]: the oracles or discourses of the Lord.(3)
Partly for these, but also for other important reasons, some of which shall presently be referred to, the great majority of critics deny that the work described by Papias can be the same as the Gospel in our canon bearing the name of Matthew.(4) Whilst of those who
{468}
suppose that the (Aramaic) original of which Papias speaks may have been substantially similar to it in construction, very few affirm that the work did not receive much subsequent manipulation, addition, and alteration, necessarily including translation, before it a.s.sumed the form in which the Gospel now lies before us, and many of them altogether deny its actual apostolic origin.(1)
The next most important and obvious point is that the work described in this pa.s.sage was written by Matthew
{469}
in the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect, and each one who did not understand that dialect was obliged to translate as best he could. Our Gospel according to Matthew, however, is in Greek. Tischendorf, who is obliged to acknowledge the Greek originality of our actual Gospel, and that it is not a translation from another language, recognizes the inevitable dilemma in which this fact places apologists, and has, with a few other critics, no better argument with which to meet it than the simple suggestion that Papias must have been mistaken in saying that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.(1) Just as much of the testimony as is convenient or favourable is eagerly claimed by such apologists, and the rest, which destroys its applicability to our Gospel, is set aside as a mistake.
Tischendorf perceives the difficulty, but not having arguments to meet it, he takes refuge in feeling. "In this," he says, "there lies before us one of the most complicated questions, whose detailed treatment would here not be in place. For our part, we are fully at rest concerning it, in the conviction that the a.s.sumption by Papias of a Hebrew original text of Matthew, which already in his time cannot have been limited to himself and was soon repeated by other men, arises only from a misunderstanding."(3) It is difficult to comprehend why it should be considered out of place in a work specially written to establish the authenticity of the Gospels to discuss fully so vital a point, and its deliberate evasion in such a manner alone can be deemed out of place on such an occasion.(3)
{470}
We may here briefly remark that Teschendorf and others(1) repeat with approval the disparaging expressions against Papias which Eusebius, for dogmatic reasons, did not scruple to use, and in this way they seek somewhat to depreciate his testimony, or at least indirectly to warrant their free handling of it. It is true that Eusebius says that Papias was a man of very limited comprehension(2) [--Greek--], but this is acknowledged to be on account of his Millenarian opinions,(3) to which Eusebius was vehemently opposed. It must be borne in mind, however, that the Chiliastic pa.s.sage from Papias quoted by Irenaeus, and in which he certainly saw nothing foolish, is given on the authority of the Presbyter John, to whom, and not to Papias, any criticism upon it must be referred. If the pa.s.sage be not of a very elevated character, it is quite in the spirit of that age. The main point, however, is that in regard to the testimony of Papias we have little to
{471}
do with his general ability, for all that was requisite was the power to see, hear, and accurately state very simple facts. He repeats what is told him by the Presbyter, and in such matters we presume that the Bishop of Hierapolis must be admitted to have been competent.(1)
There is no point, however, on which the testimony of the Fathers is more invariable and complete than that the work of Matthew was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The first mention of any work ascribed to Matthew occurs in the account communicated by Papias, in which, as we have seen, it is distinctly said that Matthew wrote "in the Hebrew dialect."
Irenaeus, the next writer who refers to the point, says: "Matthew also produced a written Gospel amongst the Hebrews in their own dialect,"
and that he did not derive his information solely from Papias may be inferred from his going on to state the epoch of Matthew"s writings: "when Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome."(2) The evidence furnished by Pantaenus is certainly independent of Papias.
Eusebius states with regard to him: "Of these Pantaenus is said to have been one, and to have penetrated as far as India (Southern Arabia), where it is reported that he found the Gospel according to Matthew, which had been delivered before his arrival to some who had the knowledge of Christ, to whom Bartholomew, one of the Apostles, as it is said, had preached, and left them that writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters" [--Greek--]
{472}
[--Greek--].(1) Jerome gives a still more circ.u.mstantial account of this.
"Pantaenus found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve Apostles, had there (in India) preached the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew letters (quod Hebraicis Uteris scriptum), and which on returning to Alexandria he brought with him."(2) It is quite clear that this was no version specially made by Bartholomew, for had he translated the Gospel according to Matthew from the Greek, for the use of persons in Arabia, he certainly would not have done so into Hebrew.(3) Origen, according to Eusebius, "following the ecclesiastical canon," states what he has understood from tradition [--Greek--]
of the Gospels, and says: "The first written was that according to Matthew, once a publican, but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language."(4) Eusebius in another place makes a similar statement in his own name: "Matthew having first preached to the Hebrews when he was about to go also to others, delivered to them his Gospel written in their native language, and thus compensated those from whom he was departing for the want of his presence by the writing."(5) Cyril of Jerusalem says: "Matthew, who wrote the Gospel, wrote it in the Hebrew language."(6) Epiphanius, referring to the fact that the Nazarenes called the only Gospel which they
{473}