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.' 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 identity 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 he wrote a work in five books, entitled

1 Credner, Gesch N. T. Kanon, p. 76 ff.; Beiträge, i. p. 51; Reuss, Gesch. heil. Schr. N. T., p. 290; Ritschl, Entst. altk. Kirche, p. 268; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, 19; Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. P. 206 f., 238 f., 343 ff.; Volkmar, Der Ursprung, p. 57 f. Cf. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 184.

2

* Schwegler, Das nachap. Zeitalter, i. p. 206; Credner, Gesch. N. T. Kanon, p. 35, p. 143.

3 Eusebius, H. E., iii., 36, 39; Hieron., De Vir. Ill., 18.

4 Chron. Pasch., i. 481.

5 Anger, Synops. Evv., p. xiii. n. 4; Bleek, Einl. N. T., r.

94 f.;

Exposition of the Lord's Oracles" 1 (Λογίων κυριακῶν nymous), which, with the exception of a few fragments preserved to us chiefly by Eusebius and Irenæus, 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 multitude, 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 (Ov yàp rà ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν με ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον, ὅσον τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς καὶ μενούσης). It is clear from this that Papias preferred tradition to any written works with which he was acquainted, that he attached little or Bunsen, Bibelwerk, viii. p. 97; Delitzsch, Unters. Entst. Matth. Ev., p. 8, p. 10; Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr., vii. p. 226, anm. 1; Guericke, H'buch Kirchengesch., p. 204, anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 344; Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evv., p. 248; Nicolas, Etudes crit. N. T., p. 16, note 2; Renan, Vie de Jésus, xiiime ed. p. li.; Scholten, Das ält. Evang., p. 240; Thiersch, Versuch, p. 438; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u. s. w., p. 105, p. 113; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, 1870, p. 548, Der Ursprung, p. 59, p. 163; Westcott, On the Canon, p. 60, note 1; Weizsäcker, Unters. üb. d. evang. Gesch., p. 27; De Wette, Einl. N. T., p. 222; Zahn, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1866, p. 668.

1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 39,

* Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.

no value to any Gospels with which he had met,' 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 (EK Tарadóσews ȧypápov).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, Tischendorf 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., 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.

2 Baur, Unters. kan. Evv., p. 537; Credner, Beiträge, i. p. 23 f., 31 f.; Davidson, Introd. N. T., i. p. 468; Hilgenfeld, Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1865, p. 334 f.; Der Kanon, p. 13 ff., p. 20, p. 147; Holtzmann, Die synopt. Evv., p. 249 ff.; Gieseler, Entst. schr. Evv., p. 171 f., 178 ff., 199; Mayerhoff, Einl. petr. Schr., p. 235, anm., 1; Nicolas, Et. crit. N. T., p. 15 ff., 20 ff., 30 f.; Renan, Vie de Jésus, xiiime éd. p. li., p. liv. f.; Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 15 ff.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 176, p. 164. Cf. Tischendorf, Wann wurden u. s. w., p. 102, p. 109 f.

3 H. E. iii. 39. Bleek (Einl. N. T., 1866, p. 91.), Credner, (Beiträge, i. p. 23 f.; Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 27 f.), and others consider that Papias used oral tradition solely or mainly in his work. Hilgenfeld, (Zeitschr. w. Theol., 1875, p. 238 f.; Einl. N. T., 1875, p. 53 ff.) and others suppose that the Hebrew λóyia of Matthew were the basis of his Exposition, together with tradition, but that he did not use any of our Gospels.

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 identity of the Presbyter John, some affirming him to have been the Apostle,' but the great majority of critics deciding that he was a totally different person.2 Irenæus, 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” (ὁ Ἰωάννου μὲν ἀκουστὴς, Πολυκάρπου δὲ ἑταῖρος γεγονώς); but this is expressly contradicted by Eusebius, who points out that, in the preface to his book, Papias by no means asserts 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

1 Grabe, Spicil. Patr., ii. p. 27; Kirchhofer, Quellensamml., p. 30, amn. 2; Klostermann, Das Markusevang., p. 326; Leimbach, Das Papiasfragm., 1875, p. 17 ff.; Riggenbach, Die Zeugn. f. das Ev. Johann., 1866, p. 110 ff.; Routh, Reliq. Sacræ, i. p. 22 f.; Zahn, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1866, p. 665. Cf. Guericke, Gesammtgesch. p. 147 f. anm. 3; Renan, Vie de Jesus, xiiime éd., p. xi., p. lxxii. n. 1.

2 Bleek, Einl. N. T., p. 95; Credner, Einl. N. T., i. p. 69; Davidson, Intro. N. T., i. p. 314; Delitzsch, Unters. Entst. kan. Evv., p. 8; Ebrard, Wiss. krit. ev. Gesch., p. 767, anm. 2, p. 786; Ewald, Jahrb. bibl. Wiss., 1849, p. 205, Gesch. Volkes Isr., vi. p. 169 ff., vii. p. 226, anm. 1; Hilgenfeld, Die Evangelien, p. 339 f., Der Kanon, p. 13, p. 214, anm. 1; Hug, Einl. N. T., i. p. 57; Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., Augt. 1875, p. 379; Lücke, Einl. Offenb. Joh., 2 aufl. ii. p. 540 ff.; Mangold, zu Bleek's Einl. N. T.. 1875, p. 113 f. anm.; Meyer, Kr. ex. H'buch Ev. Matth., 5 aufl. p. 4; Nicolas, Et. cr. N. T., p. 14 f.; Reuss, Gesch. N. T., p. 175 ff.; Steitz, Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1868, p. 71 ff.; Scholten, Das ält. Evang., p. 241; Schott, Authen. d. kan. Ev. n. Matth., 1837, p. 87; Weiffenbach Die Papias-fragm., 1874, p. 26 ff.; Weizsäcker, Unters. üb. evang. Gesch., p. 28 f., anm. 2; Westcott, on the Canon, p. 59, and note 5.

3 Adv. Hær., v. 33, § 4; Eusebius, H. E., iii. 39.

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.' 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 passage quoted mentions two persons of the name of John, distinguishing the one from the other, and classing the one amongst the Apostles and the other after Aristion, an unknown "disciple of the Lord," and, but for the phrase of Irenæus, so characteristically uncritical and assumptive, there probably never would have been any doubt raised as to the meaning of the passage. 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.*

The account which the Presbyter John is said to have

1 Euseb., H. E., iii. 39. Cf. Hieron., De Vir. Ill. 18.

2 Ib., H. E., vii. Proem.

3 Ib., vii. 25. Cf. Hieron., De Vir. Ill., 9.

4 Ewald, Gesch. Volkes Isr., vii. p. 226, anm. 1; Tischendorf, Wann wurden u. s. w., p. 105. Dr. Lightfoot argues that the Chronicon Paschale, from which this date is derived, has inserted the name of Papias in mistake for Papylus, which stands in the History of Eusebius (iv. 15), from which, he contends, the author of the Chronicle derived his information. He, therefore, concludes that the above date may henceforth be dismissed, and at once proceeds in a singularly arbitrary manner to fix dates for the career of Papias which he considers more acceptable. The matter does not require elaborate argument here. Cf. Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., 1875, p. 381 ff.