63 ^ 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 T, I BRARY 
 
 The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz 
 
 Book Endowment for the Humanities 
 
 Class of 1924 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSJTY LIBRARY 
 
 3 1924 096 083 575 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis bool^ is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924096083575 
 
The Oracles of Matthew According to Papias 
 
THE 
 
 OIUOLES ASOEIBED TO MAITHE^^ 
 
 BY 
 
 PAPIAS or HIEllArOLIS 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION TO 
 THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 WlTir Ain'ENDIOUS ON TJIK 
 
 AUTItOnSlllI- or this UE vita COXTK.MrLATlVA, 
 
 Till-; DATE OF THE CUUClrJXlON, AND THE DATE Ol" THE 
 
 JIAJITYUDOM OF I'OLYCAKP 
 
 LONDON 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK : 15 EAST lO"' STREET 
 
 1304 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
PBEFACE 
 
 The following monograph is a contribution to the 
 criticism of the New Testament. The views put for- 
 ward in it are shortly those. That the famous work, 
 Aoyiaiv KvpiuKbiv i^ijyrjais, by Pa2Jias of Hierapolis, 
 about which bo much has been written, was upon 
 the interpretation of Messianic prophecies, and that 
 the work referred to in it, and attributed to Mat- 
 thew, consisted of a collection of Messianic prophe- 
 cies in Hebrew, extracted from the Old Testament, 
 and perhaps from other books. 
 
 1 was led to conclusions which diifer so much from 
 those put forward by most critics, in the follow- 
 ing way. After reading the argument in the work 
 entitled ' Supernatural Ilehgion,' upon the gospel 
 quotations in Justin Martyr, I was desirous of 
 testing the matter by examining the quotations 
 as they stood in the text of that father. After 
 examining a considerable number of these quota- 
 tions, I came to the conclusion that while there were 
 many short passages, which, considered by them- 
 selves, might well be supposed to have been quoted 
 from the canonical gospels, it was not reasonable 
 to sujjpose that any of Justin's long quotations came 
 
VI 
 
 ritHl'ACK 
 
 from the canonical gospels. All of them I have 
 examined exliibit the following peculiarities. They 
 consist of phrases, resembling sometimes one and 
 sometimes another of the canonical gospels, and of 
 other phrases not found in any of them, woven 
 together, so as in each case to form a perfectly co- 
 herent whole. No quotation ever follows any one of the 
 canonical gospels consecutively for more than a line or 
 two. There is nothing about the quotations that in the 
 least suggests that they are paraphrased or quoted 
 merely from memory. Between them and the canoni- 
 cal gospels must be interposed the labour of some one 
 who has deliberately cut a text to pieces and re- 
 arranged it. It is impossible to suppose that Justin, 
 by merely quoting from the canonical gospels, would 
 have made this mosaic' After examining a consider- 
 
 ' Dr. Sanday lias endcavourecl to set against this argument tlic 
 mixed quotationa found in tlie Fatheis from tlie Old Testiuncnt. 
 I am disposed, on the other hand, to draw from tliese mixed quota- 
 tions the inference tliat the Fathers quoted the Old Testament in 
 such cases from secondary sources, that is to say, that collections of 
 texts upon particular topics were made either by the persons making 
 the quotations or other authors, and that such collections were the 
 immediate source of the quotations. These mixed quotations are 
 not a probable result of loose citation or of unconscious cerebration. 
 It must be remembered that evidence which is conclusive that the 
 citation, mediately or immediately, is derived from the Old Testa- 
 ment, is not in a parallel case in a writer as old as Justin at all 
 conclusive that an ovanKclical quotation camo from one of the 
 canonical gospels. For, as regards the Old Testament citations, we 
 know that, however devious may have been the road, the Old Testa- 
 ment is the ultimate source of them ; but as regards evangelical 
 quotations, on the other hand, we know from internal evidence that 
 the canonical gospels are not original books ; in fact, that they are 
 many removes from original books. 
 
 ■ — The probabilityVtherefore, of an evangelical citation in a writer 
 before the time of Irenaeus coming, not from the canonical gospels, 
 but from some one of the works upon which they are founded, or 
 from some parallel work derived from the same materials, is very 
 great. 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 vn 
 
 able number of gospel quotations, I determined to 
 test Justin's habits of quotation by comparing some 
 of his Old Testament quotations with the LXX. I 
 readily found long quotations which followed the 
 LXX verbatim, sometimes with a various I'eading or 
 two, through whole chapters. On the other hand, 
 there were short quotations which were very different 
 from the LXX. These hitter 1 noticed to consist of 
 passages explained as Messianic projohecies, some but 
 not all of which were also quoted to a great extent in 
 the same words in INfatthcw. I hence drew the con- 
 clusion that Justin got the Old Testament quotations 
 which did not come from the LXX out of his gospel, 
 and I accounted for those which are not found in any 
 of the canonical gospels, by supposing that his gospel 
 cited more Messianic pro2)hecies than the present 
 canonical gospels do. It was not till some years after- 
 wards that, on reading Davidson's ' Introduction to 
 the New Testament,' I became acquainted with Bleek's 
 analysis of the Old Testament quotations in the 
 synoptic gospels ; I was then struck by its agreement 
 with the phenomenon I had noticed in Justin Martyr. 
 Putting the two things together, the explanation 
 suggested itself to me of a work in Aramaic, upon 
 the interpretation of Messianic jiropliccy, which had 
 been part of the materials out of which the canonical 
 gospels were compiled. Now 1 had already formed 
 the conclusion that the books attributed by Papias to 
 Matthew and Mark were rather materials out of which 
 the canonical gospels had been partly compiled, than 
 any of those gospels. The consideration, therefore, sug- 
 gested itself whether this hook on Messianic prophecy 
 could be the book written in Hebrew which was at- 
 tributed by Papias to Matthew. 
 
via 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 It wa3 after this that I carefully studied Dr. Light- 
 foot's essays in the ' Contemporary Review.' I here 
 saw that in all the instances <^ivon by him, that wore 
 before or not long after the time of I'apias, the word 
 Xoyia was applied to the Old Testament. This 
 suggested to me the interpretation I have maintained 
 in the following essay, and I accordingly set to work 
 to collect all the instances I could of the use of the 
 word, with the result of confirming the suggestion. 
 As I have said, the conclusions I have come to differ 
 from those of most critics, orthodox and unorthodox ; 
 but as they are based upon a considerable induction, I 
 have determined to publish them. 
 
 I ought to add that I am not under any direct 
 obligation to Credner in respect of the portion of this 
 monograph which deals with the Old Testament 
 quotations from Justin Martyr. I did not ))ccome 
 acquainted with the nature of Credner's work until 
 I had well-nigh done, when I learned about it from 
 Dr. Sanday's ' Gospels in the Second Century.' If I 
 had obtained the knowledge e&rlier I should have en- 
 deavoured to avail myself of the assistance which no 
 doubt could have been derived from that source. 
 
 February 1894. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Cinr. l'*''f- 
 
 I. Intiioihictouy . ■ 1 
 
 II. TlIK IlATK <)1' 1'aI'IAS ... . . (1 
 
 III. John Tiir. Ei.deii ... . . . 3!i 
 
 IV. The VAiaous keadinos Kiywf and Ao^Uc . 4.') 
 V. The MEANiNii OF THE woiii) \6yia . . .48 
 
 VI. Till-; JIEAMNll OK PaI'IAS . . . . H'i 
 
 VII. Llkek'b analysis of the Old Testament guoT.trioNS in 
 
 THE OOSl'El.S 12!) 
 
 VIII. The synoptic oosi'EI..s taiitly fhom Giieek and paiitlv 
 
 FllOM AllAMAIC KOUIICES 134 
 
 IX. SouiiCE OK Messianic riioriiECiES common to Matthew 
 
 AND .Iustin Mautyh 14(! 
 
 X. Source of some Messianic riioniEciES in Justin Mautyh 
 
 not found in Matthew . . .... 185 
 
 XI. Conclusions 203 
 
 XII. Messianic I'ltoi'jn-.ciEs not found in canonical hooks . . 200 
 
 Al'I'KNDIX 
 
 I. KeMAHKS UI'ON the TUANSLATION of the FllAOMENT OF 
 
 Pai'ias helatino to Maiik 
 
 II. Places in the LXX containing the woiid \6-fiov 
 
 III. PllILO, the AlTlIim OF THE ' DE VlTA OoNTEMl'LATIVA ' 
 
 22.5 
 227 
 227 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 IV. Various guoiAxioNs and nENDEniNaa of Ibaiai, xlii. 2-4 . 
 
 VI. 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 IX. 
 
 X. 
 
 XI. 
 
 Index 
 
 TnANBLATION OF EusEDICS's 'ECCLESIASTICAL HiSIonv > 
 
 Book III. cap. 39 ... _ 
 Date of the Cbucifixion of Jesus 
 Extract from George Hamartolus and note from thk 
 
 OODEX BaROCCUNUS AS TO THE JIARTYBDOM OF JoHN 
 
 Extracts from Anastasius of Sinai 
 The NOTICE OF Papias DY John Malalas . 
 Extracts from Diontsius the Areopaoite and Maximus 
 the Confessor 
 
 The date OP the martyrdom OF POLTCARP 
 
 I*Anr.; 
 230 
 
 232 
 230 
 
 242 
 245 
 240 
 
 240 
 247 
 
 209 
 
 THE ORACLES ASCRIBED TO MAHHEW 
 BY PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS 
 
 CHAl'TEU I 
 
 INTRODUCTORY 
 
 Papias, who, according to Eusebius, was Bishop of 
 Hierapolis in the first decade of the second century, 
 wrote a work in five boolvs, entitled Aoyicov KvpiaKoiv 
 E^i]yr)(Tts, which, to avoid begging the question I have 
 to consider, has been translated. An Exposition of 
 Dominical Oracles. This work is lost, all but a few 
 extracts. One of these extracts, preserved l)y Eusebius, 
 roliites to 11 book written by Matthew, and another to 
 a book written by Mark. The question I proi^ose to 
 consider is what relation (if any) the former work 
 bears to the canonical gospel ascribed to Matthew. 
 
 The extract, which is very short, is as follows : 
 ' Matthew wrote the Oracles (to, \6yia a-vvsypdyjraTo) 
 in the Hebrew languiigo, and each man interpreted 
 them as ho was able.' 
 
-s 'I'lIK OIUCLES OF I'ATIAS 
 
 Tho extract relating to Mark is longer :— 
 
 ' and this is wliat tho Elder said, Mark having hecome tho 
 interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, hut without arrange- 
 ment (oi fiiv Tot Tu't'ft), as many tilings as he related 
 {il>.v7}iuivtv<T(v) cither said or done by Christ. 
 
 ' For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but 
 afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter, who used to make 
 his teaching according to the occasion, and not as making 
 a systematic disquisition (o-uWaf.^) upon the Dominical 
 oracles (or discourses, according as the reading is Aoyi'o)^ or 
 A^V""). so that Mark did not act wrongly when he thus 
 wrote some things as he related them. For of one thing 
 he took care, not to pass by any of the things which he 
 heard, or to falsify anything in them.' ' 
 
 These extracts were long taken (by Paley, for 
 example =) as evidence that the canonical gospels of 
 Matthew and Mark were known to Papias, and as- 
 cribed by him to the authors whose names they now 
 bear. Of late years, however, another theory has 
 been put forward : that the canonical gospels were 
 first circulated anonymously ; that Christians became 
 curious to ascertain the names of their authors ; and 
 that these passages of Papias were laid h»ld of for 
 the purpose, and the anonymous books in use in 
 the Church" identified Vith the books mentioned by 
 Papias. 
 
 There is considerablo reason to think that tho 
 gospels were, in fact, originally circulated anony- 
 mously. 
 
 For instance, when Clement of Alexandria wishes 
 to describe the two gospels which in his opinion were 
 written first, he says, not Matthew and Luke, but 
 
 See Appendix i. 
 
 " Evidence! in. 6. 
 
 ]NTliOUUCT01iV 3 
 
 ' those which contain the genealogies,' Trpoyeypucpflai 
 ro)V suayyeXiccv ra 'Trepie-)(^ovTa Ttis ysveaXoyias ' — an 
 inconvenient circumlocution, wliicii lie would Bcarccly 
 have used had he not known that liic inaiiuscrijits 
 in the IuiihIh of many of bis I'eadiu's had no names 
 attached by wliicli they could be cited. - 
 
 When we look closely at the words of Eusebius, 
 we see that he docs not say that the books referred to 
 were the canonical gospels. The one extract he says 
 was about Matthew, doubtless meaning the apostle, 
 and the other about Mark, who wrote the gospel, not 
 about the gospel written by Mark. This is only 
 material in considering how far the lost context of 
 the passages cited may have borne out the current 
 opinion, and we see that Eusebius does not jjledge 
 himself that it did.^ 
 
 But to come to the passages themselves. The 
 statement as to Matthew is on all sides understood to 
 mean that he wrote, not in Hebrew properly so called, 
 but in the language called Aramajan or Aramaic. 
 Taking this to be so, it is utterly inap2)licable to the 
 
 ' Eusebius, H. K. lib. vi. cap. 14. 
 
 " Accoiilin),' to Semiscb, Clement of Alexandria in his very nume- 
 rous citations from the Gospels names .John but three times, Matthew 
 twice, Luke twice, and Mark once. See The Fourth Gospel : External 
 Kvulvncca of Authorship, by Ezra Abbot, \t. 72. 
 
 ^ III aiuithri' |ibu:i', //. /'.'. lib. ii. cii|i. 1.'), ]''iiscbiu.'< tells, on the 
 iiiitliority of C'lt-iiii'hl. ol AN'Miiuhiii, a slory of Mark writiiiK hiM 
 gosi>ol at the rutiiiust of hearers of Pt'ler ; which reads very like a 
 version of the account contained in the foregoing extract, referred 
 til the canonical gospel of Mark, and amplified ; and then says that 
 I'apiiis corroborates Clement. This, however, by no means deprives 
 of its signilicanee the fact that when JOusebiiis was actually piloting 
 I'apias, and may therefore be supposed to have had his book before 
 him, he refrained from saying explicitly that the extract related to 
 the gospel. In another place, H. K. lib. iii. cap. 24, Eusebius says 
 that Matthew wrote his gospel in his native tongue. But he migln 
 have got this from Ireniuus. Bee 11. K. lib. v. cap. S. 
 
 11 2 
 
4 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 canonical gospel. For the passage implies that the 
 interpretation of the book was a task of which every- 
 body was in some measure capable, but only with dif- 
 ficulty. Now the word r)pfi^vsvare ( = interpreted) may 
 be taken to mean either 'explained' or 'translated.' 
 If the former, there is nothing about the gospel of 
 Matthew which could make it difficult to be under- 
 stood by a contemporary who understood the language 
 in which it was written. If the latter, the statement 
 is equally unintelligible. Aramaic was not a learned 
 language. The Christians of Palestine, whose mother- 
 tongue it was, understood it perfectly. The Greek 
 Christians did not understand it at all. Where then 
 is the meaning of saying that everyone interpreted 
 it as he was able ? 
 
 When we come to the passage referring to Mark, 
 we see a book described of a character altogether 
 different from the canonical gospel : ' Things said and 
 done by Christ without arrangement ' — such a book as 
 a man might have written who had listened to teach- 
 ing, not in itself containing a consecutive narrative. 
 
 In order, however, to ascertain exactly the mean- 
 ing of Papias, it is necessary to ascertain the sense 
 in which he used the word \oyta, or oracles. Now 
 the subject of his work being ' An Exposition of 
 Dominica] Xo'^ia, or oracles,' the obvious motive ho 
 would have in making the remarks cited by Eusebius 
 would be to collect what other writers had done with 
 regard to the same topic. It is, therefore, probable 
 that the word Xoym is used in the same sense through- 
 out the citations. It, therefore, becomes material to 
 determine whether it was cited twice or thrice, for in 
 the latter case we have three equations, so to say, for 
 
 INTHODUCTOKY 5 
 
 determining its meaning, and in the former only two. 
 In order to do this it will be necessary to consider 
 whether Xoyiiov or Xoycov is the preferable reading in 
 the passage relating to Mark ; and finally, as the 
 intendment of the word Xoyvov varied from time to 
 time, it is necessary to determine as accurately as 
 may be tlie date of Papias. I will consider these 
 questions in the opposite order to that in which I have 
 stated them, that is to say : first, the date at which 
 Papias wrote ; secondly, the question concerning the 
 text ; thirdly, the meaning of the word \6yiov. 
 
THE ORACLES OP I'Al'IAS 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 Tub first question to consider then with regard to 
 these extracts from Papias is at what time they were 
 written. The commonly received account, based on 
 the Paschal Chronicle, is that Papias suffered death 
 by martyrdom in the year 164 a.d. ; in which case it 
 would be improbable that he could have written a 
 book of the sort attributed to him before the third 
 decade of the second century. But I think Dr. 
 Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham,' has proved, 
 from remarkable coincidences of language, that this 
 story of the martyrdom of Papias arose from the 
 writer of the Chronicle applying to him a statement 
 made by Eusebius as to one Papylus ; and we may 
 therefore disregard it, and pass on to the other evi- 
 dence as to the date of Papias. 
 
 The direct evidence upon the subject is contained 
 in the following notices in the Ecclesiastical History of 
 Eusebius: — 
 
 Book III. cap. 84. 
 
 ' In the third year of the reign of the above-mentioned 
 emperor (that is, Trajan) Clement, Bishop of Eome, 
 departed this life. . . .' 
 
 ' Essays on Supernatural Religion, p. 147 ; 
 in the Contemporary ICcvicw. 
 
 originally published 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 Cap. 35. 
 
 ' But Symeon also having ended his days in the way I 
 have declared, a Jew of tlie name of Justus received in his 
 stead the throne of the bishopric at Jerusalem. . . .' 
 
 Cap. 3G. 
 
 • About their time Polycarp, a pupil of the Apostles, 
 was eminent in Asia, having had put into his hands the 
 bishopric of the Church at Smyrna, from those who were 
 eye-witnesses and assistants of the Lord. About whose 
 time Papias was becoming known, being himself Bishop of 
 
 the see of Hierapolis.' (Ka^' ov iyvnipi^ero Ilan-tas Trji 
 iv \fpaTr6\fi TrapoiKia^ icai avTos cVicrKOTrot. ) 
 
 The next date given by Eusebius, that of the acces- 
 sion of Primus, Bishop of Alexandria, is the twelfth year 
 of Trajan. This is at the very beginning of Book IV. 
 of the Ecclesiastical History, and immediately follows 
 the notice of the writings of Papuis which concludes 
 Book III. 
 
 Eusebius, therefore, says that Papias was not 
 merely Bishop of Hierapolis, but getting inta note 
 about the year a.d. 101, or a few years after. The 
 inference would be that the only work by which he 
 was known was written before that date. 
 
 In coming to this conclusion I have not thought it 
 necessary to enter into an investigation of the date 
 of the martyrdom of Symeon. It is a question too 
 obscure to throw Ught on anything else. A Syriac 
 Chronicle, perhaps on the authority of this very 
 passage, places it a.d.' 104, and M. Waddington has 
 assigned the date when Herodes Atticus, by whose 
 order it is alleged to have taken place, was Consular 
 Legate of Palestine to the years a.d. 105-107, his 
 
^ 
 
 8 
 
 TJIE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 THE DATE OK TAl'IAS 
 
 9 
 
 reason for this being that these are the only years 
 about that time when he has not evidence that other 
 persons held that office.' When one couples the diffi- 
 culty of assigning a date to Herodes Atticus with the 
 statement that Symeon was a hundred and twenty 
 years old at the time he was martyred, one is apt to 
 suspect that the whole story is a fable. However this 
 may be, no inference can be drawn from it that will 
 seriously affect the above conclusion as to the date of 
 Papias. 
 
 Irenaeus describes Papias as the hearer of John, 
 meaning the apostle, the companion of Polycarp, and 
 a man of primitive times, apxalos dvijp. Now I think 
 Eusebius is successful in showing that Irenaeus is 
 wrong in describing Papias as a hearer of the apostle 
 John ; still the fact that he describes him in the way 
 above stated is not without weight in determining his 
 date. It is language a man would not use of his own 
 contemporary, even of a man who had flourished in 
 his youth. We may therefore safely, on the testimony 
 of Irenaeus, put the period of living memory, or sixty 
 years at the least, between the time at which Irenaeus 
 was writing and the date of the work of Papias he had 
 in view. This would make the latest date to which 
 the work of Pajiias could be assigned about a.d. 130 ; 
 but of course the testimony of Irenaeus would favour 
 a much earlier date. 
 
 Eusebius also speaks of ecclesiastical writers gene- 
 rally having been induced by the antiquity of Papias 
 to adopt his opinions concerning the millennium. This 
 would seem to show that he had evidence before him, 
 by reason of the notices contained in different writers, 
 ' Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, vol. ii. part 2, sect. i. pp. 445, 450. 
 
 by which to fix the date of Papias, and that these 
 notices favoured an caily date. Such a writer, for 
 instance, as Melito, who wrote about a.d. 150, would 
 scarcely be induced by the antiquity of a writer who 
 wrote only five-iind-twenty years earlier to^dopt his 
 views.' 
 
 We will now turn to consider what internal evidence 
 the extracts afford as to the date at which they were 
 written ; for which purpose I must cite another 
 extract from Papias, preserved by Eusebius, with his 
 comments on it : — 
 
 ' But I will not hesitate to arrange in order for you, 
 with the interpretations, whatever things at any time I 
 well learned from the elders and well remembered, having 
 thoroughly established the truth concerning them. For I 
 did not, as lyost men, take pleasure in those who say 
 most, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those 
 who relate the connnandments of another man (tus 
 clAAoTpas evTo/Xtts), but in those who relate the command- 
 ments given by the Lord to the faith and coming from the 
 truth itself. But if anywhere anyone came who had been 
 a follower of the elders, 1 used to enquire after the words of 
 the elders. What Andrew or what Peter said ? {{Jirev), 
 or what Philip ? or what Thomas or James ? or what John 
 or Matthew ? or any other of the disciples of the Lord ? 
 and the things which Aristion and John the Elder (!> 
 irfmrfivTtiio^ 'Iidui'i/tjs), the disciples of the Lord, say (Xtyou- 
 aiv). For I did not apprehend that things out of books 
 profited me so much as what was said by the living and 
 abiding voice.' 
 
 ' Tliis must be taken ns ftii illustration merely, ns 1 nm not awaro 
 that there is direct evidence that McIito held millenarian views. 
 Though as he wrote a treatise on the Itevelation of John (Eusebius, 
 II. K. lib. iv. cap. 2(1) and Eusebius does not say anything to the 
 contrary, it is prubalile that Melito ought to be included in the general 
 statement of Eusebius above noticed. 
 
w- 
 
 10 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 On this extract Eusebius makes the following com- 
 ment : — 
 
 'Where also it is worthy to be noticed that he twice 
 mentions the name of John, and the man of that name first 
 mentioned he associates with Peter, James, and Matthew, 
 and the rest of the Apostles, clearly meaning the EvangeUst ; 
 but the other John he puts in a separate clause, and classes 
 with others outside the number of the Apostles, placing 
 Aristion before him. And he clearly names him " the 
 Jilder." So that through these things also is shown to 
 bo true the account of those who have said that there wcio 
 two m Asia who bore the same name, and that there wore 
 two sepulchres at Ephesus, and that each is still to this 
 day called John's.' 
 
 It has been argued that the interpretation put by 
 Eusebius upon the words of Papias is not correct : 
 that Papias wanted to distinguish between disciples as 
 to whom he could get secondhand information and 
 disciples from whom he could get direct information ; 
 and that he names John twice because he could get 
 in his case information of both sorts, and that he 
 applies the title Elder to him in the second place to 
 distinguish him from Aristion, in the sense of apostle, 
 which it is contended that he has previously applied 
 in that sense to Andrew, Peter, &c. 
 
 On this last assumption, which is necessary for 
 this interpretation, I think it fails. Upsa^vrepos, or 
 Elder, may be used in two senses : one its ordinary 
 sense, as implying age ; the other its technical sense, 
 as the name of an office in the Church. In the latter 
 sense I do not think it is ever applied specially to the 
 Apostles. In the passage under consideration, Papias 
 begins by using the word as importing age, that is, 
 not men advanced in years, but men of the former 
 
 \i 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 11 
 
 generation. This is what he means when he speaks 
 of the things he learned from the elders. He uses the 
 word in the same sense when he speaks of questioning 
 those who had been followers of the elders. He then 
 as elders instances a number of apostles and other 
 disciples of the Lord, and then he goes on to instance 
 Aristion and John the Elder. 1 can see no meaning 
 to put upon this last phrase except that put upon it 
 by Eusebius, that he now uses the word in a siiecial 
 sense, as a designation of a particular man, who for 
 some reason or oilier, probably by reason of his oflico, 
 had come to be known as the Elder (e.g., Cato the 
 censor) . Why else among a number of men, all named 
 as instances of ' ciders ' from whom he had collected 
 traditions, should ho single out ono to call him the 
 Elder ? TJiis I think would be the i)roper interpreta- 
 tion of the language, even if no other John had been 
 mentioned ; but a person of the name John having 
 been previously mentioned, there can be no doubt 
 that the designation is added for the purpose of dis- 
 tinguishing two men, and that the first named is the 
 apostle. John the Elder, therefore, is a different man 
 from John the Apostle. Eusebius continues : — 
 
 ' To which things it is necessary to pay attention. 
 For it is likely that the second, if ono would not admit the 
 Tirst, beheld the revelation which is in circulation under 
 the name of John. Papias, also, of whom wo are now 
 speaking, acknowledged that he took the words of the 
 Apostles from those who had followed them, but says that 
 he was himself a hearer of Aristion and John the Elder. 
 At least he frequently mentions them by name, and places 
 their traditions in his writings.' 
 
 A little further on, Eusebius mentions a story 
 
12 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 which was told Papias by the daughters of Philip. 
 From this we gather that while Papias was able to 
 relate traditions which he had received personally 
 from Aristion and John the Elder, who had been dis- 
 ciples of Jesus,' and also from the daughters of Philip, 
 he was not able to report any traditions which he had 
 gathered from any of the apostles personally. There 
 can be no doubt on the latter point. Had Papias, 
 who Bet 80 great store upon oral tradition, ever heard 
 any of the apostles speak, he would certainly have men- 
 tioned it in such a way as to leave no room for doubt. 
 There is a more precise indication of time in that 
 in speaking of the traditions gathered from the 
 Apostles, Papias speaks in the past what Andrew, 
 Peter, &c., said (el-n-ev) ; but in speaking of Aristion 
 and John tha Elder he uses the present, the things 
 which Aristion and John the Elder say (\eyova-iv). 
 The obvious inference from this change of tense is 
 that John the Elder and Aristion were alive at the 
 time, while the apostles he mentions were all dead. 
 This is the opinion of Dr. Westcott, the present 
 Bishop of Durham.' Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, suggested 
 that \eyovaip should be taken as the historic present 
 used for the purpose of variety, but it is difficult to 
 suppose that this can be the case with a present 
 pointedly opposed to an aorist, as in this case. 
 
 I shall therefore assume that Papias wrote after 
 
 ' As Papias in two consecutive clauses of the same sentence ap- 
 plies the word fiaiirriit to Andrew, Peter, Ac, who had been disciples 
 ol Jesus in the proper sense of the word, and to Aristion and John 
 the Elder, I think the proper inference is that it is applied to the 
 latter also in the proper sense of the word, and that they had been 
 actual hearers of Jesus. This is further borne out by his object, to 
 get evidence of what Jesus had said. 
 
 » Canoti of tlie New Testament, 6th edit. p. 70, note 1. 
 
 TIIK DATK OK PAPIAS 
 
 13 
 
 the deaths of the apostles he mentions, and during 
 the lives of Aristion and John the Elder. The next 
 matter to determine will be when the deaths of the' 
 two latter took place. 
 
 As regards Aristion, we are without means- of in- 
 formation, except what may be inferred from the 
 statement of Papias that he was a disciple of the 
 Lord, which will place his death at some period 
 within the duration of human life after the death of 
 Jesus, and from the fact that it is stated in the 
 Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 4G) tliat one Ariston, pro- 
 bably the same man, was a Bishop of Smyrna before 
 Polycarp, from which we might probably infer that 
 he was dead before Polycarp became Bishop of 
 Smyrna — that is, before a.d. 101. 
 
 As rcgtyds John tlic Elder, wo have, I think, 
 means of more exact dctcruiination. It will be 
 noticed that Irenaeus tells us that Papias was a hearer 
 of the apostle John. This, Eusebius points out, is a 
 mistake ; he was a hearer merely of John the Elder, 
 and not of the apostle. From this mistake of Irenaeus, 
 we may assume that he confounded John the Elder 
 with John the Apostle, and generally applied to the 
 latter traditions which reached him about the former. 
 Now Irenaeus tells us, apparently on the authority of 
 certain elders of Asia, that John the disciple of the 
 Lord lived to the time of Trajan.' The context, coupled 
 with his failing to make mention of John the Elder 
 as a distinct man from John the Apostle, shows that 
 he means John the Apostle. So interpreted, John 
 the Apostle must have lived to the age of ninety, or, 
 more probably, ninety-five years. For Trajan began 
 
 ' Adv. Hair. lib. ii. cop. 22, sect. 5. 
 
14 
 
 THE ORACLES OE PAPIAS 
 
 hia reign a.d. 98, or sixty-five years after the received 
 date of the death of Jesus. Now John the Apostle 
 can scarcely have heen less than twenty-five years 
 old at the time of his Master's death— that is to say, 
 we can hardly suppose a younger man chosen to bo 
 an apostle. This would give him a minimum ago of 
 ninety at the accession of Trajan.' But it is evidently 
 rather straining the point to suppose John so young 
 as twenty-five at the former epoch. He would be 
 therefore rather over than under ninety at the latter. 
 
 We must here note that Irenaeus, in the same pas- 
 sage in which he states that John lived to the time of 
 Trajan, states, on the authority of all the elders of 
 Asia, whom he describes as professing to speak on 
 the direct testimony of John and other apostles, that 
 Jesus lived to beyond the age oMorty or fifty. If 
 this were so, it would increase the probabilitj' that 
 the Apostles were men of mature age. 
 
 As I have said, Irenaeus appears to have meant 
 his statement to apply to John the Apostle, but he 
 says John the disciple of the Lord, probably using 
 the words of the elders on whose authority he made 
 the statement ; and when we bear in mind the fact, 
 which is proved, that he confounded the two Johns, 
 there can be little doubt that the. statement ought to 
 be applied to John the Elder. Such an application 
 will render it much more probable, for though John 
 the Elder was a disciple of Jesus, there is no reason 
 from that to suppose he was a grown man at the 
 time of his Master's death : he might, for instance, 
 have been but a boy of fifteen ; in that case he would 
 be eighty at the time of the accession of Trajan, and 
 ' See Appendix vi, 
 
 I 
 
 -' 
 
 
 THE DATE OE PAPIAS 
 
 15 
 
 his surviving to that time would involve no im- 
 probability.' If, however, we suppose that the state- 
 ment of Irenaeus is properly referred to John the 
 Apostle, we are involved in this further difficulty. It 
 is a necessary inference from the statement of Fapias 
 that John the Elder and Aristion must have survived 
 John the Apostle by all the time which must have 
 elapsed while Papias was collecting his traditions and 
 writing his book ; else, as both Johns lived at Ephesus, 
 he would have got traditions direct from the apostle. 
 Now this must have been some years — say, ten years 
 or thereabouts. If, therefore, John the Elder and 
 Aristion must have been eighty or thereabouts at the 
 accession of Trajan, and survived John the Apostle 
 by a time sufficient for this purpose, we should arrive 
 at the conciusion that they, too, lived to an age 
 approaching ninety. Now it would be not a little 
 remarkable that there should be thi-ee disciples of 
 Jesus in the same neighbourhood, two bearing the 
 same name and living in the same city, who attained 
 this great age. I think, therefore, that it may be 
 safely concluded that John the disciple of the Lord 
 who lived to the time of Trajan was John the Elder. 
 This, I rather gather, is the opinion of Dr. Abbott, 
 expressed in his article on the gospels in the 'En- 
 cyclopffidia Britannica.' 
 
 I ought here to notice an authority bearing upon 
 the age of Papias, cited both by Dr. Lightfoot and 
 
 ' Dr. Salmon remarks that, on tlic assumption tliat John the ElJcr 
 was distinct from the apostle, ' we can hardlyhelp identifying liira with 
 the John who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan, and to have 
 been the teacher of I'olycarp and the early Asiatic bishops.' Intro- 
 duction to the New Testament, 0th edit. p. 2'JO. Ur. Salmon, hovrever, 
 doubts the distinction between John the Elder and John the Apostle. 
 
16 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 by Dr. Westcott. It is an introduction prefixed to a 
 Latin MS. of the fourth gospel found in the Vatican 
 library, and assigned by Tischendorf to the ninth 
 century. It is as follows : — 
 
 ' Evangelium Joliannia manifestatum et datum est 
 ecclesiis ab Johanne adhuc in corpore constituto ; sicut 
 Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus Joliannis carus, 
 in exotericiB, id est in extremis (externis) quinque libris 
 retulit. Descripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte. 
 Verum Martion haereticus, cum ab eo fuisset improbatus, 
 abjectug est ab Johanne. la vero scripta vel epistolas 
 ad eum pertulerat a ftatribus qui in Ponto fuerunt.'' 
 
 This passage is thus rendered by Dr. Lightfoot :— 
 ' The Gospel of John was made known and given to 
 the churches by John, while he yet remained in the body, 
 as (one) Papias by name, of Hierapolis, a beloved disciple 
 of John, has related iu his exoteric, that is, in his last five 
 books ; but he wrote down the Gospel at the dictation of 
 
 John correctly. , , , , j 
 
 'But Marcion, the heretic, when he had been censured 
 by him because he held heretical opinions, was cast ofif by 
 John. Now he had brought writings or letters to him 
 from the brethren that were in Pontus.' '' 
 
 From the passage interpreted in this way it has 
 been supposed that there were five spurious books 
 annexed to the genuine books of Papias, which were 
 known as the exoteric boolt* to which reference has 
 been made. This theory was originated by Overbeck, 
 and has since been adopted by Hilgenfeld. If it be 
 accepted, of course the passage is of no account. 
 The theory adopted by Dr. Lightfoot is an earlier 
 theory of Hilgenfeld-that exotericis is a mistake for 
 > Westcott, Ca,ion of tJie New Testament, Mi edit. p. 77. 
 ' Essays on Supernatural Behgioii, p. 210. 
 
 I 
 
 TIIK D.VTE OF I'Al'lAS 
 
 17 
 
 V 
 
 cxcijcticis, which would make the passage run ' as 
 Papias . . . has related in his expositions in live 
 books,' for of course the words id est in extremis 
 are merely a gloss of some editor or transcriber to 
 explain the word exotericis, which he did not under- 
 stand. 
 
 This passage is quoted both by Dr. Westcott and 
 Dr. Lightfoot to show that Papias was acquainted 
 with the gospel of St. John ; but if it proves anything, 
 it proves that Papias actually wrote that gospel at 
 the dictation of John, and stated this in his five 
 books. Papias therefore must have been, if the 
 passage can be relied on, a contemporary of John 
 who wrote the gospel, and this is why I mention the 
 passage here. Now these statements are directly 
 contradicted by Eusebius when he says, having 
 special reference to John, that Papias by no means 
 asserts that he was a hearer or eye-witness of the 
 holy apostles. It is difficult to reject this statement 
 of Eusebius in favour of that of an anonymous Latin 
 writer of the ninth century who had probably never 
 seen the writings of Papias, and could probably not 
 read a word of them, and who shows his ignorance of 
 ecclesiastical history by relating a story which implies 
 that Marcion had published his heresy in the time of 
 tho apostle John. But I venture to doubt whether 
 cither the German or English critics 1 have mentioned 
 have found out the true meaning of the passage. 
 The words id est in extremis may be rejected as a 
 mere gloss, but these words show that the word 
 exotericis puzzled one of the later editors. This 
 word was therefore not introduced at the last stage, 
 and may more probably have come down from the 
 
18 
 
 THE OEACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 1 
 
 earliest form of the statemeDt. Now the word exo- 
 tericus has a recognised meaning which appears 
 very apt for the interpretation of this passage. It 
 means that which is contained in writing as opposed 
 to mere oral instruction. The hackbone of the asser- 
 tion, then, will appear to be this : that what Papias 
 received orally from John he reduced to writing in 
 live books. Understanding by John, John the Elder, 
 this statement is accurate, agreeing exactly with 
 Eusebius. The blunder which has been made is in 
 assuming that the traditions which were thus reduced 
 to writing by Papias constituted the fourth gospel. 
 There can be little doubt that the passage in question 
 is a mere amplification and embellishment of some 
 such statement about the traditions received orally 
 from John, and reduced to writing by Papias in live 
 books, misapplied to the fourth gospel. The passage 
 therefore has no value whatever. 
 
 In connection with this passage from the Vatican 
 MS. should be considered the Greek passage contained 
 in the ' Catena ' published by B. Corder, which I will 
 quote from the translation of Dr. Lightfoot or Mr. 
 Harmer, whichever it is : — 
 
 ' For last of these, John, surnamcd the Son of Tlmmlcr, 
 when ho was now a very old man, as licnacus and I'hisebiiis 
 and a succession of trustworthy historians have liandod 
 down to us, about the time when terrible heresies liad 
 cropped up, dictated the Gospel to his own disciple, tlie 
 virtuous Papias, of Hicrapolis, to fill up what was lacking 
 in those who before him had proclaimed the word to the 
 nations throughout all the earth.' 
 
 We have here the same story that the fourth 
 gospel was written by Papias at the dictation of the 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 19 
 
 apostle John, but the writer, instead of citing as his 
 authority the lost books of Papias, cites the extant 
 works of Irenaeus and Eusebius. What could be 
 learnt from those works is, that Papins committe<l to 
 writing traditions ho had received from a disciple of 
 the Lord called John, whom the former writer sup- 
 posed to be the apostle of the same name and the later 
 writer did not. Some statomont of this fact, made by 
 some one of the trustworthy historians mentioned in 
 the extract and distorted by some other of them, must 
 be the basis of the fable contained in the extract ; it is 
 therefore of no value at all. 
 
 In considering whether the statements of Irenaeus 
 as to John the disciple of the Lord ought to be 
 applied to John the Apostle, we ought not to pass over 
 the statement of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, that 
 John the Apostle was a martyr, a fact unknown to 
 Irenaeus, or at all events not mentioned by him, and 
 which therefore, if accepted, must raise considerable 
 doubt as to the accuracy of the information furnished 
 by Irenaeus with regard to the apostle. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the expression of Poly- 
 crates, ' John who lay upon the bosom of the Lord . . . 
 both martyr and teacher ' (koi fidprvs koI SiSda-KoXos),^ 
 amounts to a Ktatcniont that the apostlo Joiin Hullurod 
 death by martyrdom. In the next sentence the same 
 word is applied by Polycrates in exactly the same way 
 to Polycarp, and in the succeeding sentences to 
 Thraseas and Sagaris, in whose cases there can be no 
 doubt of the meaning. Moreover, in the tinie of 
 Polycrates the word appears to have been already 
 restricted to those who suffered death for their faith, 
 
 ' Eusebius, H. E. v. 24. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 Tllli ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 as we leavn from the letter of the churches of Lyons 
 and Vienna. When their fellow-Christians applied 
 the name ' martyrs ' to the prisoners who had suffered 
 repeated tortures, but were still alive, the sufferers 
 refused the title, saying, ' They are already martyrs 
 whom Christ has thought worthy to be taken up in 
 their confession, and has sealed their martyrdom by 
 the issue, but we are mean and poor confessors.' ' 
 'E«eti'ot 7]Si] fidpTvpes, oiis iv tt} ofioXoyia Xpia-Tos 
 ■fj^idjaev avdKr)(f)0rlvai, iirta(f>pa'yi<Tafi£vos avriov Bia 
 T))s i^oSou Ttjp fiaprvpiav ^fiels Sh 6fi6\oyoi fierpiot 
 Kai raveivoi. 
 
 The next question then to consider is the weight 
 to be attached to the statement of Polycrates. It is 
 contained in a letter addressed to Victor, Bishop of 
 Home, upon the Paschal controversy. Victor became 
 Bishop of Rome, us we learn from Eusebius, in the 
 tenth year of Commodus, that is, a.d. 18!), and con- 
 tinued until about the ninth year of Severus, that is, 
 A.D. 201. If, therefore, wc take a.d. 1!)5 as the dale 
 of the letter, we shall not bo far wrong. In it I'oly- 
 crates says that he was then sixty-five years in the 
 Lord (s^^Koura irevre err] ex*"" ^i' Ku/st'o)), which I sup- 
 pose means that he was sixty-live years old. He was 
 therefore born about a.d. 180. lie profossos to spcalc 
 concerning the Paschal controversy according to llie 
 tradition of his family, seven of whom were bishops. 
 He writes as having that acquaintance with the senti- 
 ments of the people of Ephcsus and that part of Asia 
 that would be possessed by a man who had spent bis 
 life there. Now the question is. What is the value of 
 bis statements concerning the apostle John ? Suppos- 
 ' EusebiuB, II. E. v. 2. 
 
 TlfE DATE OF I'APIAS 
 
 21 
 
 ing Polycrates could understand and remember his- 
 torical statements made to him when he was ten years 
 old, and taking the duration of living memory to be 
 sixty years, ho nn'gbt have beard the testimonjr of 
 eye-witnesses to events as early as the year a.d. 80 
 about, bat not earlier. Now, on the supposition that 
 the statements of Irenaeus as to John the disciple of 
 the Lord ought not to be applied to the apostle, we 
 have no information as to when the apostle died 
 beyond that he was alive in the year G8, the date of 
 the Book of Eevelation, at which Hme he would be 
 sixty years of age or upwards. If he lived to the year 
 A.D. 80, he would be seventy-two years old or upwards. 
 It would be rather more probable that he would die, 
 ill the ordinary course of nature, before that date than 
 after it ; and if bis life were cut short by martyrdom, 
 it would therefore be more likely to be before that 
 date than after it. 
 
 We have therefore no reason to think that Poly- 
 crates could speak from the testimony of eye-witnesses 
 as to the martyrdom of tlie apostle John. Tlie oVent, 
 however, is one of a class likel}', so far as the main 
 fact was concerned, to be accurately transmitted by 
 the tradition of two generations. The statement of 
 Polycrates is therefore one which it would apptsar we 
 ought to accept, and its acceptance discredits the tes- 
 timony of Irenaeus. 
 
 In considering the weight to be attached to the two 
 men, it must be remembered that, though about the 
 same age and born in the same locality, Irenaeus left 
 Asia when a boy (Traty), while Polycrates resided there 
 all his life. Now children, though they remember 
 clearly things they witnessed themselves, do not usually 
 
22 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 pick up clear or accurate accounts of historical facts 
 from the statements of others. 
 
 I will now consider two passages which support 
 very strongly one of the conclusions for which I have 
 contended— viz., that the apostle John suffered mar- 
 tyrdom—but one of which offers an argument in favour 
 of a later date for Papias than I have assigned him. 
 The first passage is found in the ' Chronicon ' of George 
 called Hamartolus, or the Sinner, a monk of the ninth 
 century. This writer, after remarking that John sur- 
 vived the rest of the twelve, and then suffered as 
 a martyr {/lapTvpiov KaTtj^icorat), continues as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' For Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis, who was an eye- 
 witness of him, says in the second book (Xo'yw) of the 
 " Dominical Oracles " (Ta)!/ KvptaKtuv Xoyiwi/) that he was 
 killed by the Jews.' ' 
 
 The other is from an anonymous note lately found 
 by De Boor in the Codex Baroccianus and conjectured 
 to have been extracted from the 'Ecclesiastical History' 
 of Philip of Side, which was published about a.d. 427. 
 It is as follows : — 
 
 ' Papias in his second book says that John the Divine 
 and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The 
 aforesaid Papias has narrated as having received it from 
 the daughters of Philip that Barsabas, who is also called 
 Justus, being tested by the unbelievers, drinking the poison 
 of a viper in the name of the Christ, was preserved harm- 
 less. And he narrates also other wonders, and especially 
 that concerning the mother of (Manaimus?), who was 
 raised from the dead, about those raised from the dead by 
 the Christ, that they lived until Hadrian (io-ropci 8t kuI 
 
 ' For the context of this passage see Appendix vii. 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 23 
 
 akka dav/iara kol fidkicTTa tu Kara, ryv firjTcpa ^lavalfiov t^i' 
 fK vtKfiiov avaaTaa-av irtpl Tuiv vnu tov XpUTTOV iit viKpusv 
 ava(TTu.vTtDV oTi ecus ' Aipiavov t^uiv).' 
 
 It appears, tlierefore, from these two authorities, 
 that the works of Papias contained a direct stateiDent 
 that John the Apostle was killed by the Jews. That is a 
 very strong confirmation of the conclusion I have drawn 
 from otlicr sources, that tlie apostle John suffered death 
 by martyrdom, and was a different person from John 
 the disciple of the Lord, who continued to the time 
 of Trajan. Some writers have argued from these 
 passages that the apostle John was put to death in 
 Palestine, and, therefore, was never in Asia at all. It 
 does not at ail follow, because John was killed by tlio 
 Jews, that he was killed in Palestine. 
 
 He might have been killed in a riot, or have died 
 from the effects of corporal punishment indicted upon 
 him by his countrymen as one of their own community ; 
 or even, if put to death by the Eoman authorities at 
 the instigation of the Jews, he might, without any 
 very great inaccuracy, be said to have been killed by 
 the Jews. Dr. Ijightfoot refused to believe on the 
 authority of the passage in George Hamartolus,' and 
 Dr. Salmon^ has refused to believe on the authority of 
 both passages, that Papias made any such statement ; 
 but there is no reason to be adduced to the contrary, 
 except the silence of Ilusebius as to Papias having 
 made any such statement. Now had Eusebius desired 
 to prove that the apostle John suffered martyrdom, 
 this argument would have great weight, but it is very 
 doubtful whether Eusebius would desire to bring this 
 
 ' Ksnays on Snjicr natural Religion, ]). 211 el scq. 
 ' IntruUuctiun to the New Testament, ■1th edit. p. ;il'J. 
 
24 
 
 TIIK OHACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 fact into prominence. The stand he takes is this. 
 In Book III. chapter xxiii. of his 'Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory ' he cites from Irenaeus the statement that John 
 remained until the time of Trajan, and in chapter xxxi. 
 of the same book he cites from Polycrates tlie state- 
 ment that John, who was both a martyr and a teacher, 
 rested at Ephesus. Eusebius does not put together 
 these testimonies in his own words, but the natural 
 inference is that he accepted both statements, and 
 believed that John survived to the time of Trajan, and 
 afterwards suffered death by martyrdom. That Euse- 
 bius did not want to give prominence to the fact of 
 the martyrdom of John is shown by his leaving the 
 statement of Polycrates to speak for itself. It is there- 
 fore not surprising that he did not quote another testi- 
 mony to the same effect from Papias. 
 
 I will now pass on to the bearing of the latter 
 quotation upon the date of Papias. It appears to state 
 that Papias made a statement about those who were 
 raised from the dead by Christ, that they lived till 
 Hadrian. If Papias made such a statement, he must, 
 of course, have written after the accession of Hadrian, 
 and after the death of John the Elder and Aristion. 
 
 But in this aspect the passage is open to the 
 following observations: (1) The passage appears to 
 be very awkwardly constructed. The sentence would 
 come to a natural stop after the word uvaaTdaav, 
 making it read : ' And he narrated also other wonders, 
 and especially that concerning the mother of Maniii- 
 mus, who was raised from the dead.' If the sentence 
 is supposed to run on further, it must be construed 
 thus : ' And he narrated also other wonders concerning 
 those raised from the dead by the Christ, that they 
 
 I' 
 
 '< 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 25 
 
 lived till Hadrian, and especially concerning the 
 mother of Manaimus, who was raised from the dead,' 
 the latter clause being in the original an awkward 
 parenthesis. (2) The statement about those raised 
 from the dead by Christ living till Hadrian excites 
 great suspicion that it is derived from a passage in an 
 apology addressed to Hadrian by Quadratus, in which, 
 speaking of the long lives of those healed or raised 
 from the dead by Christ, he says, ' So that some of 
 them reached even to our times.' It will be noticed 
 that the statement of Quadratus (uxr-e Kal els tovs 
 rnxsTspovs ■^pcvovf Tivhs avTMv i'kjjikovto),' except so 
 far as it affirms that Christ healed i)ersons and raised 
 them from the dead, has nothing miraculous or even 
 improbable a,l)out it. He does not state that any such 
 persons were alivo at the time he was writhig, probably 
 soon after the accession of Hadrian. Using the aorist 
 {a(fiiKovTo) he implies the contrary, and by the phrase 
 ' to our times ' he implies that such persons survived 
 to some period within the lifetime of himself as well 
 as Hadrian, but not that they survived until the 
 accession of Hadrian to the Empire. Hadrian was 
 born A.D. 71, and Quadratus probably about the same 
 time, that is, thirty-eight years after the death of 
 Jesus. There is no improbability in some persons 
 who were brought to ^esus when young living beyond 
 this period. In the quotation the statement, is made 
 somewhat remarkable, though not at all miraculous, 
 by making these persons survive until the accession of 
 Hadrian, for that is what it must be taken to mean. 
 The accession of Hadrian was eighty-three years after 
 the death of Jesus, and therefore it is just within the 
 ' Eusebius, //. E. lib. iv. c. 3. 
 
26 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 bounds of ordinary possibilities that some person who 
 was brought to Jesus in infancy might survive till 
 that period. This difference does not make it the less 
 likely that the statement is taken from Quadratus. 
 Stories have always a tendency to assume a more 
 marvellous tone on being repeated, but the marvel is 
 not sufficient for it to be classed as such along with 
 the raising of persons from the dead. (3) There is 
 again the consideration thatEusebius does not notice 
 any such statement on the part of Papias. Now in 
 this case the silence of Eusebius is of weight, for he 
 desired to depreciate Papias, and it would have tended 
 to do 80 as a retailer of traditions, could he have shown 
 that he did not write until after the accession of Hadrian. 
 
 Putting all these things together, I think the proper 
 conclusion is that the extract has broken off in the 
 middle of a sentence ; that the statement as to what 
 was said by Papias ends with the word dvaaraaav, 
 which ought to be followed by a full stop, and the 
 following words are the commencement of another 
 sentence, which, when complete, was a statement about 
 what was said by Quadratus. Such an error is not at 
 all improbable in a marginal note. 
 
 We may, therefore, disregard this passage as hav- 
 ing any bearing upon the date of Papias. 
 
 Before dismissing the subject of the end of the 
 apostle John, we ought to consider the curious remark 
 made by Tertullian, who apostrophises the church of 
 Pome in these words : — 
 
 ' Happy Church, for which Apostles poured forth the 
 whole doctrine with their blood, where Peter equals the 
 passion of the Lord, where Paul is crowned with the death 
 of John (i.e. the Baptist), where the Apostle John, alter 
 
 THE DATE OF PAPIAS 
 
 27 
 
 that having been plunged into boiling oil bo suffered 
 nothing, is banished unto an island.' ' 
 
 This story of the miraculous deliverance of the' 
 apostle John must have been current at Rome at the 
 end of the second century. The most probable expla- 
 nation of it is, that there were current different tradi- 
 tions about two different men of the name of John : of 
 John the Apostle, that he suffered martyrdom, and of 
 John the Elder, that he died a natural death at extreme 
 old age in the reign of Trajan. These two men being 
 confounded, the accounts were reconciled, as nearly 
 as might be, by the story preserved by Tertullian. 
 
 Little reliance can be placed upon the scene of the 
 martyrdom being at Rome ; the passage in Tertullian 
 sufficiently explains the origin of this part of the 
 story. It was for the aggrandisement of the Roman 
 Church to be the place of martyrdom of as many 
 apostles as possible. 
 
 We thus get to the commencement of the reign of 
 Trajan, or — as in the absence of evidence it would be 
 rash to assume that Aristion lived to eighty as well 
 as John the Elder— some years earher, as the latest 
 date to which the work of Papias can be assigned. 
 
 The next question is, what evidence there is for 
 determining an anterior limit to the date of its com- 
 position. ( 
 
 There are three considerations which may assist us 
 in this : First, tho impression of lapse of time during 
 which Papias was collecting his traditions, which 
 could not begin to run till after the death of the last 
 of the apostles he named, or, at all events, of John. 
 As regards the apostles named by Papias, we have no 
 
 ' De riacscript. Hacret. 30. 
 
28 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 evidence when or where they died, with the exception 
 of Peter, James, and John. James, supposing the 
 Lord's brother to be meant, was put to death a.d. G3, 
 and Peter is commonly supposed to have perished in 
 the Neronian persecution, a.d. G4. As regards John 
 we have, as I have shown, considerable reason to 
 suppose that he was alive in the latter part of tlie 
 year a.d. G8, the date of the composition of the Book 
 of Eevelation. At that time he would be sixty years 
 of age or upwards. Assuming the inference that the 
 John the disciple of the Lord who lived to the age of 
 Trajan was not John the Apostle, but John the 
 Elder, is correct, we have no further information 
 about him except the statements already noticed, that 
 he was a martyr and was killed by the Jews, and that 
 he died at Ephesus. 
 
 We should get the earliest date for the work of 
 Popias by supposing John the Apostle to have died 
 soon after a.d. G8, which, supposing him to have 
 suffered martyrdom, would be by no means im- 
 probable, such an event being more likely to happen 
 during the commotions preceding the establishment 
 of the authority of Vespasian, or the excitement 
 against the Jews occasioned by their insurrection, 
 which must gradually have subsided after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, than at a later period. Moreover, 
 it must be remembered that martyrdom was rarely 
 attained by one who did not court it, and that the 
 frame of mind of the writer of the Eevelation was 
 that of a man likely to court martyrdom. It is there- 
 fore not improbable that John did not very long 
 survive the publication of his book : in fact, he writes 
 as if he were already in the hands of the authorities. 
 
 'IIIK ]).\TE OF FAPIAS 
 
 29 
 
 Taking this early date for the death of John, and 
 making some allowance for Papias to collect his tra- 
 ditions or write his book, we should get about a.d. 80 
 as the earliest date at which that book could be 
 written. 
 
 However, without assigning an early date for the 
 death of the apostle John, there can be no reason to 
 suppose that he survived the year a.d. 80, which 
 would make him attain the ago of seventy-two years 
 or upwards. If we allow liftcen years for I'ajjias to 
 collect his traditions, this would bring us to the year 
 a.d. 95 as the date of the composition of his book. 
 
 Another way of fixing the date of Papias is by refer- 
 ence to the time at which he collected his materials. 
 
 This wasjiftor the seven named disciples of Jesus — 
 Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and 
 Matthew — and the great bulk of the disciples of Jesus 
 were dead ; but at a time at which there was no 
 dilliculty in finding people who could narrate, from 
 their own knowledge, what these seven named and 
 other disciples of Jesus had said. 
 
 Papias, it must be noticed, does not speak as if he 
 had, by some particular good luck, come upon some 
 jierson who had been a hearer of the Apostles, but 
 implies that he had lived at a time when hearers of 
 the Apostles were conjmonly to be met with, and he 
 had questioned them and noted what they said. 
 
 Now when_ any event has been known to a large 
 immber of people of different ages, it will commonly 
 be easy to lind witnesses of it for about forty years 
 after it happened. After lliis period the number of 
 witnesses will rapidly fall off, till after sixty years 
 they will ordinarily be all gone. This follows from 
 
30 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 the consideration that after the lapse of forty years 
 the witnesses must have been either under twenty at 
 the time of the event witnessed, or over sixty at the 
 time of giving their testimony, and that young persons 
 ordinarily do not sufficiently comprehend the import 
 of events which do not immediately concern them- 
 selves to treasure them up in their memories, whilst 
 the memories of old people frequently fail also, 
 especially as to events which did not immediately 
 concern themselves. 
 
 We ought, therefore, to place the time for Papias 
 collecting his traditions within the period of forty 
 years after the events — that is, after a time at which 
 the seven disciples named, and many other disciples 
 of Jesus, were living. One of these disciples, James, 
 we know died a.u. G3 ; another, Peter, is generally 
 supposed to have died a.d. G4. Matthew must, from 
 the tradition in the Gospels, have been a man of 
 middle age in the lifetime of Jesus. He would, there- 
 fore, be a man of seventy or upwards a.d. 63. There 
 would, therefore, be no probability that he long sur- 
 vived that date. We do not know when Andrew, 
 Philip, or Thomas died ; it is, however, more probable 
 than otherwise that some one of them would be dead 
 before, say, a.d. C8. After a.d. 70 we may be certain 
 that persons who had been disciples of Joaus would 
 be scarce. Now for persons to have been able to 
 narrate what they had heard from the apostles and 
 disciples of Jesus, we must allow the witnesses to 
 have been hearers of these apostles and disciples for 
 some period of time. We cannot suppose that the 
 informants of Papias simply recorded dying con- 
 fessions. If, therefore, we suppose that they must 
 
 THE DATE OF TAPIAS 
 
 31 
 
 have been able to remember events as early as a.d. 60, 
 we shall not be requiring too much. This would 
 make the period during which Papias was collecting 
 his traditions coincide with some part of the last forty 
 years of the first century ; but he might, so far asthis 
 branch of the argument is concerned, have written 
 his book early in the second century— that is, sup- 
 posing the date assumed for the traditions collected 
 (a.d. 60) is sufficiently early. But it is not so. To 
 assume it is to assume that Papias only collected 
 traditions of the last few years of the lives of the 
 disciples of the Lord. We ought, therefore, to put 
 that date a little earlier, and this will brhig us to the 
 last decade qf the first century as the date for the 
 work of Papias. 
 
 The remaining considerations arise from the books 
 we know Papias quoted. These comprise, as we are 
 told by Eusebius, the lirst epistle of Peter and the 
 iirst epistle of John, and, as we learn from Andrew and 
 Aretbas,' who were both bishops of Caesarea, the 
 Apocalypse. The latter fact merely places the com- 
 position of Papias's work later than a.d. 68. 
 
 So little is ascertainable about the date of the first 
 epistle of John and tiie lirst epistle of Peter, that they 
 are more likely to bo determined by, than to aid in, 
 determining tlio date dI' I'apias. AVe iirrive, then> 
 fore, at the conclusion that the work of Papias must 
 have been written hot earlier than about a.d. 80, or 
 later than about a.d. 98 ; but that about a.d. 90 would 
 seem to be its most probable date. 
 
 This is an earlier date than that generally assigned 
 
 ' See post, p. 'M ; also Cramer, Catena, p. 350 ct scq. ; Lightfoot, 
 Essays on Hniicriiattnal Ileli(]ii»i, p. 2U1. 
 
32 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 to the book ; but so far as concerns the tenor of ray 
 argument — that is, so far as bears upon the meaning 
 of the word \6yiov — I do not think it would make any 
 difference if it were put fifteen or twenty years earlier 
 or later. 
 
 33 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 
 JOHN THE ELDER 
 
 As the foregoing argument turns, to some extent, on 
 the distinction Ijetwuen John the Elder and John the 
 Apostle, it may be as well, before leaving it, to collect 
 the evidence /or and against that distinction. 
 
 The ovideuct) against that diHtinulion is, that 
 Irenaous does not appear to be cognisant of it — that is 
 to say, any one ignorant of the distinction reading 
 Irenaeus would not have the distinction suggested to 
 him, but if any one roads Irenaous with the distinction 
 in his mind, there is much in Irenaeus which leads to 
 the inference that Irenaeus was aware of the distinc- 
 tion, and purposely wrote in such a way as to enable 
 him to ignore his acquaintance with it without telling 
 any direct untruth. Thus Irenasus habitually de- 
 scribes John as the disciple of the Lord (6 toO K vpi'ou 
 fia6r}Ti'is,fxa0iiTiisTov Kvpiov v/xuv, 'discipulusdomini,' 
 t'./y. book ii. cap. 22, ss. 3, 5 ; book iii. cap. 1, s. 1 ; 
 cap. 3, s. 4 ; cap. 2, s. 1 ; cap. Ki, s. 5 ; book v. cap. 
 33, 8. 3; Eusebius, 'H. E.' book v. cap. 24) never 
 as an apostle, though he once refers to him liy that 
 name, and, of course, he includes him with others 
 as apostles, and he does not speak of any other 
 apostle singly as a disciple of the Lord. "When Ire- 
 
 D 
 
u 
 
 THE OKACLJiS Oi' PAPIAS 
 
 naeus has occasion to mention an apostle, he does so 
 most frequently simply by his name, without any 
 title, and this is the case with John as well as the 
 others ; but he occasionally applies the title apostle 
 to other apostles singly, e.g. to Peter, book iii. cap. 
 12, s. 1, or to Paul, book iii. cap. 6, s. 5, and book iv. 
 cap. 26, s. 4. 
 
 It is evident, as regards John, that if Irenaeus hud 
 intended to confound two men, both of whom were 
 disciples of Jesus, and of whom only one was an 
 apostle, he could not have adopted a terminology 
 better fitted for the purpose. Now nothing is more 
 probable than that IrensEUS would desire to confound 
 the two men. He had been accustomed, all his life, 
 to plume himself upon having been in youth a hearer 
 of Polycarp, who in turn had been a hearer of one 
 John, a disciple of the Lord. Irenaeus had, no doubt, 
 grown up in the belief that this John was none other 
 than the apostle, and had derived consideration in 
 the Church from his reputed connection with him. It 
 would not be until Irenaeus came to study the works 
 of Papias and other ancient writers that he would see 
 anything to cast a doubt on this cherished belief. 
 When he did see anything to suggest this doubt, it is 
 not at all surprising that he resolutely determined to 
 cast any such doubt away from him, and to make 
 John the disciple of the Lord, who lived to the time 
 of Trajan, one person with the apostle. 
 
 He could do this without to the letter falsifying 
 his authorities by applying, in all critical passages, to 
 both men indifferently the title which they had ni 
 common, and neglecting ever to use any mark of dis- 
 tinction between them. 
 
 JOHN THE ELDEK 
 
 35 
 
 Justin spoke of John as one of the apostles (' Dial.' 
 cap. 81). 
 
 Writers subsequent to Irenaeus often speak of the 
 apostle John as the disciple of the Lord, perhaps follow- 
 ing Irenaeus, but by no means habitually as he did. Thus 
 Clement of Alexandria, in the passage preserved by Eu- 
 scbius, ' H. E.' lib. iii. cap. 23, sjieaks of John as the 
 apostle; so does Tertullian ('DePraescr. Haer.'cap. 30). 
 
 With the language of Irenaeus may be contrasted 
 that made use of by the writer of the Muratorian 
 fragment, generally thought his contemporary, who 
 seems to imply that he considered the John who wrote 
 the Fourth Gospel to have been a disciple of the Lord 
 but not an apostle. He says^I quote the translation 
 in the ' Ante-Nicene Christian Library ' : — 
 
 ' The Fourth Gospel is that of John, one of tlie disciples 
 (' ex decipolis,' no doubt correctly restored ' ex discipulis '). 
 "When his fellow disciples and bishops entreated him 
 (' cohortantibus condiscipulis et eps suia ') he said. Fast yc 
 now with nie for the space of three days, and let us recount 
 to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us. On 
 the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the 
 apostles (' ex apostolis '), that John should relate all things 
 in his own name,' &c. 
 
 Tiic story told in this 2)assa^i;o is, of course, a fable, 
 but the contrast so pointedly drawn between John, one 
 of the disciples, and Andrew, one of the apostles, implies 
 the belief in a John who was a disciple, but not an 
 apostle of sufficient note for the Fourth Gospel to be 
 attributed to him, and supports the theory of the 
 separate existence of the Elder. In fact, the antithesis 
 between John the Apostle and John the Disciple which 
 is concealed by the language of Irenaeus is hero 
 
36 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 brought out by the juxtaposition of the words. This, 
 of course, is not necessarily the original language of 
 the author of the fragment, it may be the language 
 of some writer from whom he borrowed the fable. 
 
 From what Eusebius says in the twenty-fifth chapter 
 of his seventh book, he evidently refers, when he men- 
 tions ' the account of those who have said that thero 
 were two in Asia who bore the same name, and that 
 there were two sepulchres in Ephesu8,and that each was 
 still called John's,' to Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 
 who flourished in the middle of the third century, 
 from whom he quotes the following words : ' They 
 say there are two monuments in Ephesus and each is 
 called John's.' Besides this, in chapter 46, of book 
 iii. of the ' Apostolic Constitutions,' in the enumeration 
 of bishops stated to have been ordained by apostles, is 
 the statement : ' Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by 
 Paul, and John by me John.' What is the exact his- 
 torical value of a statement contained in the last- 
 mentioned fiction it may be hard to say ; it may pro- 
 bably be sufficient evidence of a generally accepted 
 tradition that there were two Johns at Ephesus in 
 apostolic times, one the apostle and another younger 
 man whom he ordained bishop. Moreover, the 
 statement in the ' Apostolic Constitutions ' does not 
 appear to be derived from either Dionysius or Eusebius, 
 neither of whom states that the second John was ever 
 a bishop, though, according to the ancient interpreta- 
 tion of the term, this may be implied by the title 
 ' Elder ' {irpea^inepos) given him by Papias. 
 
 A piece of evidence as to the existence of John the 
 Elder, as distinct from John the Apostle, the weight 
 of which deserves to be considered, is to be found in 
 
 JOHN THE ELDER 
 
 37 
 
 the two letters commonly known as the second and 
 third epistles of Jolni, and attributed to the apostle. 
 When the books of the New Testament came to be 
 collected, or, perhaps rather I should say, when these 
 letters came to be inserted among the collected books 
 of the New Testament, they were probably designated 
 second and third, for convenience of reference,' and 
 the first letter being attributed to the ajjostlu, this de- 
 signation produced the belief that they were all by 
 the same author, and this no doubt was the opinion of 
 many of the Fathers. For instance, Irenaeus (iii. 16, 
 8) quotes the second epistle as the work of John the 
 disciple of the Lord, meaning no doubt the apostle. 
 But Jerome tells»us, that the opinion handed down by 
 most writers was that the two later letters were written, 
 not by John the Apostle, but by John the Elder.'^ 
 
 The earliest certain evidence we have of the exist- 
 ence of the second epistle is the quotation of it by 
 Irenaeus above mentioned, and the earliest certain 
 evidence we have of the existence of the third epistle 
 is the mention of it by Origen, who does not appear 
 to have thought either it or the second epistle the 
 work of the apostle.^ 
 
 We have evidence, therefore, that the second 
 
 ' Clement of Alextindiia distingiiislies the liist as the larger 
 (utl(uv) epistle (Strnm. ii. 38, cited Week's Introduction to the New 
 Testament, p. 2'2G). 
 
 - De viris illust. cc. 9, 18, il)id. 
 
 ' ' He (the apostle John) has also left an epistle of very few lines. 
 Let it be that he left also a second and a third, since not all say these 
 to be genuine. However, both of thera do not niiiUe a hundred lines ' 
 (KaToAeAoiirc Kol ^ttkttoAV t*6.vv bhtywv ffrixt^v. "EcTw 5c koI itvripav 
 Ka\ rpWr\v ■ itrtX oit iracres <t><itfl yfTjalovs tlvat ravraf. ttK^iv oGk flat 
 arix<'i> au<p6Tfpai iwoTiii'). Origen, cited Eusebius H. E. lib. vi. cap. 25. 
 
 It will bo noticed that while Clement speaks of the ' larger ' epistle, 
 Origen speaks of the second and third. This points to the collection 
 in the interval of the three letters into one volume. 
 
38 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 epistle was in existence at the time of its quotation by 
 Irenaeus, say a.d. 185, and that the third epistle was 
 in existence a generation afterwards. 
 
 In addition to this, there is the evidence of the 
 Murato'rian fragment. It is difficult to estimate the 
 effect of this evidence, as well as the weight which 
 ought to be given to it, from the exceedingly corrupt 
 state of the document and from its author being un- 
 known, and from the doubt that exists as to its age. 
 The fragment, which is mutilated at the beginning, 
 makes mention of the third book of the Gospel accord- 
 ing to Luke, who, it says, began to speak from the 
 birth of John. It then apparently states that John, 
 one of the disciples, wrote the fourth book of the 
 Gospels and tells the fable we have noticed above, and 
 proceeds : — 
 
 ' quid ergo mirum si lohannes tarn constanter sincula etifi 
 in epistulis suis proferam dicens in semeipsu quae uidimus 
 oculis nostris et auribus audiuimus et manus nostrae pal- 
 pauerunt haec scripsimus uobis sio etiam non solum 
 uisurem sed auditorem sed et scriptore omnium mirabiliu 
 dm per ordinem profetetur.' 
 
 This passage is thus translated in the ' Ante-Niceno 
 Christian Library ' : — 
 
 ' What marvel is it, then, that John brhigs forward 
 these several things so constantly in his epistles, also say- 
 ing in his own person : " What we have seen with our eyes 
 and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, that 
 have we written " ? For thus he professes himself to bo 
 not only the eye-witness, but also the hearer, and besides 
 that the historian of all the wondrous facts concerning the 
 Lord in their order.' 
 
 This translation depends upon a restoration of 
 
 JOHN THE ELDER 
 
 39 
 
 the text, by which ' singula ' is put for ' sincula,' and 
 ' proferat ' for' proferam,' not to mention less im- 
 portant restorations. 
 
 It is not easy to put any meaning at all upon the 
 text in its unrestored state, or to suggest any less 
 extensive restoration. But it is obvious that, though 
 epistles arc mentioned in the plural, the writer is re- 
 ferring to the first e])istle only. The fragment then 
 goes on to mention the Acts as the work of Luke, and 
 tlion the Epistles of I'aul, who is said to liavo followed 
 the cxaniplo of his prodoccssor John, in only writing 
 by name to seven churches. The fragment then 
 mentions that there were in circulation an epistle to 
 the Laodiccans, an?l another to the Alexandrians, 
 forged in the name of Paul, addressed to the heresy 
 of Marcion, and several others which could not be re- 
 ceived in the Catholic Church, and proceeds as follows : 
 ' Epistola sane iude et superscrictio iohannis duas in 
 catholica habentur et sapientia ab amicis salomonis 
 in honore ipsius scripta.' In this passage ' Judac ' is, 
 of course, restored for Judc, and I think all critics 
 would read ' duac ' for ' duas.' ' Superscrictio ' may be 
 variously restored as ' superscripti,' ' superscriptae,' or 
 ' superscriptione,' of which the last appears to me the 
 most probable. These restorations would make the 
 passage run : ' The epistltf, hideed, of Jude, and two 
 with John's name superscribed, or superscribed as (the 
 work) of John, or with the superscription of John, are 
 held in the Catholic Church, and Wisdom written by 
 the friends of Solomon in his honour.' These render- 
 ings are all equivalent. Critics who adopt the restora- 
 tion ' superscripti ' have rendered the passage, though 
 not, as I think, accurately : ' The epistle, indeed, of 
 
iO 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Jude, and two of the above-named John, are held in 
 the Catholic Church,' but this is improbable. The 
 phrase • above-named ' is not used anywhere else in 
 the fragment, though there is occasion for it, if the 
 yiter affected the sort of precision of language which 
 it implies, Luke as well as John being mentioned 
 more than once in the fragment, and as regards John 
 it is useless, as two persons at least of that name have 
 been previously mentioned. 
 
 The fragment continues : ' We receive the Apoca- 
 lypses of John and Peter only which ' (in the singular) 
 ' some of us are unwilling to read in the church.' The 
 fragment then comments on the degree of respect to 
 be paid to the ' Pastor of Hermas,' and after some 
 corrupt lines, in which the only thing intelligible is 
 the non-reception of some works of Valentinus and 
 Marcion, breaks off abruptly. 
 
 It is obvious that the writer is commenting on a 
 Now Testament part of which, at all events, had got 
 a definite order, and that he mentions epistles of John 
 twice. The first notice, which occurs between the 
 notice of the Fourth Gospel and the Acts, is only ap- 
 plicable to the first epistle, and probably was in the 
 original form of the document explicitly confined to 
 it. The second notice, which follows the epistles of 
 Paul, and is only introduced after the writer has begun 
 to comment on doubtful books, speaks only of two 
 epistles, and is probably intended to refer to the 
 second and third. If this is so, we arrive at the con- 
 clusion, from the study of the fragment, that at the 
 time it was written the first epistle was placed next 
 after the Gospel and treated as undoubtedly genuine ; 
 but the second and thu-d, though generally read in 
 
 JOHN THE ELDEK 
 
 41 
 
 the churches, were considered of uncertain authorship, 
 and placed among doubtful books at the end of the 
 New Testament. The mention made of the Wisdom • 
 of Solomon shows that it was consistent with the 
 views of the writer to reckon in the Canon a book 
 which he thought undoubtedly spurious. 
 
 The date of the Muratorian fragment is generally 
 given as a little after 170 a.d. Dr. Salmon places it 
 not earlier than the beginning of the third century ; 
 I am inclined to be of that opinion, for the following 
 reason. The language of the fragment appears to 
 show that the books of the New Testament, or at all 
 events the Gospels, had been collected in a volume, so 
 that the third and fourth books can be spoken of. I 
 am not aware of any writings so early as the second 
 century which would suggest this inference. The 
 language of Clement of Alexandria at the end of it, 
 describing the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as those 
 which contain the genealogies, and the first epistle of 
 John as the ' larger,' is in strong contrast. 
 
 The inference to draw from the fragment is that 
 the second and third epistles, as late as the beginning 
 of the third century, were placed in a different category 
 from the first, and this is very unfavourable to their 
 being by the same author as the first. 
 
 As against the two ppistlea being by the author 
 of the first, another weighty fact is their non-inclu- 
 sion in the Peshito-Syriac version, which contains 
 the first epistle. This is not explicable like their non- 
 quotation by writers like Papias and Justin, who quote 
 the first epistle, on the ground that no need arose for 
 it. The object of the framers of the version would be 
 to include all books of similar authority. We may. 
 
42 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 therefore, conclude that at the time of the making of 
 the Peshito version, or rather of the old Syriac on 
 which it was founded, there was a well-marked differ- 
 ence between the authority accorded to the first epistle 
 and the two others, if, indeed, they wore then in exist- 
 ence, and this, I think, is conclusive that they ought 
 not to be attributed to the author of the first epistle. If 
 they had been his workmanship, all three letters would 
 have been collected long before the making of that 
 version, would have circulated together, and would 
 have appeared equally authentic. The framers of the 
 version inserting one would, as of course, have inserted 
 the others also. But the resemblance in style between 
 the second and third epistles on the one hand, and 
 the first on the other, is so great, that if they are not 
 by the same author, it must be the result of inten- 
 tional imitation, which would be strong evidence of 
 forgery. 
 
 Assuming, however, the letters to be a forgery, it 
 may nevertheless be urged that they show a gene- 
 ral belief, at the time they were written, in a John 
 who was supposed to be understood by the title ' The 
 Elder,' of sufficient repute to have letters forged in 
 his name, and as this cannot well be later than ad. 
 185 and may be much earlier, it affords a powerful 
 confirmation of the interpretation placed by Eusobius 
 on the passage in Papias showing the existence of the 
 same person. 
 
 As against this, it may be remarked that one of the 
 peculiarities of the style of the first epistle is the 
 application of the phrase ' Little children ' to the 
 persons addressed, and the effect of this is imitated 
 
 JOHN THE ELDER 
 
 43 
 
 not the less effectively because indirectly by the 
 application of the correlative terra ' The Elder ' to the 
 supposed author, in the second and third epistles. 
 The use of this term would therefdi-e be explicable by 
 reason of the intention of the author to imitate the first 
 epistle, and any inference that might be drawn from 
 it as to the belief in any John known as the Elder 
 would fall to the ground. 
 
 It would appear, thcroforo, probable that the second 
 and third epistles of John were intended to be 
 attributed to the writer of the first epistle, assumed 
 to be John the Apostle, as the second epistle, at all 
 events, was in fact attributed by Ircnaens. No infer- 
 ence can, therefore* be drawn from the writing of these 
 epistles to the existence of John the Elder. From 
 the fact, however, narrated by Jerome, that the 
 epistles had been very generally attributed to John 
 the Elder, such an inference may be drawn, and the 
 exclusion of the letters from the Peshito version is not 
 at all inconsistent with the prevalence of such a belief 
 as to their authorship. On.the contrary, the existence 
 of such a theory would be of itself a reason for not 
 attributing them to the -apostle, and therefore ex- 
 cluding them from the canon. 
 
 On the whole, though the evidence, apart from the 
 extracts of Papias, might not of itself be sufficient to 
 establish the separate existence of John the Elder, it 
 is sufficient to confirm to a considerable degree the 
 interpretation placed by Eusebius upon these extracts 
 and altogether to rebut any positive objection that 
 might be raised to that interpretation — that such a 
 person had not otherwise been heard of, but was a 
 
44 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 subtlety evolved from the brain of Dionysius for the 
 purpose of discrediting the Apocalypse, tliough tliat 
 but for this purpose, we should have heard nothing 
 about such a person from Eusebius at all events, there 
 may be no manner of doubt. 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE VARIOUS READINGS XojUV AND \oyi(OV 
 
 I WILL now pass on to consider the question with 
 regard to the text of Eusebius, or rather of Papias. 
 In the extract relating to Mark, it is said that Peter 
 did not speak as if he were making a syntax — whatever 
 that may moan — of the Dominical oracloH. The word 
 translated oracles is Xoyiwi'. Instead of Xoyicov some 
 manuscripts read \6ycov, which would make the pas- 
 sage run that Peter did not speak as if he were making 
 a syntax of the Dominical discourses, which there 
 could be no doubt, I think, would mean the Lord's 
 discourses. 
 
 The reading Xoycov is adopted by Burton and 
 Valesius, but Stephens, Stroth, Zimmermann, llouth, 
 and more recently Laemmer, have adopted the read- 
 ing Xoyicov. 
 
 To turn from the names of the editors to the 
 grounds by which they have been influenced. These 
 I can only gather from the critical apparatus of 
 I3urton, the only critical edition I have seen, which is 
 not perhaps so perfect as it might have been, owing to 
 his death before the book was published, but, as the 
 work of an editor who adopts the reading Xoyuv, mav 
 
46 
 
 TIIK OUACLES OV PAl'IAS 
 
 be supposed to present the facts in the most favourable 
 aspect for that reading. It appears from this that 
 five manuscripts read Xoyav and five \oyiiov, the latter 
 being supported by the paraphrase of the historian 
 Nicephorua Callisti. 
 
 The manuscripts which read \6ycov all belong to 
 what is called the ' other ' recension, or al all events all 
 except one, about which the statements of Burton are 
 not sufficiently explicit to make the matter entirely 
 free from doubt. Of the manuscripts which read 
 Xoyiav, one designated by Burton by the letter ' A ' 
 belongs to what has been called the ' former ' re- 
 cension ; as to the other four, he makes no statement 
 that I can distinctly follow. As regards the authority 
 of ' A ' he makes the following remarks : — 
 
 ' It exhibits a certain peculiar recension of the text, 
 not indeed the best, as Stroth thinks, but sufficiently 
 ancient. It often agrees with Buiinus, often also with 
 Nicephorus, and then for the most part should be thought 
 to exhibit the true reading, as Stroth testifies.' ' 
 
 We see that in favour of the reading \oyioiv there 
 is this agreement of ' A ' with Nicephorus, which 
 Burton follows Stroth in acknowledging to be a general 
 indication of the true reading, together with whatever 
 weight ought to be assigned to the agreement of tlio 
 other four codices, one of which is of the tenth century. 
 In support, therefore, of the reading Xoycov there ap- 
 pears to be the authority of one recension only, in sup- 
 l^ort of Xoyicop of two recensions, or probably more. 
 
 ' I gather from this remark that the recensions used by llulinus 
 and Nicephorus were different from tlie recension contained in ' A,' 
 and that therefore the agreement of either of these writers with ' A ' 
 amounted to the agreement of two recensions. 
 
 TIIK VARIOUS UUADINGS \6y(ov AND Xoyioiv '17 
 
 If one turns from the authority "of different codices 
 to the context, the reading X6ywv has to contend 
 with this difficulty. It can only mean discourses, 
 and it is not easy to see why the fact that it was 
 not the object of Peter to make a syntax of the 
 discourses of the Lord should be a reason why Mark 
 should fail to relate in order what the Lord had done, 
 as opposed to what ho had said. I think I shall be 
 able to give a meaning to the word \oyio>v Avhich will 
 obviate this difficulty. 
 
48 
 
 THE ORACLES 01' PAPUS 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WOKD \6yia 
 
 The next question to consider is the meaning to 
 assign to the word \6yta, which I have translated 
 oracles, when Papias says Matthew wrote the oracles 
 in the Hebrew language. There can be little doubt 
 that the oracles which Matthew wrote, or wrote on, 
 are the same as those of which it was the object of 
 Papias to make an exposition, as shown by the title 
 of his work, ' An Exposition of Dominical Oracles ' 
 (Aoywoj/ KvpiaKwv i^rj'fqais), and of which Peter did 
 not speak as if making a syntax (ou;;^ wairep awra^cv 
 tSsv KvptaK&v TToiovfisvos Xoyimv). 
 
 In other words, the word Xoyiov may be taken to 
 be used in the same sense in all three places, the title 
 of Papias's book, the reference to Peter, and the refer- 
 ence to Matthew. 
 
 As the meaning of the word \6yiou as used by 
 Papias is disputed by the learned, there is little use in 
 citing names of modern authorities for one view or the 
 other ; the only satisfactory course is to collect the 
 passages in which the word is used by writers before 
 and about the time of Papias. 
 
 From them we may be able to infer the meaning 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD \6yia 
 
 49 
 
 of the word at that time, and consequently the mean- 
 ing we ought to give it in Papias. 
 
 The first authority to refer to is undoubtedly the 
 LXX, which did more than anything else to form the 
 ecclesiastical Greek. 
 
 By the aid of Kircher's Concordance, I have been 
 able to find the word Xoyiov in twenty-six passages in 
 the LXX,' of which fourteen occur in the llUth 
 Psalm. The meaning is always ' word,' and except in 
 one passage it is clearly applied to the word of God, 
 by which I do not mean that the word Xoyiov stand- 
 ing alone is used to mean J;he word of God, but that 
 it is used in such phrases as Xoyia tov ©eoO, Xoyia 
 Tov Kvpiov, &c., in which the context requires that it 
 should have that signification. The one place where 
 it might possibly have another application is in the 
 14th verse of the 19th Psalm : ' Let the words {Xoyia) 
 of my mouth &c. be acceptable in thy sight, Lord.' 
 It is, therefore, impossible in the English vei'sion to 
 distinguish the places in which the LXX uses ' Xoyiov ' 
 from the places in which it uses ' Xoyos.' 
 
 Thus in the 119th Psalm, verses 147 and 148 :— 
 
 ' I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried : I 
 hoped in thy words. 
 
 ' J[ine eyes prevent the night watohca, that I might 
 meditate in tliy word.' ' 
 
 As rendered in the LXX, ' thy words ' is repre 
 sented by rous Xoyovs crov, and ' thy word ' by ra Xdyid 
 aov. So in Isaiah xxviii. 13th and 14th verses : — 
 
 'Therefore shall the word of the Lord be unto them 
 precept upon precept,' itc. 
 
 ' For a list of these passages see Appendix II. 
 
50 
 
 THE OHACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ' Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful 
 men.' 
 
 The ' word of the Lord,' where it first occurs, is 
 represented in the LXX hy to \6yiov rov @eov, and 
 when it occurs the second time by \6yop Kvpiov.^ 
 
 The next authority to which I would refer is Philo 
 Judaeus. 
 
 Eichter, in the preface to his edition of the works 
 of Philo JudaeuB, promised his readers that he would 
 add an index of words to the sixth volume ; that 
 promise, however, was not kept,* and I am not aware 
 that any one has ever made such an index. In order, 
 therefore, to ascertain the use made by Philo of the 
 word Xoyiov, I can only cite such passages as I can 
 lay hands on. 
 
 He sometimes uses it in the same sense as the 
 LXX, meaning generally, inspired words or revelations. 
 Thus in his ' Life of Moses ' (lib. iii. cap. 21), speaking 
 of Moses, he says : ' He had chosen his brother high 
 Ijriest, according to the oracles revealed to him ' (Kara 
 ra ■^prjaBivra Xoyia), 
 
 So again in his treatise ' On Nobility,' cap. 5, 
 speaking of the oldest of the nation of the Jews, by 
 whom, I suppose, is intended Abraham : — 
 
 ' At the same timo also oracles revealed to him (Xo'ytd 
 TOL -f^-qa-divTo) fanned up the more the desire he had to know 
 that which is (to 6v), guided by which (the oracles) he went 
 with most fearless zeal in search of the one {rov ivo<:).' 
 
 But more usually, where Philo uses the word, he 
 
 ' Possibly these passages show that the LXX applies \6yta to the 
 written, K6yot to a spoken word. 
 
 " At least I cannot find any such index in my copy (Lipsiiu 
 BumtibaB K. B. Scbwickorti, 1828). 
 
 THE MEANING OK 'I'lIE WORD Xo'y la 51 
 
 intends specially the Old Testament Scriptures, or 
 some part of tliem. Thus in the ' Life of Moses ' (lib. 
 iii. cap. 23), having described Moses as the most &])- 
 proved of prophets (SoKificoTaTos), he goes on to say : — 
 
 ' I am not, indeed, ignorant that all things which have 
 been written in the sacred books are revelations (xp';o"/ioi) 
 revealed through him. But first having said that, I 
 will speak with more particularity, for of his oracles (tZv 
 Xoyiiov) some are spoken in the person of God, through the 
 divine prophet as an interpreter, others were delivered by 
 question and answer, others in the person of Moses inspired 
 
 and possessed.' 
 
 « 
 
 Here by his oriicles Philo means the books of the Old 
 Testament ascribed to Moses. 
 
 Again in his book ' Concerning Ecwards and 
 Punishments,' cap. 1, Philo says : — ■ 
 
 ' It has happened, then, that there are three kinds of 
 the oracles (Xoyiiav) through the prophet Moses, some about 
 the making of the world, others historical, and the third 
 class legislative.' 
 
 Here again the reference is to the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. 
 
 Again in his work ' Concerning Meeting for Seeking 
 Knowledge,' cap. 21, wo have : ' An oracle {\6ycov), in 
 which it is said " Thu Lord hinisolf is his lot," pledges 
 me the promise,' where the word is applied to a text 
 from Deuteronomy. 
 
 Again in his book ' On Fugitives,' caj). 11, we 
 find :— 
 
 ' But there is also an oracle (Xoymv) revealed upon him 
 (Cain) to this cftoct, Tlio Lord God sot a mark on Cain, 
 lest any one finding him should kill him,' 
 
 P 2 
 
52 
 
 THE OIIACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Here we find the word applied to a text from 
 Genesis. 
 
 Again, in his book ' ' On a Contemplative Life,' cap. 
 8, speaking of the Therapeutae, he says : — 
 
 ' But in each dwelling is a temple which is called a 
 holy place and a place for retirement {/lovaaTripiov), in 
 which, being alone, they fulfil the offices {fiva-njpia) of 
 the holy life, not taking in anything, either food or drink 
 or anything else necessary for the wants of the body, but 
 laws and oracles (Aoyia) uttered by prophets, and hymns 
 and the other things by which knowledge and piety are in- 
 creased and fulfilled.' 
 
 There can be no doubt from the context that these 
 Therapeutae were Jews, though of a very Hellenising 
 turn. They meet for religious exercises and rest from 
 work on the seventh day. They are described as 
 the pupils of Moses (ot Mcovaeas yvrnpifioi). Taking 
 up the sacred Scriptures, they philosophise, making 
 an allegory of their national philosophy (t^i' irdrpiov 
 <l)iXoao(f>iav aXXijyopovvTss). There can be no doubt, 
 therefore, that the \6yia, or oracles, before referred 
 to, mean some part of the Old Testament Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 Again, Philo calls the Ten Commandments the Ten 
 Oracles (roip Ssxa Xoyi'cov). This he does at least three 
 times, once in the title of his book ' De specialibus 
 legibus quae referuntur ad duo decalogi capita sextum 
 septimumque &c.,' once in the second chapter of the 
 same book, and again in the title of his book 'De 
 Decalogo ' (JIspl rmv S^ku Xoyiav a Ke(j>d\aia vofimv 
 Biai) . Again, at the very commencement of the former 
 
 ' Some authorities dispute the genuineness of this book, but as I 
 think without reason. Sec, further, Appendix iii. 
 
 THE lEEANING OF THE WORD \6yta 
 
 5:5 
 
 book, Philo speaks of himself as at one time ' always 
 moving among Divine oracles and ordinances ' (del 
 dsiois Xoyiois crvyKivov/Msvos Kal Soy/xacrtv), where, no 
 doubt, the Old Testament Scriptures are meant. 
 
 In other places Philo uses the word Xcy lov of things 
 contained in the Old Testament but not intended to 
 have been cited from it by the persons of whom he is 
 speaking. Thus in the ' Life of Moses,' book i. chapter 
 15, in narrating the journey of Moses to Egypt after 
 the incident of the burning bush, ho says : ' He i^ev- 
 suades his brother to accompany him, having repeated 
 the Divine oracles ' {to. Osla^oyia). Here the Divine 
 oracles are to be found in Exodus, but Philo does not 
 intend that Exodus was then written or that Moses cited 
 them out of it. So, again, in book iii. chapter 35 of 
 the same work, he says : ' But the Father thoroughly 
 established the oracle Q^oyiov) of the prophet by two 
 very clear proofs.' The oracle here is the command of 
 Moses taken from Exodus xvi. 19 : ' Let no man leave 
 of it till the morning.' But it is referred to as spoken 
 by Moses, not as cited from Exodus. A little further 
 on, chapter 36, he says : ' Not long after, being inspired, 
 he (Moses) utters a second oracle (Xo7£oi/), the one about 
 the holy seventh day,' and again, after remarking that 
 men were then ignorant of the natural pre-eminence 
 of the seventh day, Philo proceeds: ' Which being 
 unknown he (Moses), being inspired, showed by an 
 oracle (Xoylai), which was borne witness to by a clear 
 sign.' The oracle here referred to is the statement of 
 Moses contained in the same chapter of Exodus that 
 the sabbath is a holy rest, and the clear sign the not 
 finding the manna in the field on the seventh day. 
 Again, in chapter 88 Philo proceeds : — 
 
54 
 
 THE ORACLES 01' PAPIAS 
 
 ' But I have a more significant oracle (\oyiov) to report 
 . . . which he himself uttered, being again inspired, and 
 which was accomplished not a long time afterwards, but 
 immediately when it was being delivered.' 
 
 Philo proceeds to narrate the story of Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram ; the words sijoken by Moses 
 (Numbers xvi. 28-38) being much paraphrased, and in 
 particular Moses being made to say in verse 29 : 
 ' then I have fabricated the oracles ' (ra Xoyia) instead 
 of ' then the Lord hath not sent me.' 
 
 In all these passages Philo applies the word Xoyiov 
 to what he himself derives from the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, though he does not intend to represent the 
 persons to whose utterances he applies it as having so 
 derived it. 
 
 We see, therefore, that, in fifteen out of the seven- 
 teen passages containing the word Xoyiov I have 
 been able to find in the writings of Philo, the word is 
 applied to the Old Testament Scriptures or what is 
 contained in them. It will be noticed that in both 
 passages in which Philo does not intend the Old 
 Testament Scriptures he uses the adjective ^^rjaffhra, 
 revealed, showing that by the word Xoyia standing 
 alone the Old Testament Scriptures or something 
 contained in thorn would be intended. 
 
 I will next consider the use of the word in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The word Xoyiov occurs in the New Testament in 
 four places ; thus in Acts vii. 38 it is said of Moses : 
 'This is he that was in the church in the wilder- 
 ness with the angel which spake to him in the 
 Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received 
 living oracles {Xoyia fwvra) to give unto us ; ' and 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WOBD Xoyia 55 
 
 again, Romans iii. 2, it is said of the Jews : ' They 
 were entrusted with the oracles of God ' (to. Xoyia 
 ^eov) ; and again, Hebrews v. 12 : — 
 
 ' For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, 
 ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments 
 of the first principles of the oracles of God ' (rwuXoyioiv tov 
 ®iov). 
 
 In all those places the woi'd refers to the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, or some part of them. 
 The remaining passage is 1 Peter iv. 11 : — 
 
 ' According as each has received a gift, ministering it 
 amongst yourselves as good stewards of the manifold grace 
 of God ; if any man speaketh as oracles of God (<Ls Xo'yia 
 ®toi) ; if any man ministereth as of the strength which 
 God supplieth ; that in all things God may be glorified 
 through Jesus Christ.' 
 
 I have ventured here to keep a little closer to the 
 original than either the old or revised version. I 
 understand the meaning to be that if any one has the 
 gift (x"-piafJLa) of speech, he is to attribute it to Divine 
 inspiration, and so give God the glory. 
 
 In this case, therefore, the word Xoyia would not 
 be applied specially to the Old Testament, but to any 
 oracles inspired by God. 
 
 The next author I will consider is the hiatorian 
 riavius Josephus. 
 
 His ' Jewish War ' is certainly later in date than the 
 Epistle to the Eomans, but possibly earlier than any 
 of the other New Testament books I have cited. As, 
 however, the dates of these books are uncertain, I take 
 him in this place. 
 
 He uses the word Xoyiov twice in the following 
 
66 
 
 ^ 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 passage in his ' Jewish War,' book vi. cap. 5. 4, which 
 I cite from "VMiiston's translation :— 
 
 n ♦r^T'/I ^°^ °°^ ''°"^'^^' ^^^^^ *l^'"g«. ^'''Will find 
 Uiat God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible 
 foreshows to our race what is for their preservation, but 
 that men perish by those miseries which they madly and 
 voluntarily bring upon themselves; for tbe Jews by 
 demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple 
 foursquare, while at the same time they had it written in 
 their sacred oracles (.V ror. XoyU, |;^ovt«) that then 
 should their city be taken, as well as their holy house 
 when once their temple should become foursquare. But 
 now what did most elevate them in undertaking this war 
 was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their 
 sacred writings (xpwf^b, d^,f,lfio\o, 5/xo.'<«. iy to^ Upo'c, 
 tvprjixevoi ypd^fmaiv), how, about that time, one from their 
 country should become governor of the habitable earth 
 The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in 
 particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived 
 in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the 
 government Vespasian, who was appointed Emperor in 
 
 Judea (apa TTipi Tov Ovto-Tratriai'ov to koyiov r/ytfioyiav aTro- 
 Sti)^6cvTos tVt 'lovSaiai avTOKparopoi).' 
 
 The first prophecy referred to I presume to be that 
 contained inEzekiel xlii.15 toxliii. 3, which, according 
 to the Revised Version, is as follows : — 
 
 'Now, when he had made an end of measuring Iho 
 inner house, he brought me forth by the way of the gate, 
 whose prospect is towards the east, and meq,3ured it round 
 about. He measured on the east side with the measuring 
 reed, five hundred reeds with the measuring reed round 
 about. He measured on the north side five hundred reeds 
 with the measuring reed round about. He measured on 
 the south side five hundred reeds with the measuring reed. 
 He turned about to the west side, and measured five hundred 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xoyia 
 
 57 
 
 reeds with the measuring reed. He measured it on the 
 four sides. It had a wall round about, the length five 
 hundred and the breadth five hundred, to make a separation 
 between that which was holy and that which was common. 
 Afterwards ho brought me to the gate, even the gate that 
 looketh toward the east, and behold, the glory of the God 
 of Israel came from the way of the east, and his voice was 
 like the sound of many waters, and the earth sliined with 
 his glory, and it was according to the appearance of the 
 vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city.' 
 
 Instead of the words ' when I came to destroy the 
 city,' the Vulgate has 'qtiaiido veiiit iit dispcrderet 
 chitatem ' (' when he came tp destroy the city ') . These 
 words must indicate either a possible rendering of 
 the Hebrew or else a different reading current in 
 ancient times. 
 
 If we substitute them for the words of the English 
 version, we get what reads very like a prophecy of the 
 destruction of Jerusalem consequent upon the ascertain- 
 ment that the temple was exactly square. Of course, 
 when the whole passage is looked at, this does not 
 appear to have been the meaning of Ezekiel. But as 
 prophecies were interi)reted in the days of Josephus, 
 and for that matter are often still interpreted, such a 
 sense would very likely be put upon it. 
 
 The other prophecy is generally supposed to be 
 the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks, contained 
 in Daniel ix. The same process by which Christians 
 have applied this prophecy to Jesus of Nazareth 
 would excite in the Jews the expectation of some other 
 Messiah a few years afterwards. Whatever opinions, 
 however, be entertained as to the particular passages 
 Josephus had in view, there can be no doubt that by 
 the words sv rots Xoyiois he meant ' in the Old Testa- 
 
 7 
 
58 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ment Scriptures,' and by the words to Xoylov a par- 
 ticular prophecy contained in them. 
 
 This is the only passage I have been able to find 
 in Josephus which contains the word \6yiov. 
 
 It will be noticed that the word as used by him 
 has more the sense of prophecy than as used by 
 Philo, and, bearing in mind that he was a man of 
 affairs while Philo was a philosopher, this is probably 
 an indication of the more common use of the word 
 among Greek-speaking Jews. 
 
 Clement of Kome, whom I will now consider, uses 
 the word four, or, at all events, three, times. 
 
 •The first place is in chapter 13, but as there the 
 word occurs in a quotation and there is, moreover, a 
 difference of reading, I will for the present pass it 
 over. 
 
 The second iilace is in chapter 19, in which, after 
 quoting largely from the fifty-first Psalm, concluding 
 with the words ' a sacrifice unto God is a contrite 
 spirit, a contrite and humbled heart God will not 
 despise ' (I quote from the translation of Dr. Light- 
 foot), he continues : — 
 
 ' The humility, therefore, and the submissiveness of so 
 many and so great men, who have thus obtained a good 
 report, hath through obedience made better not only us 
 but also the generations which were before us, even them 
 that received Hia oracles in fear and truth (oi /jlovov -^^as 
 
 oAAa Kai Tas irpo ri/J-uiv ytviai /SfXriovi iiroir](Tav, Tovs Tt 
 KaraSfiafifvovi to. \6yia avTOv iv <f>6/3ia Kal a\-q6f.ia).' 
 
 The oracles (ja \6yia) from which the generations 
 before Clement as well as his own generation had 
 received benefit are here evidently the Old Testament 
 Scriptures. 
 
 THE MEANING OE THE WORD Xoyia 
 
 59 
 
 The passage quoted above follows notices of 
 Elijah, Elisha, Ezekit'l, Abraham, Job, Moses, and 
 David. 
 
 The next passage where Clement uses the word is 
 in chapter 53, and runs thus, according to the same 
 translation : — 
 
 ' For ye know and know well the sacred Scriptures, dearly 
 beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God (kuI 
 iyK(KV<fiaTi (k ra Xuy la roC ©coC). We write these things, 
 therefore, to put you in remembrance. When Moses went 
 up into the mountain, and had spent forty days and forty 
 nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him,' &c. 
 
 Here again the word oracles (Koyid) evidently 
 refers to the Old Testament. 
 
 The portion of the Epistle of Clement following the 
 last quotation is full of quotations from the canonical 
 and apocryphal books of the Old Testament ; in par- 
 ticular mention is made of the preservation of Israel by 
 reason of the intercession and self-sacrifice of Moses, 
 Judith, and Esther. In chapter 02, Clement again 
 uses the word \6yia in the following passage :— 
 
 ' We have written fully unto you, brethren, . . . put- 
 ting you in remembrance that ye ought to please Almighty 
 God . . . even as our fathers, of whom we spoke before, 
 pleased Him . . . and as we have put you in mind of 
 these things the more gladly since we Icnew well that we 
 were writing to men who are faithful and highly accounted, 
 and have diligently searched into the oracles of the teach- 
 ing of God {(yK(KV(f>6crii' eis to. Xoyia T^s TraiStias Tov 
 ®eov): 
 
 Here, again, it is plain that the word oracles (Xoyia) 
 refers to the Old Testament. 
 
 I will now return to the passage which I passed 
 
60 
 
 THE onACLES OP PAPUS 
 
 over and which presents more difficulty. It is there- 
 fore necessary to cite it at length : — 
 
 ' Let us, therefore, be lowly-minded, brethren, laying 
 aside all arrogance and conceit and folly and anger, and 
 let us do thtit which is written (t6 ytypa/iyitcVoi'). For the 
 Holy Ghost saith, Let not the wise man boast in his wis- 
 dom, nor the strong in his strength, neither the rich in his 
 riches; but he that boasteth let him boast in the Lord, 
 that he may seek Him out, and do judgment and right- 
 eousness ; most of all remembering the words (twv 
 X.6ymv) of the Lord Jesus which He spake (oS? i\aXr](T(v), 
 teaching {SiSda-Ktov) forbearance and long-suffering : for 
 thus He spake (outojs yap etn-cv), Have mercy, that ye may 
 receive mercy ; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you. As 
 ye do, so shall it be done to you. As ye give, so shall it 
 be given unto you. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. 
 As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be showed unto 
 you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured 
 withal to you. With this commandment and these pre- 
 cepts (rauTj; TJj ivToK-iJ koi rots napayylK/jiaa-iv) let US confirm 
 
 ourselves, that we may walk in obedience to His hallowed 
 words (tois ayioTTptTria-i Xo'yots avTov) with lowliness of mind. 
 For the holy word saith, Upon whom shall I look save upon 
 him that is gentle and quiet and feareth mine oracles {fiov 
 TO. Xoyia) ? ' 
 
 The first remark to make upon this passage is 
 that the word Xoyta occurs in a quotation from Isniah 
 Jxvi. 2. This quotation is made nearly in the words 
 of the LXX, but instead of the words fiov to. \6yia the 
 LXX has roiis \6yovs /iov. 
 
 In making the quotation, therefore, the word Xoyia 
 or ' oracles,' with which we are at present concerned, 
 has been substituted for the word Xoyovs, or 'words,' 
 made use of in the LXX. 
 
 The next remark to make is that, though this 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xoyia 
 
 Gl 
 
 is the reading of the Alexandrine MS., the Constanti- 
 nopolitan MS., which is the other Greek authority for 
 the text, agrees with the LXX. Dr. Lightfoot adopts 
 the reading of the Alexandrine MS. on, no doubt, good 
 grounds, for it appears that it is one of the peculiarities 
 of the Constantinopolitan MS. to assimilate the quo- 
 tations to the LXX. 
 
 It is, however, necessary to notice this variation of 
 reading, for if the reading of the Constantinopolitan 
 MS. were adopted the word Xoyia would not occur in 
 the passage at all. 
 
 Assuming, then, that the reading of the Alexan- 
 drine MS. is right, we have to consider what light 
 the passage throws upon the meaning of the word 
 Xoyia, and this must to a great extent turn upon the 
 motive which induced Clement to depart from the 
 language of the LXX. 
 
 It is possible, but not very probable, that the 
 particular text which he used may have had the 
 reading. If that were the case, the passage would be 
 consistent either with the application of the word to 
 the quotations from the Old Testament or to the words 
 of Jesus, and would, therefore, not assist us much. 
 But supposing, what is more probable, that Clement 
 intentionally altered the word, we got a more distinct 
 indication of its meaning. For if ho had made the 
 citation in the words of the LXX, ' Upon whom shall I 
 look save upon him that is gentle and quiet and feareth 
 my words?' {roiis Xoyovs fiov), the application of the 
 quotation to the words of Jesus would have been 
 necessary. It would, therefore, appear probable that 
 it was in order to obviate this application that he 
 substituted the word oracles (Xoyia) and in consequence 
 
62 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 that the use of the word at that time, in the absence 
 of a controlling context, was not consistent with its 
 application to anything else than the Old Testament. 
 This would agree with the use made by Clement of the 
 word Xoyta in the other three places in which he uses 
 it. It may be asked, Why should Clement desire to 
 avoid the application of the citation to the words of 
 Jesus ? One answer might be that in so doing, though 
 he altered the language, he preserved the sense of 
 the document he was citing. Having regard to the 
 wresting of the language of texts which was common 
 at that day (though I have not noticed that Clement 
 is chargeable with it), this reason may not be of great 
 weight. 
 
 Another reason that suggests itself is that in the 
 LXX the words cited are put into the mouth of the 
 Lord {Kvpios). Now, there was a school in the Church 
 which contended that the word Kvpios, where it occurs 
 in the LXX, referred to the second person of the Trinity 
 as opposed to the first, and Clement, by making the 
 citation apply to the words of Jesus, would be adopting 
 the doctrine of this school. This Clement may not 
 have wished to do. His object in writing his epistle 
 was to inculcate, not any abstract doctrine, but the 
 practical duty of obedience to the constituted autho- 
 rities in the Church. He had before him a great 
 object, no less than the building up of that vast 
 edifice of ecclesiastical dominion which has over- 
 shadowed the earth. To have put forward any doc- 
 trine which, without forwarding his main aim, might 
 have proved offensive to any class of his readers, 
 would have been foreign to his purpose. By confining 
 the apphcation of the passage to the Old Testament, 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE W^ORD \6yia 
 
 63 
 
 to which nobody would dispute it was applicable, he 
 avoided a possible cause of offence. But without any 
 such special object the use of the word ' oracles ' may 
 simply indicate a return to the sentiment with which 
 the chapter commences : — 
 
 '. . . let us do that which is written. . . . For the holy 
 word saith, Upon whom shall I look save upon him that 
 . . . feareth mine oracles? Therefore it is right and 
 proper, brethren, that we should be obedient unto God,' 
 &c. 
 
 When, therefore, this passage is looked into, it 
 affords evidence of the special application of the word 
 \6yia to the Old Testament Scriptures. We see, there- 
 fore, that Clement of Rome, in the four places in which 
 he uses the word \6yia, intends by it the Old Testa- 
 ment. This is the more noticeable because in another 
 place, as well as in the passage above cited, he quotes 
 words of Jesus, caUing them \6<yoi, not \6yia. 
 
 It must be noticed that, besides applying to them 
 the term oracles (Xoyia), Clement uses many formulas 
 of respect in citing the Old Testament, e.g. ' it is 
 written' (yiypainaC), cc. 4, 13, 17, 29, 36, 89, 46, 
 48, 50 ; ' the writing {to ypa<^eiov) saith,' c. 28 ; ' the 
 scripture (57 7pai/>»?) saith,' cc. 34, 35 ; ' the Holy 
 Ghost (to TTvevp-a to ayiov) saith,' cc. 13, 16, 22 ; 
 'the holy word saith' {,i^i)<t\v 6 aytos 'Koyos), cc. 13, 
 56 ; ' the All-virtuous Wisdom saith ' {Xiyei 1) iravdpeTos 
 (TO(f>La), c. 57, while he uses no similar phraseology in 
 citing books of the New Testament. This indicates 
 clearly that the writer did not think fit to accord 
 to the New Testament that position which was held 
 by the Old Testament ; and when we realise the official 
 nature of the letter written in the name of the Church 
 
64 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 of Rome to the Church of Corinth, and the practical 
 object it had in view, we may take this as an index 
 to the usage generally prevalent in the Church at 
 that day. 
 
 The Epistle of Clement, therefore, affords a strong 
 argument against applying to any book in the New 
 Testament any of the phraseology which had been 
 customarily used to indicate the Old Testament 
 Canon, in any book written before the second century 
 was well advanced. 
 
 Justin Martyr, whom I will next consider, as I find 
 by the index of Otto, uses the word twice. In one 
 place he applies the word Xoyiov to a passage in the 
 Old Testament, which, he contends, was a prophecy 
 fulfilled in Jesus. In the other place, he calls sayings 
 of Jesus Xoyia ; but though he often quotes evangelical 
 writings of some sort, he never refers to them as 
 Xoyia. So in other places where he has to mention 
 sayings of Jesus, he calls them \6yoi, not \6yta, as 
 in the well-known passage, ' Short and concise were 
 his words (Koyoi), for he was no sophist.' The first 
 passage in which Justin uses the word \6yiov is in his 
 first Apology, chapter 82, and is as follows : — 
 
 ' And Isaiah also, another prophet, prophesying the 
 samo things in other language, thus said : " A star shall 
 rise out of Jacob, and a flower shall go up from the root 
 of Jesse, and in his arm shall the Gentiles hope." And a 
 bright star arose, and a flower went up from the root of 
 Jesse, this Christ. For by the virgin who was of the seed of 
 Jacob, who was the father of Judah, who has been shown 
 to be the father of the Jews, through the power of God he 
 was .brought forth, and Jesse has become his forefather, 
 according to the oracle {Kara to \6yiov) ; and of Jacob and 
 Judali, by successive descent, he was a son,' 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE AVORU \6yia 
 
 fio 
 
 Many remarks might be made upon this passage, 
 and may have to be made before wo have done, but 
 one thing is certain, that Justin applies the word 
 ' oracle ' (Xoyiov) to a text, or rather texts, which he 
 supposes to come out of Isaiah, and which are, in 
 fact, contained in tho Old Testament. 
 
 The second place in which Justin uses tho Avord is 
 in his ' Dialogue with Trypho,' chapter xviii. He has 
 wound up a series of citations from the Old Testa- 
 ment, and passes on to quote certain words of Jesus, 
 which, he says, he cried out on the occasion of his 
 overthrowing thi' tnbU's of tliu inont'y-clianf^cu-s in the 
 Temple, and which, with some dilferences, resemble 
 a mixture of sayings stated in Maithew to have been 
 uttered by Jesus in the Temple on a subsequent oc- 
 casion, with other sayings stated in Luke to hiivo been 
 uttered by Jesus when at dinner in a Pharisee's house — 
 ' Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, &c.' 
 Justin then proceeds as follows : — 
 
 ' For since, Tryplio, you have read, as you yourself 
 acknowledge, the things which were taught by that Saviour 
 of ours, I do not think that I have acted out of place in 
 adding short oracles (Xo'yia) of his to those of the prophets.' 
 
 The application of the word in this place to the 
 sayings of Jesus is of course clear, hut it docs not 
 indicate a usual use of the word. On tlie contrary, 
 its unusual application to the denunciations of Jesus 
 gives the i^assage its force, being in the nature of a 
 hit at Trypho. 
 
 This last citation from Justin, which is at least 
 fifty years subsequent to the date I have assigned to 
 Papias, is the earliest passage extant in which the 
 word Xoyiov is applied in any way to the New Testa- 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ment Scriptures, and it is noteworthy that in this case 
 it is applied merely to the sayings of Jesus, and not 
 to the books which contain them ; and that even so, the 
 context tends to show that the use of the word was at 
 the time unusual. 
 
 The word occurs again in the Epistle to the 
 Fhilippians, attributed to Polycarp, c. vii. I quote 
 the passage from Dr. Lightfoot's translation : — 
 
 'Let us, therefore, so serve Him with fear and all 
 reverence, as He Himself gave commandment, and the 
 Apostles who preached the Gospel to us, and the prophets 
 who proclaimed beforehand the coming of our Lord, being 
 zealous as touching that which is good, abstaining from 
 ofifences, and from the false brethren, and from them that 
 bear the name of the Lord in hypocrisy, who lead foolish 
 men astray. 
 
 ' For everyone who shall not confess that Jesus is come 
 in the flesh is antichrist, and whosoever shall pervert the 
 oracles of the Lord {to. koyia tov KvpLov) to his own lusts, 
 and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, 
 that man is the firstborn of Satan.' 
 
 This version follows the extant Greek manuscripts, 
 but an extract contained in the work of an old Syriac 
 writer has preserved the reading ' oracles of God ' 
 instead of 'oracles of the Lord." Now, to quote tiio 
 words of Dr. Lightfoot, ' the extant Greek manu- 
 scripts have all descended from one faulty and, pro- 
 bably, not very early archetype.' ' Their authority is, 
 therefore, not at all high, even when, as in the present 
 case, they agree with the Latin version, for the two 
 again— to quote Dr. Lightfoot — ' are closely allied.' ' 
 
 ' Apostolic FaOiers, part ii. vol. i. p. 531. 
 » Ibid, vol, ii. sect. ii. p. 901. 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xo'^ia 
 
 C7 
 
 It will, therefore, be doubtful whether the older 
 reading is not that preserved by the old Sj'rlac writer. 
 
 Whichever reading be adopted, there will be seen 
 to be a parallelism- in the passage I have quoted, 
 which will point with sufficient clearness to what was 
 intended by the word \6<yia. 
 
 Let us, therefore, serve For everyone who shall 
 Him as He himself gave us notconfess that Jesus Christ 
 commandment. is come in the flesh is anti- 
 
 christ. 
 And the Apostles who And whosoever shall not 
 preached the Gospel to us. confess the testimony of the 
 
 Clross is of the devil. 
 And the prophets who pro- And whosoever shall per- 
 claimed beforehand the com- vert the oracles of the Lord 
 iug of our Lord. (or God) to his own lusts, 
 
 and say there is neither 
 resurrection nor judgment, 
 that man is the firstborn of 
 Satan. 
 
 Observing this parallelism, it is plain that by ' the 
 oracles of the Lord (or God) ' were intended the Old 
 Testament Scriptures. 
 
 If the reading ' of (concerning) the Lord ' be 
 adopted, the intendment will be the Messianic pro- 
 phecies ; if the reading ' of God,' thii Old Tostamcnt 
 Scriptures generally. 
 
 The same follows from the consideration of the 
 passage itself, for the doctrine condemned, denying 
 the resurrection and the judgment, was that of the 
 Sadducees, and was not held, so far as I am aware, 
 by any sect of Christians. 
 
 I have pointed out that the context compels the 
 same intendment to be given to Xoyia, whether we 
 
68 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 adopt the reading Kvpiov or @eov ; but it must be 
 noticed that if we suppose the original reading to have 
 been Kvpiou, the change to ©eoO points to a difficulty 
 in the sense, and that just such a difficulty would be 
 occasioned by a change in the usual intendment of 
 the phrase Xoyia rov Kvpiov from Messianic prophecies 
 to New Testament Scriptures. If, therefore, Kvpiov 
 be the true reading, the existence of the various read- 
 ing is favourable to the true reading requiring an 
 archaic interpretation of the passage. 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot, who holds the epistle of Polycarp to 
 be genuine, places the date of it a.d. 1 10. Being inclined 
 myself to consider it spurious, I should place its date 
 shortly after the time when, the name of Polycarp 
 having acquired great weight by his martyrdom, it was 
 considered desirable to provide evidence of his adhesion 
 to the teaching of the apostle Paul. That is some time 
 in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, or not many years 
 before Irenaeus wrote his work on heresies. 
 
 The word \6yiov occurs again in the ancient 
 homily, commonly known as the second epistle of 
 Clement, chapter xiii., which I quote from Dr. Light- 
 foot's translation : — 
 
 ' Therefore, brethren, let us repent forthwith. Let us 
 be sober unto that which is good ; for we are full of mad 
 folly and wickedness. Let us wipe away from us our 
 fonner sins, and let us repent with our whole soul and be 
 saved, and let us not be found men-pleasers. Neither let 
 us desire to please one another only, but also those men 
 that are without, by our righteousness, that the Name be 
 not blasphemed by reason of us. For the Lord saith (At'yct 
 yap 6 Kvpios), Every way My Name is blasphemed among all 
 the Gentiles ; and again, Woe unto him by reason of whom 
 My Name is blasphemed. Wherein is it blasphemed ? In 
 
 THE MEANING Oi'" THE WOItl) Xoyia 
 
 69 
 
 that ye do not the things which I desire. For the Gentiles, 
 when they hear from our mouth the oracles of God (tii 
 Xuyia Tov ®iov), marvel at them for their beauty and great- 
 ness ; then, when they discover our works are not worthy 
 of the words which we speak, forthwith they betake them- 
 selves to blasphemy, saying that it is an idle story and a 
 delusion. For when they hear from us that God (o ©cos) 
 saith, It is no thank unto you if ye love them that love 
 you, but this is thauk unto you, if ye love your enemies 
 and them that hate you (Oi p(<^P's ^/'^^ «' uyajrart tov^ 
 
 clyairoIi'Tas v/xas, (JWd Xiipi'S vfuv €i dyanaTC roi'S e^Bpovi Kill 
 
 Toiis /ticroviTus i/ius) ; when they hear these things, I say, 
 they marvel at their exceeding goodness ; but when they 
 see that we do not only not love Ihem that hate us, but 
 not even them that love us, they laugh us to scorn, and 
 the Name is blasphemed.' 
 
 The passage, quoted as an oracle of God, may 
 possibly be an abridged and rather free rendering of 
 Luke vi. 32-35 :— 
 
 ' If ye love them that love you, what thank have ye ? . . . 
 But love your enemies . . . and your reward shall be 
 great, and ye shall be sous of the Most High {d dyaTrure 
 
 roils ayaTTuivTus v/ius, iroia vfjuv X"-!"-'' ^'^riv ; . . . irXr/v 
 dyaTrarc Toiis ixOftovs vftuiv . . . nal Itrrai b 1x1(760% vfiuiv voX.ii'; 
 
 Kal itTivOf. v'loX 'Ylj/tiTTOV).' 
 
 But, if not, it probably comes from some other gospel. 
 We have, therefore, the word Xoyiov applied to 
 words put into the mouth of Jesus in some gospel ; 
 this, however, is a very different thing from so de- 
 scribing the gospel which contained those words. 
 The usage of the word is, therefore, similar to thnt 
 by Justin Martyr in the passage quoted above from 
 the Dialogue with Trypbo, with the exception that 
 there is nothing in the context to suggest that it was 
 uncommon. 
 
70 
 
 THE ORACLES ot PAl>IAS 
 
 In considering the importance to be attached to 
 this quotation it is necessary to consider the date of 
 the homily in which it occurs. 
 
 The first notice we have of it is in the ' Ecclesi- 
 astical History of Eusebius' (iii. 38), who appears to 
 have doubted its genuineness, and says that he did not 
 know of any mention of it by ancient writers. Never- 
 theless, the archaic style of reference to evangelical 
 literature, especially the quotation of sayings of Jesus, 
 contained only in apocryphal gospels, without any 
 note that they were of doubtful authority, shows the 
 homily to be of a date anterior to the time at which 
 the four canonical gospels came to be regarded as of 
 peculiar authority. This archaic style of reference is 
 one ground why Dr. Lightfoot fixes the date as early 
 as the second quarter of the second century.' This is 
 by comparing the style of its author in such matters 
 with IrenaeuB and Clement of Alexandria, and as- 
 suming that the style of the two latter writers may 
 be taken as typical of what would be tolerated in 
 the church at their age. This, however, I venture to 
 contend, is a mistake. These writers were leaders of 
 opinion, and were forerunners of the age that followed 
 them, rather than representatives of their own. The 
 quotation from Dr. Lightfoot's own writings in the 
 case of the acts of the Scillitan martyrs cited below '' 
 will show that the archaic way of referring to New 
 Testament writings continued as late as the accession 
 of CommoduB, a.d. 180. 
 
 There can be no reason, therefore, on this ground, 
 to refer the homily we are now considering to an 
 earlier date. 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, part i. vol. ii. p. 202. 
 
 « P. 79, post. 
 
 THE MEANING 01' THE WOBD Koyia 
 
 71 
 
 The other ground alleged by Dr. Lightfoot is, that 
 the homily contains expressions which might be 
 thought to savour of Valentinianism, notably the re- 
 ference to the spiritual church begotten before the 
 sun and moon, and that an orthodox writer would 
 have avoided such expressions after the Valentinian 
 system had been promulgated and publicly branded 
 as heresy.' But Dr. Lightfoot has to admit that it is 
 not certain that the writer of the homily was reckoned 
 altogether orthodox in his own day, and even if he 
 were, the system of Valuntinus was not one which 
 succumbed immediately it had^been pronounced to be 
 heretical. On the contrary, it troubled the church for 
 several generations, and was in the end embraced by 
 a large sect. The philosophical principles upon which 
 the system of Valentinus was based were prevalent 
 among a large number of the thinking men of the 
 second century, and it was not until those principles 
 were discredited by the reviv^pd Platonism of Plotinus, 
 that the system based on them began to give way. 
 There is therefore no reason to think that principles 
 more or less approximating to those of Valentinus 
 were less rife in the church in the generation suc- 
 ceeding the promulgation of his doctrines than they 
 had been in the generation before. We must there- 
 fore look for sO|ino other grounds than those alleged 
 by Dr. Lightfoot if we would place the homily earlier 
 than the latter part of the second century. I am not 
 aware of any. The best indication of the date of the 
 homily which I am aware of, is to be found in the 
 following passage from cap. xvii., which I cite from 
 the translation of Dr. Lightfoot :— 
 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part i. vol. i. p. 203. 
 
72 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 ' But the righteous, having done good and endured tor- 
 ments (u7ro/x«VoiT£s ris /iaadvov;), and hated the pleasures 
 of the soul, when they shall behold them that have done 
 amiss, and denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds, 
 how that they are punished with grievous torments in an 
 unquenchable fire, shall give glory to God (eVo^rat So^av 
 8t8o'iT€s TO) 0C1U auTwi/j, saying there will be hope for him 
 that has served God with his whole heart.' 
 
 This part of the text is extant in two authorities 
 only, the Greek MS., known as the Constantinopolitan, 
 and the Syriac version. 
 
 The Syriac version, one of these authorities, adds 
 ip dydXXida-ei after scrovrat, making the redeemed 
 • in exceeding joy ' give glory to their God at the 
 sight of the suiTerings of the lost. 
 
 In the parts of the text which arc extant also in 
 the Alexandrine MS., which is deemed the best autho- 
 rity, the Syriac version most frequently coincides 
 with Alexandrine MS., where it differs from the Con- 
 stantinopolitan MS.' 
 
 Upon the merits of this version as an authority, 
 as contrasted with the Constantinopolitan manuscript 
 denoted by the symbol C which forms the remaining 
 authority, Dr. Lightfoot remarks as follows : — 
 
 ' Of the two inferior authorities, S (the Syriac version) 
 is much more valuable than C for correcting A (the Alex- 
 andrian MS.). While C alone corrects A in one imssage 
 only of any moment, S alone corrects it in several. In 
 itself, S is both better and worse than C. It is made up 
 of two elements, one very ancient and good, the other 
 debased and probably recent, whereas C preserves a pretty 
 fair standard throughout.' ' 
 
 ' Lightfoot, Apostolic FatJicis, part i. vol. i. p. 138. ' Ibid. p. 144. 
 
 THE MEANING OE THE WOIU) \6<yLa 
 
 73 
 
 This character of the two witnesses C and S would 
 seem to show a preponderance in favour of the read- 
 ing supported by the Syriac version, especially when 
 one recollects the tendency there would be to omit iv 
 dyaWidasi in order to soften the harshness of the 
 sentiment, and that C shows signs of critical re- 
 vision.' 
 
 Dr. Lightfoot gives as his reason for preferring the 
 reading of the Constantinopolitan MS. in this 2Jlace 
 that the addition of the words iv dyaXXidasc should 
 be taken as an illustration of a tendency to introduce 
 glosses and explanations characteristic of the Syriac 
 version, or the Greek MS. from which it was derived,'' 
 but we may suspect that he was influenced, perhaps 
 unconsciously, by a desire to soften the passage. This 
 wo sec in his translation cited above, wh(!re, by omitting 
 to translate aitrotv and so making the saints give glory 
 ' to God ' instead of to ' their God,' he makes a further 
 change in the same direction. 
 
 But whether this expletive ought or ought not to 
 be part of the text, the passage shows a great bitter- 
 ness of feeling on the part of the Christians towards 
 unbelievers, and following the previous quotation in 
 which the preacher had pointed out how the Name was 
 blasphemed, owing to the disregard, on the part of the 
 Christians, of the divine injunction concerning loving 
 their enemies, would have ai)peared in the nature of 
 a practical bull, had not the outrageousness of the 
 sentiment been disguised by its having become a 
 religious commonplace. It is well known that it 
 finally became an established doctrine of the church, 
 that the redeemed would witness the sufferings of the 
 ' ^2"'*'/"'''^ Fathers, purt i. vol. i. p. 124. ' Ibid. p. 141. 
 
74 
 
 THE ORACLES Ol? PAPIAS 
 
 damned and derive pleasure from so doing,' and we see 
 that this doctrine had aheady taken root at the time 
 of the composition of this homily. Now we may be 
 certain that this sentiment, so contrary to the express 
 teaching of the gospel, would not become general, 
 except in the minds of people embittered by a wide- 
 spread and persistent persecution. A state of wide- 
 spread persecution, either existing or in recent memory, 
 is further implied in the reference to the having endured 
 torments, as part of the common lot of the redeemed. 
 
 Such a persecution the Christians did not have to 
 contend with until the reign of Marcus Aurelius, com- 
 mencing A.D. 161. 
 
 Some time after that date, say about a.d. 170, is 
 therefore the earliest probable date to which the com- 
 position of the homily we are considering can be as- 
 signed. Taking this as the date of tiie homily, it is 
 too late to be of consequence for the purpose we have 
 in hand, that is, of showing the usage of the word 
 XoyioD before the age of Irenaeus. But even if an earlier 
 date be assigned, it is an example of the application 
 of the word to words supposed to have been spoken 
 by JesuB, not to the document which contained them. 
 
 In Irenaeus, who wrote in the generation after 
 Justin, and later than any of the works I have cited, 
 with the possible exception of the second epistle of 
 Clement, the books of the Old and New Testament 
 are indifferently called Xoyia or oracles. 
 
 ' The peroration of Tertullian to his treatise Dc Spcctaculis is a 
 familiar expression of this doctrine in ancient times, but for the 
 matured opinion of the Catholic Church see the commentary of 
 Aquinas on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, Lib. IV. Distinctio L. 
 Quaestio ii. articulus iv. Eolutio i.: ' Eespondeo dicendum . . . <]uod 
 a beatis nihil subtralii debet quod ad perfectioneni beatitudinia 
 pertineat. . . . Dantur eis ut poenam impiorum perfecte intueantur.' 
 
 TIIE MEANING OF TIIE WORD \6yia 
 
 75 
 
 It will be noticed that the meanings of the word 
 \6yia appear to have been subject to a regular develop- 
 ment. The primary meaning appears to be inspired 
 words or oracles. When used by Jewish monotheists 
 as in the LXX, it becomes confined to the words of 
 the one God they worshipped. Subsequently, the whole 
 of the books of the Old Testament canon being sup- 
 poped to be inspired by God, Hie word became spe- 
 cialised to signify that canon, or anything contained 
 in it, as constituting the whole of the inspired word of 
 God, whether said to be expressly spoken by God or 
 not, and this continued for a long tone the ordinary 
 use of the word in Christian writings. 
 
 When books began to be circulated among 
 Christians purporting to narrate the sayings of Jesus, 
 the word \6yta was after a time extended to such 
 sayings, as wo see it was by Justin Martyr in one 
 instance only, though not by Clement of Rome. 
 Finally when the books themselves which contained 
 those words came to be reckoned canonical Scripture 
 and inspired, the name 'Koyui was cvtonded to the 
 books and all that was in them, as appears to have 
 been the case by Irenaeus. 
 
 Now the question is, in what sense was the word 
 used by Papias ? 
 
 As far as I know, the foregoing citations contain 
 all the passages that are material for determining this 
 question. No doubt a larger number of places might 
 be found in which the word occurs in the works of 
 Philo, but I do not suppose they would affect the 
 question. 
 
 The passages I have cited may be divided into 
 three classes, as they show the usage of 
 
76 THE ORACLES 01'" I'APIAS 
 
 (1) The LXX translators. 
 
 (2) Greek Jews subsequent to the LXX. 
 
 (3) Christian writers. 
 
 (1) The usage of the LXX is material, not merely 
 as originally giving the word its ecclesiastical meaning, 
 but as exercising a powerful influence in determining 
 that meaning among all Greek Christians, who con- 
 tinued to use that version. The meaning ' inspired 
 word,' adopted by that version, does not appear ever 
 to have been departed from, though what would be 
 intended by ' inspired word ' varied from time to time. 
 
 (2) The usage of Philo and Josephus is material 
 as showing that at the time of the introduction of 
 Christianity the Greek Jews by ' the inspired word ' 
 usually intended the Old Testament Scriptures, though 
 they sometimes used the word in the more general 
 sense of the LXX. 
 
 (3) I have been able to lind eleven or porliapa 
 twelve passages in which the word is used by Christian 
 writers other than Papias before the age of Irenaeus, 
 i.e : — 
 
 Paul .... 
 Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 „ „ first Epistle of Peter 
 Clement of Rome 
 Writer of the Acts 
 Justin ; . . . 
 
 Writer of the Epistio of Polycarp 
 
 „ „ second Epistle of Clement 
 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 •1 
 1 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 12" 
 
 In one of these passages, that is in 1 Peter, the 
 word is used in the general sense of the LXX, and in 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xojia 77 
 
 two others, one in Justin, at least a generation after 
 Papias, and one in 2nd Clement still later, it is applied 
 to the words of Jesus. 
 
 In the other nine passages the Old Testament 
 Scriptures are intended. We see, therefore, that 
 Christians continued to use the word with the same 
 intendment in which it had been used by the Greek 
 Jews, until the middle of the second century or later. 
 
 The first instance in which we find it used to 
 intend the books of the New Testament is in Ire- 
 naeus, who cannot reasonably bo supposed to have 
 written before a.d. 180, that is more than eighty years 
 after the date I have assigned to the work of Papias, 
 and fifty years after the latest date that could reason- 
 ably be assigned to that work. 
 
 Now in most cases 6fty or even eighty years would 
 be a small matter in the history of a word. It is far 
 otherwise when one is considering the language hkely 
 to bo applied to a book in the New Tcstnuicnt canon, 
 and those fifty or eighty years occur while that canon 
 was gathering authority during the second century. 
 That this is the case I will show by the authority of 
 Dr. Lightfoot, the late Bishop of Durham. Arguing 
 in favour of the genuineness of the Ignatian Epistles, he 
 
 says : ' — 
 
 ' A primary tost of ago in an early Christian writing is 
 the relation, which the notices of the words and deeds of 
 Christ and his Apostles bear to the canonical writings. 
 Tried by this test, the Ignatian epistles proclaim their early 
 date. There is no sign whatever in thom of a canon or 
 authoritative collection of books of the New Testament. 
 The expression " It is written " (ycypairrat) is employed to 
 introduce quotations from the Old Testament alone (Epho- 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. vp. 3B8-3B'J. 
 
78 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 siana v., Magnesians xii.). In one passage it is used by 
 
 Ignatius in controversy with his Judaising opponents of 
 
 the Old Testament, as distinguished from the New. In 
 
 this passage the archives (apx"«) are opposed to the gospel 
 
 (to tvayyi^wv) as the Old Testament to the New. Such 
 
 language is highly archaic . . . there is not so much as a 
 
 smgle reference to written evangelical records, such as 
 
 memoirs of the Apostles, which occupy so large a place in 
 
 Justin Martyr, Still less is there any quotation by name 
 
 from a canonical gospel, though such quotations abound 
 
 m Irenaeus. ... I would ask any reader who desires to 
 
 apprehend the full force of these arguments to read a book 
 
 or two of Irenaeus continuously, and mark the contrast in 
 
 the manner of dealing with the evangelical narratives and 
 
 the Apostolic letters.' 
 
 Agiiin in another place,' writing to establish the 
 genuineness of the Epistle of Polycarp, he says as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' We are asked to beheve that this letter was forged on 
 the confines of the age of Irenaeus and Clement of Alex- 
 andria. But how wholly unhke it is to the ecclesiastical 
 literature of this later generation, whether we regard the 
 use of the New Testament or the notices of the ecclesiastical 
 order, or the statements of theological doctrine, a little 
 consideration will show. The evangelical quotations are 
 still introduced, as in Clement of Eome, with the formula 
 " The Lord said ; " the passages from the Apostolic epistles 
 are still for the most part indirect and anonymous ; not a 
 single book of the New Testament is cited by name.' 
 
 In another place, speaking of the Sciliitan martyrs 
 who suffered at a town in Numidia called Scillium, or 
 some similar name a.d. 180, just after the commence- 
 ment of the reign of Commodus, he says : — 
 
 • Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 577, 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xoyia 
 
 79 
 
 ' Of the genuineness of the newly discovered Greek Acts 
 there can be no reasonable doubt. They betray their anti- 
 quity by their mode of expression, as, for instance, when 
 tlie writings which we call the New Testament are described 
 as " the books in use aiiioni,' us, and in addition Epistles of 
 Paul, the holy man " (al Ka^' ij/ias /Ji'/JAoi kuI TrpoufTriTovroi'i 
 iiTUTToXaX IlauXoi; tov ouiov avSpos).' ' 
 
 Now for the purpose Dr. Lightfoot had in hand, 
 that is, establishing the genuineness of the Epistles of 
 Ignatius and Polycarp, the argument in the first two 
 extracts, so far as it is derived from the way of speak- 
 ing of New Testament hooks, is suiliciently answered 
 by the last extract, which shows that the rfirchaic way 
 of referring to them continued among some people or 
 places right up to the age of Irenaeus. But for the 
 converse purpose I have in hand, that is of showing 
 that a writer who cannot be put later than the early 
 part of the second century would not si)eak of New 
 Testament books as canonical scriptures, and that 
 therefore words in such a writer importing canonical 
 scripture ought not of themselves to be applied to 
 New Testament books, all three extracts are consistent 
 and support one another. 
 
 I need not remind my readers that upon the point 
 now before us, that is, the meaning of Papias, Dr. 
 Lightfoot supports the view that the book mentioned 
 by Pa2)ins is the first canonical gospel. I should, 
 however, attach more weight to what he says upon 
 the Ignatian controversy, upon which he may have 
 felt more free to express his opinions as a scholar. 
 
 I must here make another remark which appears 
 to follow from the foregoing quotations from Dr. 
 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. p. 508. 
 
80 
 
 THE OaACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Lightfoot, and that is, that in his way of regarding 
 New Testament books, Irenaeus was in advance of his 
 age, or perhaps rather I should say, belonged to the 
 more advanced party in the church in his age, and is 
 therefore a better index to the opinions of the genera- 
 tion that succeeded him, than of the generation that 
 went before him ; which is further borne out by the 
 preservation of his books, when so many of his con- 
 temporaries have perished. 
 
 Some further light may be thrown upon the mean- 
 ing of the word Xoyia by the way in which it was 
 translated into Latin. The words Xoyia foii/To, in Acts 
 vii. 38, are in the Vulgate rendered by 'verba vitae,' and 
 in codex d. (the Latin version of codex D.) ' eloquia 
 viventium.' In the Vulgate the words ra \6yia toO 
 (s)eou, Romans iii. '2, are rendered ' eloquia Dei ; ' the 
 words TO aroi'xela T/]y U^PXV^ "^^^ Xoyicov toD f^eov, 
 Hebrews v. 12, ' elementa exordii sermonum Dei;' and 
 the words \6yia Bsov, in 1 Peter iv. 11, by " sermones 
 Dei.' Jerome renders the title of the book of Papias 
 ' Explanatio Sermonum Domini,' and the old Latin 
 translator of Irenaeus renders ra \6yia Kvpiov, in 
 Lib. i. 1, by • verba Domini ; ' and in Lib. i. 8, KvptaKwv 
 Xoyicjv by ' Dominicis oloquiis,' and ra Xoyia rov BeoO 
 by ' eloquia Dei.' 
 
 In the places in \Vhich the LXX has Xuyiop, the 
 Vulgate has one or other of the same three words, 
 sermo, verbum, eloquium, but for the most part 
 the latter. As by far the greater part of the places, 
 i.e. nineteen out of twenty-six, in which the word 
 occurs are in the Psalms, and as Jerome's version 
 of the Psalms was based upon the old Latin which 
 was translated from the LXX, we have here also 
 
 THE MEANING OF THE WORD Xoyia 
 
 81 
 
 evidence of the current rendering of Xoyiov into 
 Latin. 
 
 Eufinus, the Latin translator of Eusebius, trans- 
 lates the word Xoyia by ' oracula.' ' 
 
 These are all the authorities I can just noAv lay my 
 hands on for the translation of the word into Latin 
 by ancient writers. The words by which it is rendered 
 by other writers than lUifinus — verba, eloquia, ser- 
 mones — have the meaning ' words ' or ' utterances ' 
 merely, leaving any other meaning it might have, such 
 as ' Avords of God,' or ' inspired words,' to be gathered 
 from the context, though the favourite i;endering by 
 the word ' eloquium ' imports the meaning of eloquent 
 words not found in the Greek. These renderings 
 afford evidence that the sense of ' words ' or ' utter- 
 ances ' must be taken to be the more pronunent part of 
 the meaning, and help to discountenance any rendering 
 in which that sense should be allowed to fall into 
 abeyance. The rendering of Eufinus, who by the 
 bent of his mind as well as by his training was pro- 
 bably the most competent of the various translators, 
 reproduces more nearly the classical meaning of the 
 word. It conveys the meaning of prophecies, and 
 therefore strongly supports my contention. 
 
 ' Tiscliciiiloi'f, Wann warden, Ac, p. 102 ; note 1, cited Super- 
 iiatural licligion, complete edition, vol. i. p. 4()G. 
 
82 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 CHAPTEK VI 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 The meaning, therefore, of the extract from Papias is, 
 ' Matthew wrote the inspired words in the Hebrew 
 language,' the context probably implying the qualifi- 
 cation ' of or concerning the Lord.' The question is 
 what was the intendment. That there was some 
 special intendment there can be no question, and we 
 have three intendments to choose from— books or 
 passages from the Old Testament ; words of Jesus ; 
 and books or passages from the New Testament. The 
 last is not supported by any instance earlier than two 
 generations or upwards after the time of Papias. 
 For words of Jesus, we have two instances a generation 
 or more after Papias ; while for the Old Testament 
 being intended, we have nine, or, counting the citations 
 from Philo and Josephus, twenty-six instances, includ- 
 ing four passages in his contemporary, Clement of 
 Eome. 
 
 I submit, therefore, there can be no doubt that 
 by the word \07ta Papias should be taken to intend 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, if that interpretation 
 will satisfy the context. Taking this then to be so, 
 the title of the work of Papias will be, ' An exposition 
 of Old Testament Scriptures relating to the Lord,' 
 
 TIIJC niKANlNG 01' TAPJAS 
 
 «3 
 
 that is, of Messianic prophecies. The passage about 
 Matthew will be, ' Matthew made a collection of the 
 (Messianic) prophecies in the Hebrew language, or 
 Matthew wrote on the (Messianic) j^rophecies in the 
 Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he 
 was able.' I thinlc tlio orif,'inal will bear either of 
 these constructions, but tliat the former is the true 
 one. If the former construction be adopted, the word 
 7]pfj,7'jveuae inter[)reted will moan ' ex2)ounded,' that is, 
 showed how they were fulfilled ; the same signification 
 in which the cognate word epfirji/sias is used by Papias 
 in the first extract quoted by Eusebius. if the lattei 
 construction be adopted, it will mean ' translated.' 
 
 I must now consider how the interpretation. 
 Messianic ijrojjhecies, will apply to the phrase KvpiuKcou 
 Xoyiav, dominical oracles, in the remaining place, that 
 is to say, what reason is it for the imperfection of 
 Mark's work that Peter did not teach as if he were 
 making a syntax or systematic exposition of the 
 Messianic prophecies ? The answer is, the primitive 
 Christians were interested in the life and teaching of 
 Jesus, not so much as an example of conduct, or for 
 the sake of what he taught, jjcr se, but as a means of 
 proving that he was the Messiah, by showing that he 
 fuliilled the 2irophecies. So much only of his life and 
 teaching as^answered that end was of considerable 
 interest. In order, therefore, to pursue that subject 
 thoroughly, it would be necessary systematically to 
 narrate what was known of his life and teaching, but 
 for no other purpose. In proof of these assertions I 
 would refer — First, to the absence in any of the 
 epistles in the New Testament of any reference to 
 the teaching of Jesus, or of any moral drawn from 
 
84 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 any incident in His life. Secondly, to the instances 
 given in the New Testament of the opposite procedure : 
 e.g. we read, Acts viii. 35, ' Phihp . . . began at the 
 same scripture and preached unto him Jesus.' Again, 
 Acts xvii. 11, that the Jews of Berea, hearing the 
 preaching of Paul, ' searched the scriptures daily 
 whether these things were so ; ' again, Acts xviii. 28, 
 that Apollos ' mightily convinced the Jews . . . show- 
 ing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ ; ' again. 
 Acts xxvi. 22, 23, Paul is made to say : — 
 
 ' I stand unto this day testifying both to small and 
 great, saying nothing but what the Prophets and Moses 
 did say should come, how that Christ must suffer, and how 
 that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim 
 light, both to the people and the Gentiles.' 
 
 Again, 1 Peter i. 9, et seq. : — 
 
 ' Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
 your souls; concerning which salvation the prophets taught 
 and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that 
 should come unto you, teaching what time or what manner 
 of time the spirit of Christ which was in them did point 
 unto when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ 
 and the glories that should follow them. To whom it was 
 revealed that not unto themselves but unto you did they 
 minister these things which now have been announced 
 unto you through them that preached the Gospel unto 
 you.' 
 
 In all these places, and I have no doubt more 
 could be found,' we have allusions to teaching of the 
 sort I have mentioned. 
 
 ' E.g. Luke i. 1. As Dr. Lightfoot remarks {Colossians, 9th edit. p. 
 23B), there is in the usage of the word no justification for translating 
 ray irtit\ripo<t>oprjii4nuv iv quTv irpayfiiTav ' those tilings which arc must 
 surely believed among us.' We ought, therefore, with the revised vor- 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 85 
 
 I may add that works of the kind of which that 
 of Papias must have been, if the foregoing inferences 
 are correct, were by no means unknown in the 
 primitive Church. Thus Melito, Bishop of Sardis, 
 who flourished in the middle of the second century, 
 wrote a book which he described as ' Selections from 
 the Law and the Prophets about the Saviour and our 
 whole faith ' (iKXoyas sk ts tov vofinv Kal twv irpo- 
 (pr]TU)v Trepl tov ^(orPjpof Kot Tracrr/y ti}? Tri'trrfwy I'jfiMv). 
 
 I will now pass on to consider a peculiar statement 
 of Irenaeus, which is not without its weight in sup- 
 porting the conclusion that the work of Papias con- 
 sisted of the exposition of Old Testament prophecies. 
 There is no doubt, I think, that Irenaeus made a good 
 deal of use of Papias, and this has been remarked 
 especially of his fourth book, in the beginning of 
 which he ju'omises some proofs by the words of the 
 Lord, })cr aermones domini in the Latin version. In 
 the Greek ' sermon es domini ' was probably \6yia toO 
 Kvpiov. At all events Xoyia was sometimes translated 
 into Latin by ' sermones,' as has been shown above. 
 
 But a little further on he makes the following 
 curious statement : ' ' But since the writings of Closes 
 are the words of Christ, he himself says to the Jews, 
 as John has recorded in his gospel : " If you had 
 
 sion, to translate ' those matters which have been fulfilled among u";.' 
 To narrate the fulfilment of prophecy would appear then to have 
 been the object an evangelist set before him. The use of this phrase 
 is the more peculiar in the case of Luke, as that is not the view un- 
 folded in bis gospel, the prophecies stated to be fulfilled being by 
 him left out. Unless, therefore, his gospel underwent a revision 
 which did not extend to the preface, it would seem that the custom 
 of looking upon the life of Jesus as a narration of the fulfilment of 
 prophecy had become so much a matter of course, that it would bo 
 so described by a writer who himself took a dilTerent view of it. 
 ' Irenaeus, lib. iv. u. 2, s. 3. 
 
86 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PA PUS 
 
 believed Moses you would have believed me also, for 
 he wrote of me, but if you do not believe his writings, 
 neither will you believe my words" — most clearly 
 signifying that the writings of Moses were his own 
 words. Therefore, if the writings of Moses, so also 
 the writings of the other prophets, without doubt are 
 his own words (i.e. Christ's) as we have shown.' Now 
 this is exactly the remark a man of the mental 
 calibre of Irenaeus might be supposed to make 
 upon finding a work entitled like that of Papias to 
 contain an exposition of Old Testament prophecies. 
 He would interpret the title 'An exposition of the 
 sayings of the Lord.' It does not occur to him that 
 Papias used the words in a different sense, and he ac- 
 cordingly finds a reason for describing extracts from 
 Moses and the prophets as sayings of the Lord.' 
 
 The word Xoyia, it must be remembered, always 
 means inspired words or utterances, or revelations. 
 The differences which arose were not as to its mean- 
 ing, but as to its application or intendment. By the 
 first generations of Christians the word was ordinarily 
 applied, as it had been by the Greek Jews before them, 
 to the Old-Testament Scriptures ; afterwards its appli- 
 cation was extended to the sayings of Jesus, and 
 finally, when the writers of the books in which those 
 sayings were contained came to be considered as them- 
 selves inspired, to the books themselves and all they 
 contained. 
 
 The oracles of the Lord, or revelations of the Lord, 
 might, therefore, mean either the oracles or revela- 
 tions delivered by the Lord, or the oracles or reve- 
 
 ■ With this passage from Irenaeus may be compared the various 
 reading I have noticed in tlie above quotation from the I'^pistlc of 
 Polycarp. 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 87 
 
 lations delivered about the Lord ; and in the latter 
 case, either by way of prophecy as in the Old Testament 
 or by way of an inspired narrative as in the New. Of 
 these three possible meanings of the phrase I have 
 already considered the one which I contend to be 
 correct. I will now notice how the other two can be 
 applied to the fragments of Papias, and I will take 
 first that which obtained currency next in point of 
 date, and which, therefore, stands next in point of pro- 
 bability — ' Tlie oracles or inspired sayings of the 
 Lord.' It must be noticed that if this meaning be 
 adopted, it follows equally with the theory I have been 
 contending for, that the book ascribed to Matthew is not 
 the first canonical gospel. No one would ever think 
 of describing a book, the form of which is historical, 
 ' The sayings of the Lord,' or by any similar title. 
 
 But however this may be, if we suppose these 
 sayings to be sufficiently oracular to require interpre- 
 tation, the meaning we are now considering gives a 
 sufficiently intelligible meaning to the passage about 
 Matthew, 2>cr se. When, however, it comes to be ap- 
 plied to the passage about Mark, the case is different. 
 The fact that Peter did not speak as if he were making 
 a syntax of the sayings of the Lord, does not give 
 any intelligible reason why his interpreter, Mark, 
 should write tlio things done by Christ, us opposed to 
 what he said, without order or arrangement. In other 
 words, if this meaning of Xoylcov be adopted, we get 
 into the same difficulty of interpretation which besets 
 the alternative reading \6y(cv. We see, therefore, that 
 the interpretation of the context affords an indepen- 
 dent reason for rejecting the meaning ' sayings of tlie 
 Lord.' 
 
1f \ 
 
 88 
 
 THE OKACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 The last of the three meanings of which the phrase 
 is capable assumes the existence of a New Testament 
 canon, the writers of which were supposed not merely 
 to be the recorders of inspired sayings of Jesus, but to 
 be themselves inspired. As there is no reason to sup- 
 pose that any other books acquired this reputation 
 before those of the present canon, the adoption of the 
 meaning we are now considering involves the appli- 
 cation of the fragments of Papias to our canonical 
 Matthew and Mark. Now adopting this sense, n^vpiaKa 
 \6yia would mean the Scriptures of the Lord or the 
 New Testament Scriptures, or might be confined to 
 the gospels. 
 
 Now what can be meant by saying that Peter did 
 not speak as if making a syntax of the New Testament 
 or of the gospels ? The supposition is that the New 
 Testament, or at all events the second gospel, did not 
 then exist, and that Peter's discourses were the 
 materials out of which it was to be constructed. It 
 is scarcely necessary to go further and consider why, 
 if Papias had in view the canon as we now have it, ho 
 should deny to Mark, who he says distinctly and re- 
 peatedly was accurate as far as he went, that inspira- 
 tion ' which he accorded to Matthew, or even why he 
 should deny that Mark's gospel formed a syntiix of 
 the New Testament or the gospels. If by a syntax 
 he meant a synopsis, the canonical gospel of Mark 
 does in fact present some features of a synopsis of 
 Matthew and Luke, so that some critics have contended 
 that that was its origin. If, on the other hand, he 
 
 ' Perhaps I should say rather : Why should Papias deny this in- 
 spiration, Ac, to Peter ? But if he denied it to Peter, it seems to 
 follow that be must have denied it to Mark. 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 89 
 
 t 
 
 ft 
 
 \ 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 meant a harmony, why, it may be asked, should Mark's 
 work be expected to present this character ? Why 
 should the absence of this character be a reason for 
 describing it as without order or arrangement ? 
 Finally, why should it be described as without order 
 or arrangement at all ? 
 
 The many learned writers who have interpreted 
 the fragments of Papias as applicable to our jircsent 
 gospels, appear to have fallen into the following mis- 
 conception. The writings of an historian believed to 
 be inspired might be described as his Xo^ia or inspired 
 utterances, but that does not make the word Xo7ta mean 
 history, so that -ra \6yia tov Kvpiov could not, much 
 less could TO. KvpiaKci \07ta, mean the history of the 
 Lord, What the words may mean is, the inspired utter- 
 ances of Matthew or some one else about the Lord, but 
 the reference to the historian whose \6yia they are, is 
 always necessary. Byadopting this mistranslation, and 
 rendering Xoyia history,' no doubt the fragments may 
 in some sense be interpreted as applying to our pre- 
 sent gospels, though even then the difficulty remains 
 why Mark should be described as being witliout order. 
 On the whole, the difficulties of applying any other 
 meaning so as to give an intelligible interpretation of 
 the conloxl, support not a litllo tlic view that by Xo7tfi 
 Papias referred to passages in the Old Testament, and 
 by Xoyia KvpiaKo, meant Messianic prophecies, which 
 I have shown by citations from I think all the extant 
 authorities to have been the usual application of the 
 word among Christians or Greek Jews in his day. 
 
 In considering the question whether Papias used 
 our present canonical gospels, there are several matters 
 
 ' As for instance was done by Mr. Crus6. 
 
90 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 
 which ought not to be overlooked. The first is the 
 way in which Eusebius disparages him, which, it must 
 be noticed, is not merely on account of his millenarian 
 tendencies. He says he related one extraordinary thing 
 after another, as having come to him from tradition 
 {irapdSo^d riva laropei kuI aWa mi av ix irapahoaeods 
 els avTov i\66vra) ; and again, that he reported as 
 having come to him from unwritten tradition, certain 
 strange parables of the Saviour, and teachings of his, 
 and other things rather fabulous {^svas re Tivas irapa- 
 ^oXas Tov XciTripof Kai hihaaKoXias avjov Kai riva 
 aWa nvdiKmrepa) ; and again : — 
 
 ' In his own book he hands down other statements of 
 Aristion before described of the words of the Lord and 
 traditions of John the Elder, to which referring those 
 eager to learn, we will, &c. {i<j> as tov% <j)i\op.a0tls ivairtfi.- 
 
 \j/avTti).' 
 
 All this shows that the book of Papias contained state- 
 ments about Jesus inconsistent with those contained 
 in the canonical gospels, and which Eusebius was, 
 therefore, unwilling to mention, and which, therefore, 
 afford a certain amount of evidence that Papias did 
 not use those books. Now the Church endorsed the 
 verdict of Eusebius upon Papias in a way not a little 
 remarkable, in allowing his books to bo lost. Remark- 
 able when one considers how little is known of Chris- 
 tianity in the first century, and how interesting, 
 therefore, the statements of a writer must have been, 
 who had conversed with persons who had seen and 
 heard not merely the Apostles, but Jesus himself. 
 Thatjthewritings of such a writer should be permitted 
 to perish, can be explained only upon the assumption 
 that they contained something inconsistent with the 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 91 
 
 fundamental assumptions upon which the teaching of 
 the Church was based, so that though an individual 
 here or there might be taken with them, no consider- 
 able number of Christians would care to read and 
 therefore to multiply them. Now wc see that Papias 
 had peculiarities relating to the i3arablos, teaching, 
 and words of Jesus, which Eusebius describes as 
 strange, and refrains from quoting, and which we must 
 therefore suppose not merely to be not contained in 
 the canonical gospels, but to be inconsistent with what 
 is contained there. But thougli this was plain to 
 Eusebius, Papias did not acquire in bis own times 
 the name of a heretic. On the contrary* Eusebius 
 tells us that his authority was very high in the 
 Church. It is, therefore, to be the rather inferred 
 that the standard by which the teaching of the Church 
 was afterwards measured, that is to say the canonical 
 gospels, did not exist in his day. The fact of these 
 peculiarities of Papias does not rest simply on the 
 statement of Eusebius. Particulars of sayings attributed 
 to Jesus by Papias, of a character distinct from any con- 
 tained in the canonical gospels, have been preserved by 
 Irenaeus, and there has been preserved in other places 
 an account of the death of Judas altogether different 
 from that in Mattliew ; hut tliose matters will bo gono 
 into afterwards. 
 
 I will now consider how the interpretation I have 
 put on the word \6yia, or oracles, agrees with the other 
 portions of the extracts from Papias contained in 
 Eusebius. He says : ' I will not hesitate to arrange 
 in order for you with the interpretations, whatever 
 things, ifcc' 
 
 Why should he hesitate to confront these traditions 
 
92 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 with his interpretations ? Taking his interpretations 
 to be interpretations of prophecy, the answer is ob- 
 vious : lest they should be contradicted by the facts. 
 But Papias says that he has such confidence in his 
 interpretations, that he will not hesitate to put beside 
 them the reported facts. Again, it follows from the 
 interpretation I have put on the word \6ryia, that the 
 book he ascribes to Matthew is something different 
 from our gospel, probably a mere set of extracts from 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. It required to be interpreted, 
 and could lend no aid to the interpreter beyond saving 
 hiin the trouble of searching for the passages, and also 
 incidentally from the risk of being disturbed in his 
 work by the inconvenient suggestion of an inconsistent 
 context. We can understand, therefore, how the oral 
 traditions of what was said by Matthew assisted Papias 
 more than the things out of his book. 
 
 But before going further, it will be well to consider 
 what is the meaning of this extraordinary statement 
 of Papias about things out of books; why did he, 
 alone of all men, put more confidence in oral tradition 
 than in written records ? There can, I think, be no 
 doubt that he was pressed in controversy by books, 
 and that he had not books of equal weight to use in 
 return. Therefore he rails against books generally. 
 His remarks can scarcely be credited of a man accus- 
 tomed to rely as Christians have since done upon the 
 canonical gospels, and generally on the Now Testament. 
 But what were the books with which he was pressed ? 
 He has contrasted ' those who relate the command- 
 ments of another ' with those who relate the command- 
 ments of the Lord himself. He then speaks of collect- 
 ing traditions of the sayings of seven apostles, that is 
 
 THE 3IEANING OF I'APIAS 
 
 93 
 
 witli the natural omission of Jamos, the son of Zebcdce, 
 and Judas Iscariot, of all the apostles except Bartho- 
 lomew, as to whom the synoptic gospels are agreed, 
 but of none of those about whom they differ. But there 
 is one name loft out, not a little remarkable in a man 
 collecting traditions in Asia Minor, that is the apostle 
 Paul ; nor can this be rendered the less significant by 
 pointing out that Paul had no personal intercourse 
 with Jesus. It rather points to the conclusion that 
 he is the person whose teaching is contrasted with 
 that coming directly from the Lord, and that the 
 books from which Papias did not derive assistance 
 were his epistles, which must bave formed t'lie most 
 important part of Christian literature at the time 
 I'apias wrote. 
 
 The passage in the ' Ecclesiastical History ' of Euse- 
 bius, which we have been considering, contains the 
 most considerable extracts from Papias and by far the 
 most extensive notice of his work that are extant, and 
 the only notice that bears directly upon the purpose 
 we have in hand ; but several notices of Papias by 
 other writers bave come down to us, containing among 
 them three citations from his work. These notices I 
 shall now proceed to consider ; they are material to 
 our present ])urpt)se so far as tlioy afford evidence of 
 the general character of his work, and therefore of the 
 meaning of his title, and in particular of the word 
 Xoyt'cov contained in it. 
 
 An extract from Apollinarius has been lu'escrved 
 in an ancient catena, which in turn contains a citation 
 from Papias : — 
 
 ' Judas dill not die in the halter, but survived, having 
 bctiu taken down before he was strangled ; and this the 
 
^ 
 
 94 
 
 THE OllACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Acts of the Apostles show, that falling headlong he burst 
 asunder in the midst and his bowels gushed out ; and this 
 Papias, the disciple of John, relates more plainly, saying 
 thus in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Dominical 
 words {rqs e'^yT/o-tcos Twv KvpLaKwv \6yiiiv). " But Judas 
 walked about in this world, a great example of impiety, his 
 flesh blown out so much that he was not able to pass ovou 
 where a wagon passes easily, nay, not even the bulk only 
 of his head. The lids of his eyes, they say, were swollen 
 BO much, that he did not see the light at all, that his eyes 
 could not even be seen by a physician with an instrument, 
 thoy were so much below the outward siirfaco. Other 
 organs were distorted to an unnatural size, and he suttered 
 from foul discharges of matter and worms (to Bk a'Soiuv 
 
 avTov Trda-qi /iti' acr)(Ti}ix.o(Tvvr]<; ar/Stcmpov koL fifl^ov (jyaivecrHai, 
 <f>€p((T6ai 0€ 8i' auTow Ik Travros Tov caJ/iaros crvppiovTa.'; l^iSpd'S 
 T€ KOI (TKciXTjKas CIS v/3pLV 8i' atrTiui' p.ovuiv Tuji/ uLvayKaMv) ; but 
 after many torments and retributions having died, they say, 
 on his own estate, the estate became deserted and unin- 
 habited until now from the smell, and not even until this 
 day is anyone able to go by that place unless he stop his 
 nostrils with his hands, so great a discharge was excreted 
 upon the earth through his flesh." ' ' 
 
 Another version of the same passage from Papias 
 is given by Oecumenius, in his commentary on the Acts 
 of the Apostles : — 
 
 ' And this, Papias the disciple of John the Apostle, re- 
 lates more plainly, Judas walked about in this world a 
 great example of impiety, his llesh blown out so much that 
 he was not able to pass though a wagon would pass easily 
 by the wagon was he squeezed so that his entrails were 
 poured out.' * 
 
 ' For Greek of this passage see Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 
 abridged edit. p. 623. 
 
 ^ For Greek of this passage, which is perhaps corrupt, see Strauss's 
 Life of Jesus, English translation, 1810, voh iii. p. 230. 
 
 TlIU JIEANING OF I'Al'lAS 
 
 95 
 
 The agreement in language shows that this passage 
 is ultimately derived from the same written source 
 as the quotation in the catena, but several reasons go 
 to show that the latter should be taken as the correct 
 statement of Tapias. It is taken from ApoUinarius, 
 probably one of the writers of that name of the fourth 
 century ; it cites the particular book of Papias from 
 which it is taken, and it is more coherent with itself. 
 The wagon remains a simile merely, while in Oecu-' 
 menius the wagon introduced as a simile suspiciously 
 develops into a fact. Moreover, the exceedingly disgust- 
 ing and grotesque nature of the details as given in the 
 catena affords a reason why an equally exemplary, but 
 more presentable, account should be furnished. 
 
 The bearing the ])assage has on our present inquiry 
 is this : it shows that Papias gave an account of the 
 death of Judas inconsistent with the accounts given by 
 Matthew and the Acts. Different as those accounts 
 are from one another, they agree in this. The death 
 of the traitor is made impressive by the rapidity with 
 which it follows upon his treason. According to 
 Matthew it took place even before the crucifixion of 
 Jesus. According to the Acts, it was a matter which 
 was already some time past on the day of the Ascen- 
 sion. Now, according to Papias, tlui fate of Judas is 
 made impressive by its prolonged agony. Though no 
 definite marks of time are given, a considerable interval 
 is implied. This story, therefore, must have had its 
 origin among people who were ignorant of either the 
 account in Matthew or the account in the Acts, and 
 its acceptance by Papias raises an inference that he 
 was also ignorant of those accounts. 
 
 The accounts of the death of Judas both in Matthew 
 
96 
 
 THE OEACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 and the Acts, are represented as the fulfilment of 
 prophecies. Strauss ' is of opinion that other verses of 
 the same Psalms cited in the Acts suggested the story 
 preserved by Papias : — 
 
 ' He clothed himself with cursing as with his garment, 
 ' And it came into his inward parts like water, 
 ' And like oil into his bones.' '' 
 
 ' Let their eyes be darkened that they see not, and make 
 their loins shake continually.' * 
 
 It would appear, therefore, most probable that the 
 story of the death of Judas was related by Papias as 
 the fulfilment of Messianic prophecies. 
 
 Andreas, who was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia 
 about the end of the fifth century, wrote a commentary 
 on the Apocalypse, which contains two notices of 
 Papias. In the first of these notices, speaking of the 
 Apocalypse of John, he says : — 
 
 ' About, however, the inspiration (toC OtoirvtvaTov) of the 
 book we believe it superfluous to speak at length, since the 
 blessed men, Gregory I mean the theologian and Cyril, and 
 besides, those who are more ancient, Papias, Irenaeus, 
 Methodius, and Hippolytus, bear further witness to its trust- 
 worthiness (to ttflOTTlO-TOv).' 
 
 The second notice is as follows : — 
 
 ' But thus Papias verbatim (tVi Xtfcws). " But to sonic 
 of them" (clearly the angels that were of old divine) "he gave 
 also to rule the arrangement about the earth (t^s -rtpl Trjv •fiv 
 SiaKocr/xT/o-tais), and bade them rule well." And next he says, 
 " But it happened that their order {tiivtiL^lv) issued in nothing 
 good, and the great Dragon was cast down— the old serpent, 
 
 • Life of Jesus, p. 237. 
 
 " Psalm Ixix. ver. 23. 
 
 Psalin cix. ver. 18. 
 
 I 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 97 
 
 ho that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the 
 whole world — he was cast down to the earth, and his 
 angels.' ' 
 
 From these passages several things may be learned 
 about Papias — that he was acquainted with the Apoca- 
 lypse, and cited a passage from it now to be found 
 verbatim in chapter .\ii. 9. This is also to be gathered 
 that ho thought it trustworthy (u^ioviaros) and pro- 
 bably also inspired (deoTrvevaros), probablj' also the 
 work of the apostle John. We further see that he 
 held some doctrines having some resemblance to the 
 cruder forms of gnosticism. There were certain angels 
 of old divine to whom God gave the rule over the 
 heavens which they ruled to so little purpose that they 
 let the devil down on to the ciirth. Papias seems to 
 look upon this transaction in a different light from 
 that in which it is exhibited in the Apocalypse. There 
 the action of Michael and his angels is represented as 
 a success which occasioned great rejoicing in heaven. 
 They were so glad there to be rid of the devil, that they 
 did not care where he went to or who might suffer by 
 his presence. Papias rather takes the view of a 
 dweller upon earth, that it was the duty of the angels 
 to keep the devil out. 
 
 The direct bearing of this passage upon the purpose 
 we have in hand is small. 
 
 Anastasius of Sinai, a Greek monk, who lived 
 towards the end of the seventh century, among other 
 works wrote a book called ' Anagogicae Contem- 
 plationes in Hexaiimeron.' The book, which consists 
 of a mystical interpretation of the account of the 
 
 ' For Greek, see Liylitfoot, Apostolic Fathers, abriJycd edit. p. 521. 
 
 U 
 
98 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 creation in Genesis, makes mention of Papias in two 
 places, the first of which is as follows : — 
 
 ' But since we have not found the end of those doubts 
 which we have suggested, and we are wholly entangled in 
 them, and are altogether at a loss, relying on the mouth of 
 the holy spirit, the tongue, I mean, of Paul, which says 
 that all things which are in the law were written before- 
 hand for a type of Christ and his Church, having taken a 
 start, if it behoves to speak truly, from Papias the Great of 
 Hierapolis, who attended the teaching of the bosom disciple, 
 and Clement, Pantaenus a priest of Alexandria, and the 
 very learned Ammonius, the ancient and first interpreters, 
 who agree with one another in having understood of Christ 
 and his Church the whole of the six days (iraa-av tt/i/ 
 i$a-^IJLfpov), after truly the sensible creation according to 
 the letter, observing without any doubt a sense for the 
 Church, on behalf of which is the whole aim of our eon- 
 test, to this work we apply ourselves.' ' 
 
 The doubts mentioned are doubts concerning the 
 interpretation of the narrative in Genesis of the 
 creation in six days, the mystical interpretation of 
 which forms the subject of the work of Anastasius. 
 
 The second passage is as follows : — 
 
 ' The more ancient of the expounders of the churches, 
 I mean Philo, the philosopher and contemporary of the 
 Apostles, and Papias the Groat of llicrapolis, tlio disciple 
 of John the Evangelist, and Irenaeus of Lyons, and Justin 
 the Martyr and Philosopher, and Pantaenus of Alexandria, 
 and Clement the Stromatiat (Sr^jw/xaTcus), and their followers, 
 viewed the things about Paradise spiritually, transferring 
 them to the Church of Christ, of whose number are also 
 the two Gregories of Cappadocia, who are all wise about 
 everything, all these men saying from the following causes 
 
 i 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 99 
 
 ' See Appendix viii. 
 abridged ed. p. 521. 
 
 For Greek of part see Lightfoot, .1. !■'., 
 
 that there is also a spiritual paradise. First because if 
 Adam was not subject to destruction when he was made, 
 it is evident that he was not a partaker of earthly food on 
 which destruction falls. For if he could be a partaker of 
 earthly food it is also evident that destruction falls on him, 
 for whatsoever goeth into the mouth is cast out into the 
 draught ; but if destruction fell on him he was altogether 
 mortal ; and if he was created mortal, death was not in any 
 way made through disobedience. And this, indeed, is the 
 first cause of the expositors, itc' ' 
 
 After this Anastasius continues at a considerable 
 length to propound other analogous reasons as if they 
 were the conjoint opinions of the various authors he has 
 mentioned. He afterwards cites a work of Justin on 
 the Hexaemeron, which is not now extant. As there 
 is no means of ascertaining how far anything Ana- 
 stasius says is taken accurately from Papias, it is not 
 worth while to follow him further, but notwithstanding 
 this doubt the passages cited are evidence that Papias 
 wrote upon the interpretation of the Old Testament — 
 i.e. upon the Messianic prophecies. 
 
 Another mention of Papias is the following. Certain 
 extracts in a manuscript discovered by Cramer in the 
 Bibliotheca Regia at Paris are introduced by the 
 following words : — 
 
 ' From the exposition of John of Antioch, which he 
 worked out about the chronology and creation of the world 
 (TTfpl xpuviDv Koi KTicrews Kotr/iou), as he says, from the books 
 of Moses, Africanus Eusebius, Papias (IlaTrjrtou) and Didy- 
 mus, and others.' '' 
 
 ' Sec Appendix viii. 
 
 - Cramer, Avccilulu (irnnn c cvihl. inimttscrijitis bibliuthccat 
 rcgiae I'arisicnsis, vol. ii. p. 37'J. l"ur Ureek, see Appendix ix. 
 
100 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 By John of Antioch is here meant John Malalas, 
 and the extracts which follow may be presumed to 
 come from the lost commencement of his chronicle. 
 They begin, ' Adam had from God the measure of 
 mankind — a stature of six feet, Sec' The fables 
 which follow contain a curious mixture of incidents 
 from the Old Testament and the mythology. 
 
 The connection would appear to show that Papias 
 of Hierapolis is intended, though from the spelling 
 the name might perhaps as well be Pappus, especially as 
 Eusebius always gives the genitive of UaTrUs, Uairia ; 
 Andreas of Caesarea, however, gives it IlaTriov. Sup- 
 posing then, as I think we ought, Papias to be meant, 
 the notice raises an inference that his work contained 
 an account of the creation of the world and therefore 
 dealt with the Old Testament. 
 
 This confirms the inference to be drawn from 
 Anastasius of Sinai. 
 
 Maximus the Confessor, who, after having been 
 secretary to the Emperor Heraclius and abbot at 
 Chrysopolis, suflfered many tortures by order of the 
 Emperor Constans II. by reason of his opposition to 
 the monothelite heresy, among numerous works wrote 
 scholia upon some of the writings attributed to 
 Dionysius the Areopagite. Two of those scholia 
 make mention of I'apias. In the book on the 
 Celestial Hierarchy Dionysius is made to address 
 Timothy as child (Trat), and upon this passage Maximus 
 writes the following scholium : — 
 
 ' It must be enquired Low the great Dionysius calls 
 the divine Timothy a child. Either, as I think, as being ad- 
 vanced beyond him in years he says this, and as excelling 
 him in philosophy, as the writings in our hands show, for 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 101 
 
 even if the holy Timothy believed before the divine Diony- 
 sius, as the Acts of the Apostles show, yet at least as regards 
 his outside training llie great Dionysius was the stronger, 
 or he calls him child as imitating the Lord saying, ' Children, 
 have ye aught to eat ?' or because they used to call those 
 who practise guilelessness before God children, as Papias 
 shows in the iirst book of Lis Dominical expositions (twv 
 Kvpia^uiv e$Tjyvo-tu>v), and Clement of Alexandria in his 
 "Pedagogue."' ' 
 
 The question then arises whether this passage 
 throws any light upon the contents of the work of 
 Papias. It will be noticed that Maximus distinguishes 
 four grounds upon which Timothy might be addressed 
 by Dionysius as child, first on account of the superi- 
 ority of Dionysius in age ; second, on account of the 
 superiority of Dionysius in learning ; thirdly, as 
 imitating the Lord ; and fourthly in accordance with 
 a bygone practice which was explained by Papias and 
 Clement. The point which we have to determine is 
 whether the usage referred to was that of the writers 
 of the Old or of the New Testament Scriptures, and 
 upon this point the work of Clement, which is extant, 
 may throw some light upon the work of Papias, which 
 is not. When we turn to the ' Pedagogue ' of Clement, 
 we find that the passage referred to is probably 
 chapter x. of book i. entitled ' That all who concern 
 themselves about the truth are children before God ' 
 ("Ort irdvTSs oi irepl ttjv aXi'jOeiav KUTayiyvofisvai 
 iralBes irapa tc5 0ew). 
 
 In this chapter Clement undertakes to justify the 
 
 title of his book ' Paedagogus, or the Instructor of 
 
 Children,' by showing that Christians are properly 
 
 described as children, and this he does by citing 
 
 ' For the Greek, see Appendix ix, 
 
102 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 passages of both the Old and New Testaments, begin- 
 ning with the passage from John xxi. cited by 
 Maximus. So far, then, when Maximus refers to the 
 usage of Clement, he might refer either to his inter- 
 pretation of the New or of the Old Testament, but we 
 see that Maximus opposes the usage of Clement and 
 Papias to the imitation of the Lord, that is, he con- 
 siders that one reason why Dionysius might address 
 Timothy as child would be because he imitated the 
 Lord, and another because he followed a practice that 
 was shown by Clement and Papias. Now the passages 
 cited by Clement from the New Testament are nearly 
 all utterances of Jesus (John xiii. 33; xxi. 4, 5 ; 
 Matthew x. 16 ; xi. 16, 17 ; xviii. 1, 3 ; xix, 14 ; xxi. 
 9, 16 ; xxiii. 87 ; xxv. 33). The usage of Clement 
 therefore, as based on these passages, would scarcely 
 be seen to be anything different from the imitation of 
 the Lord. We are, therefore, drawn to the conclusion 
 that Maximus refers to the principle of interpretation 
 apphed by Clement to the passages from the Old 
 Testament according to which the word ' children,' or 
 other words which might be taken as equivalent to it, 
 had some hidden sense not apparent from the context. 
 In such passages, for instance, as Psalm cxiii. 1, ac- 
 cording to the LXX, ' Praise, oh children, the Lord ; ' 
 or Isaiah viii. 18, ' Here am I and the children whom 
 God hath given me ; ' or Leviticus xv. 29, xii. 8, where 
 a mystic allusion is seen in the two young pigeons and 
 the pair of turtle doves ; or Isaiah Ixv. 15, 16, ' But 
 my servants shall be called by a new name ; ' or the 
 reference to the lambs in Isaiah xi. 11 ; or the humble 
 and meek in Isaiah Ixv. 2, it is not obvious where 
 Clement finds any reason for the proposition by 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 103 
 
 which he justifies his title. In other cases his inter- 
 pretation is more decidedly mystical, as where con- 
 versely he interprets the words in Psalm v. 6, ' The 
 Lord abhors the bloody man,' as applying to the 
 Devil, who is there called man as perfect in wickedness, 
 on the ground that ' man ' in proi)hecy signifies 
 perfection, or where he interprets the words of Genesis 
 xlix. 11, ' and ho bound his foal to the vine,' to mean 
 ' having boimd this simple and childlike pooiile to tlio 
 Logos, figuratively represented as a vine,' or when he 
 says : — 
 
 ' The child is, therefore, gentle ('Hirtos oZv u i/tjttios), and 
 on tliis iiccount the rather tender, delicate, and simple, 
 without deceit and hypocrisy, upright in mind and straifjlit- 
 forward, which is the foundation of simplicity and trutli. 
 " For," he says, " to whom shall I have respect but to the 
 humble and meek ? " ' 
 
 But perhaps the most striking instance of mystical 
 interpretation is to be found in the use of the story 
 of Abimelech seeing Isaac sporting with Eebecca, 
 Genesis xxvi. 8. Of this passage Clement gives two 
 inter^n-etations. He begins : — 
 
 ' I refer Isaac also to a child. Isaac is interpreted 
 laughter. The inquisitive king saw him sporting with his 
 wife and helpmeet Hcbecca. The king, whose name was 
 Abimolccii, so(!mH to mo a stiponuuniland wisdom looking 
 down upon the mystery of training ; but ilcbecca they 
 interpret patience, "P«/3c'KKav 8c ipfji-qvcvoucriv ino/jLoin^v.' 
 
 According to the second interpretation, Eebecca, 
 from meaning patience, passed on to mean the Church, 
 which is called Patience because she remains to all 
 generations, subsisting by the patience of believers, 
 and both the King and Isaac mean Christ, the former. 
 
104 
 
 THE OEACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 apparently, as in heaven, and the latter as manifested 
 on earth. In this interpretation neither the allegory 
 nor its interpretation is otherwise than very obscure, 
 and it will be noticed that both turn upon the mean- 
 ing patience given to Eebecca. This is taken from 
 Philo, as is the whole of the first interpretation, 
 except so much of it as makes Isaac mean child as 
 well as laughter (see Lib. IL, ' De Plant. Noe,' 40, 41). 
 But it will be noticed that Clement speaks in the 
 plural—' they interpret ' — from which it would appear 
 that he follows some other authority as well as Philo. 
 It is therefore not at all improbable that one of the 
 interpretations is taken by him from Papias. This 
 is the more probable as we have seen that Anastasius 
 of Sinai couples the name of Papias with that of 
 Philo. On the whole, the inference appears to be 
 that Maximus refers to some mystic system adopted 
 by Papias of interpreting the Old Testament, and 
 therefore supports the view that his book was upon 
 the interpretation of Old Testament Scriptures. 
 Again, in Chapter VII. of the ' Ecclesiastical Hier- 
 archy,' Dionysius, while dealing with the resurrection, 
 is made to say as follows : — 
 
 ' But others turning aside, I know not how, to material 
 ideas have said that the most holy and blessed lot aunouncod 
 to the saints is of the same kind as the Ufe here, and have 
 unlawfully cast food which pertains to a changeable life 
 to those equal to the angels. But no one of the most holy 
 men will ever fall into such errors.' ' 
 
 Upon this passage Maximus writes the following 
 comment : — 
 
 ' For the Greek, see Appendix x. 
 
 f 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 105 
 
 ' He says this, I think, hinting at Papias who had then 
 become bishop of Hicrapolis in Asia and who flourished 
 together with John the divine EvangeHst. For this Papias, 
 in the fourth book of his Dominical Expositions, spoke of 
 enjoyments in the resurrection through things eaten : in 
 which opinion, which some call the Millennium, Apollinarius 
 subsequently believed, as appears in his writing. How then 
 are the writings of the holy Dionysius, as some foolishly 
 say, which answer Apollinarius the work of Apollinarius ? 
 And Irenaeus of Lyons in his fifth book against heresies 
 says the same, and adduces the aforesaid Papias as a wit- 
 ness of the things said by him.' ' 
 
 Photius also has a notice of Papias and Irenaeus 
 to a similar effect, whom he describes as saying — 
 
 ' That the enjoyment of eating certain sensible things 
 is the Kingdom of tlio Iluiivcns, iwtOijtCiv tivuiv jiiiutfu'iTuiv 
 anukaviTiv tii'ui tt;i' tuiv oijiavuiv fiatTiXiiav .' ' 
 
 The passage in Irenaeus referred to is the follow- 
 ing : — 
 
 ' These things are to take place in the times of the 
 kingdom, that is on the seventh day, which was sanctified, 
 on which God rested from all works which he did, which 
 is the true Sabbath of the just, in which they shall not do 
 any earthly work, but shall have beside them a table pre- 
 pared by God, feeding them with all kinds of dishes. As 
 the blessing of Isaac, with which ho blos.scd his younger 
 son Jacob, also imports, saying, " Behold the smell of my 
 son as the smell of a fruitful field which God has blessed." 
 Now the field is the world, and therefore he added, " God 
 give thee of the dew of licaven and of the fatness of the 
 earth, plenty of corn and wine, and let nations serve thee 
 and princes bow down to thee, and be lord over thy brother, 
 and thy father's sons shall bow down to thee. Whosoever 
 
 For the Greek, see Appendix x. 
 " See Lightfoot's Apostolic FaOicrs, abridged edit. p. 523, 
 
r 
 
 106 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 shall curse thee shall be cursed, and whosoever shall bless 
 thee shall be blessed." Whoever then will not receive 
 these things as prophecies of the kingdom will fall into 
 great contradiction and contrariety, in which the Jews, 
 falling into utter perplexity, are placed. For not only in 
 this lite the nations did not serve this Jacob, but after the 
 blessing he himself set out and served his uncle Laban the 
 Syrian twenty years, and not only was he not made lord of 
 his brother, but he himself bowed down to his brother 
 Esau when be returned from Mesopotamia to his father, 
 and offered him many gifts, and how did he inherit plenty 
 of corn and wine who, on account of a famine in the land 
 in which he dwelt, migrated into Egypt, being made subject 
 to Pharaoh who then reigned in Egypt ? So, the foretold 
 blessing without doubt pertains to the times of the king- 
 dom, when the just rising from the dead will reign, when 
 also creation renewed and liberated will bring forth plenty 
 of all sorts of food from the dew of heaven and from 
 the fatness of the earth, as the elders who saw John the 
 disciple of the Lord have related, that they heard from him 
 how the Lord used to teach about those times and say. 
 Days shall come in which vines shall grow, each having 
 ten thousand stems, and on each stem ten thousand 
 branches, and on each branch ten thousand shoots, and on 
 each shoot ten thousand bunches, and on each bunch ten 
 thousand grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give 
 twenty-five measures of wine, and when one of the saints 
 shall lay hold of one of these bunches another will cry 
 out, I am a better bunch ; take me ; through me bless the 
 Lord. Likewise also that a grain of wheat shall bear tun 
 thousand ears, and each ear shall have ten thousand 
 grains, and each grain ten pounds of fine white wheaten 
 Hour, and that the rest of the fruits, seed, and herbs shall 
 bring forth in similar proportions, and that all animals 
 using those foods which are obtained from the earth shall 
 become peaceable and agree with one another, being subject 
 to men with all subjection. But these things Papias also. 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAI'IAS 
 
 107 
 
 a man of primitive times who had been the hearer of John 
 and the companion of Polycarp, testifies in writing in 
 the fourth of his books, for there are five books composed 
 by him. And he added these words. These things are 
 credible to those who believe, and he says that when Judas 
 the traitor did not believe, and asked the question. How 
 will such fruitful stoclcs be produced by the Lord ? the 
 Lord said, They shall see who shall come to tliose times. 
 Prophesying then these times, Isaiah said. And the wolf 
 shall feed together with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie 
 down with the kid, &c.' ' 
 
 One is under no grammatical compulsion to sup- 
 pose that Irenaeus (juotod the authority of I'ajuas for 
 anything more than the sayings of Jesus handed 
 down by the elders, and so far we find Papias an 
 authority for attributing to Jesus teachings of a 
 different cast from any in the canonical gospels. The 
 doctrines to which this teaching gave rise ai^pear to 
 have been held, not merely by Papias, Apollinarius, and 
 Irenaeus, but, as Eusebius tells ua, by very many of 
 the ecclesiastical writers who came after Papias (roh 
 fjiST' aiiTov ifKeiarois . . . twv eKKKrfcnaa-Tiicwv). Their 
 prevalency, therefore, points to a time when the 
 doctrines of the church were not governed by the 
 canonical gospels, and is therefore favourable to 
 Papias at all events, having written at a time when 
 these gospels did not exist. But, apart from the 
 mere grammatical import of the reference made by 
 Irenaeus to Papias, the reference of Maximus leads us 
 to the surmise that the teaching of Irenaeus upon the 
 topic in question is founded upon . the teaching of 
 Papias. If that is so, the whole passage above quoted, 
 
 ' Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 33, 1 Stieicn, pp. 808-810, 
 
r 
 
 108 
 
 THE OJIACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 from the quotation of the blessing of Isaac downwards, 
 may be taken from Papias, and if that is so, we see 
 an exact illustration of the use Papias said he would 
 make of his traditions. 
 
 'But I will not hesitate to arrange in order for you, 
 with the interpretations, whatever things at any time I 
 well learned from the elders and well remembered.' 
 
 Papias began with the prophecy from the Old 
 Testament. Of this he gave his interpretation, and 
 he then added in confirmation the saying of Jesus he 
 had learned from the elders. In this aspect the 
 passage confirms the view that Papias was writing on 
 the interpretation of Old Testament prophecies. The 
 words ' for the field is the world,' which interrupt tlic 
 statement of the prophecy, quoted perhaps from 
 Matthew xiii. 38, may very well (on this supposition) 
 be an addition of Irenaeus. 
 
 Proceeding further, there is a probability rather 
 more remote, but still not inconsiderable, that the 
 whole argument of Irenaeus upon the Millennium is 
 based upon Papias, and it therefore becomes impor- 
 tant to consider its nature in order to see whether it 
 throws any light upon the nature of the books of 
 Papias. Irenaeus begins the topic as follows: — 
 
 ' Since the opinions of certain men are taken from the 
 discourses of the heretics, and they are ignorant of the dispo- 
 sitions of God and the mystery of the resurrection of the just, 
 and of the kingdom, which is the beginning of incorruption, 
 by which kingdom those who shall be worthy become accus- 
 tomed httle byhttlo to put on the God' (capere Deum),itia 
 necessary to speak about these things, since, rising again at 
 the appearance of God, the just ought first in this condition, 
 ' I,e. to become Bons of Qoi or gods hy adoption, 
 
 Till'; JIKANINO OF TAPIAS 
 
 10!) 
 
 which is renewed to receive the promise of the inheritance 
 which God promised to the fathers and to reign in it 
 {reciporc promissioncni hcrcditatis qnain Deus promisit 
 palribus), and then the Judgment to take place afterwards. 
 For in the same condition in which they laboured or were 
 afflicted, being proved in all ways through suflfering, it is 
 just that they should receive the fruits of their sufl'ering, 
 in the same condition in which they were slain for the 
 love of God that tliey should be made alive, and in the 
 same condition in which they sustained slavery that they 
 should reign. For God is rich in all things, and all things 
 are his. It is right, then, that that very condition made 
 whole again to its pristine state should without a prohibi- 
 tion be at the service of the just.' ' 
 
 Upon this passage two remarks are to be made. 
 The first is that Irenaeus states that the opinions ho 
 is controverting, which ho acknowledges were very 
 prevalent in the Church, were derived from the dis- 
 courses of the heretics, by whom he means the 
 Gnostics. This is in agreement with the statement 
 of Eusebius that very many of the ecclesiastical or 
 Church writers who followed Papias agreed with him 
 about the Millennium. We are therefore led to the 
 conclusion that Irenaeus is correct in stating that ho 
 is maintaining the ancient opinion of the Church, and 
 tliat the contrary opinion, which was growing in his 
 time and which subbC([Uontly prevailed, was really 
 owing to the Church having approximated its teaching 
 to that of the Gnostics. The second remark is that 
 Irenaeus contends that the ' just ought first . . . to 
 receive the prouiiso of the inheritance which God 
 promised to the fathers.' He therefore expressly 
 bases his case upon Old Testament prophecies, and 
 
 ' Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 32, s. 1, 1 Stioien, p. 800. 
 
 / 
 
110 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 this is borne out by the details of his arguments. 
 The general substance of them is this : such and such 
 promises were made to Abraham and his seed, to 
 Isaac, Jacob, and the Jewish people. These promises 
 have not been fulfilled as yet ; therefore they have 
 yet to be fulfilled to the Christian Church in the 
 Millennium. By far the greater part of the bulk of the 
 portion of Irenaeus dealing with this topic— that is, 
 of the last four chapters of his fifth book — is taken 
 up by citations from the Old Testament, including 
 one from an Apocryphal book, and the Revelation 
 and the interpretation of those citations. Besides 
 this, however, Irenaeus makes citations from or allu- 
 sions to the gospels, Acts, and epistles which are not 
 merely less numerous, but not nearly so bulky. In 
 all he makes sixty-seven citations or allusions — i.e. 
 thirty-three from the Old Testament, seven from the 
 Eevelation, thirteen from the Acts and epistles, and 
 fourteen at the utmost from the gospels, of which 
 twelve are to discourses of Jesus, and two to words 
 spoken by John the Baptist, which arc mentioned 
 twice. Of the twelve citations from discourses of 
 Jesus three occur in a passage quoted from the elders, 
 to which it will be necessary to give separate con- 
 sideration, and of the remaining nine five are short 
 sayings cited to c.vplain something else, not them- 
 selves the subject of any exposition. ' Blessed are the 
 meek, for they shall inherit the earth.' 'Now the 
 field is the world,' a statement that the Lord styled 
 Gehenna ' eternal fire.' ' Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away,' a mention of the first resurrection of the 
 just. I mention the last as it is sometimes marked 
 as an allusion to Luke xiv. 14, but it is more likely 
 
 THE WEANING OF FAPIAS 
 
 111 
 
 an allusion to Revelation xx. 4. There is nothing in 
 Luke to distinguish between a first and a second 
 resurrection. The context in the Revelation shows' 
 that the first resurrection is a resurrection of the 
 just. Of the remaining four citations from the 
 gospels one is a j^assage of some length, apparently 
 cited from Luke xii. 37, 38. 
 
 ' Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when he 
 Cometh shall find Avatching. Verily I say unto you that 
 he shall gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, 
 and shall come and serve them. And if he shall come in 
 the evening watch and find them so, blessed are they since 
 lie shall make them sit down and shall serve them. And 
 altliough he should come in the second or third watch, 
 happy are they.' ' 
 
 This quotation is wedged in between a quotation from 
 Isaiah Iviii. 14 and a quotation from the Apocalypse 
 XX. 6, and has no sejjai'ate exposition. 
 
 The remaining three quotations are as follows ; 
 they immediately precede tiie passage above cited, in 
 which I'apias is mentioned by name. 
 
 ' But, on account of this, coming to the passion {ad 
 2>as!>ionem vcnieiis) that he might announce to Abialiam 
 and those who were with him tlie good news of the unfold- 
 ing of the iiiliuiilanco, wlioii ho liud givou thanks, holding 
 tliu cup, and had drunk of it and given to his disciples, ho 
 said to them, Drink ye all of it. This is my blood of the 
 New Testament which will be shed for many for the remis- 
 sion of sins. But I say unto you 1 will not drink hence- 
 forth of the fiuit of tliis vine until that day when I shall 
 drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Undoubt- 
 edly he will himself renew the inheritance of the earth, 
 
 1 Sticrcn, Iicnacus, p S12. 
 
112 
 
 THE OHACLES OP PAPlAS 
 
 and restore the mystery of the glory of his sons, as David 
 says, " Who has renewed the face of the earth." He 
 promised to drink of tlie fruit of the vine with his disciples, 
 showing both things, that is to say the inheritance of the 
 earth in. which the new fruit of the vine is drunk and the 
 resurrection of his disciples in the flesh. For the flesh 
 which rises again new is the same which also receives the 
 new cup. For neither placed on high in a place above the 
 heavens with his disciples can he be understood as drink- 
 ing the fruit of the vine, nor again are they without flesh 
 who drink it, for the drink which comes from the vine 
 belongs to the flesh and not to the spirit. And on this 
 account the Lord said, When thou makest a dinner or a 
 supper, do not call rich men or thy friends, neighbours, and 
 kinsmen, lest they call thee in return, and a recompense 
 be made by them ; but call the lame, the blind, and the 
 beggars, and thou shalt be blessed because they have not 
 wherewith to recompense thee, for thou shalt be recom- 
 pensed in the resurrection of the just. And again he says, 
 Whosoever shall have left lands or houses or parents or 
 brethren or sons because of me shall receive in this world 
 an hundred fold, and in that to come shall inherit eternal 
 life. For what are the dinners given to the poor and sup- 
 pers which are in this world returned a hundred fold? 
 These things are to take place in the times of the king- 
 dom,' &c. (as in the previous quotation).' 
 
 In these cases, therefore, we get expositions of dis- 
 courses of Jesus, but the rest of what Irenaeus has 
 written does not in any wise assume the form of an 
 exposition of these passages. He does not begin with 
 them. He has previously dealt with the promises to 
 Abraham, and in commencing the topic he expressly 
 puts it upon the fulfilment of the promises which God 
 promised to the fathers. It would take up too much 
 
 ' Irenaeus, lib. v. cop. 33, 1 Slieren, p. 808. 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 113 
 
 space to deal with the prophecies from the Old Testa- 
 ment and Ik'volation as I liavc dono with the citations 
 from the gospels. The bulk of them may be judged 
 from the fact that the portion of the works of Irenaeus 
 under consideration takes up in Stieren's edition six- 
 Icon pages of printed matter. Suppowing now that 
 Irenaeus in this portion of his work copied Papias 
 verbatim, it may be asked, Would the work properly be 
 described as ' An exposition of the discourses of the 
 Lord ' ? It nmst be answered No, it would be much 
 better described as an exposition of the Messianic 
 prophecies. But even if Irenaeus copied Papias at all 
 we have no reason to suppose that he copied Papias 
 verbatim, and that being so, we may ask which portion 
 of the work of Papias is he most likely to have en- 
 ].ii.„ed— the references to the Old Testament, or the 
 references to the New Testament? It must be 
 answered that, having regard to the ages of the writers, 
 Irenaeus would be nearly certain to increase the New 
 Testament element; a fortiori, therefore, we conclude, 
 that if this part of Irenaeus is based on Papias, the 
 work of Papias was an exposition of Messianic prophe- 
 cies, and not of the discourses of Jesus. It is impos- 
 sible to draw any conclusion whether any of the pas- 
 sages from the gospels or from other canonical books 
 of ''the New Testament, except the Ilevelation, were 
 taken from Papias ; all such passages, and all allusions 
 to such passages, might be omitted from this part of 
 the works of Irenaeus without materially affecting his 
 arguments. If any of the New Testament quotations, 
 other than those from the Revelation, come from 
 Papias, the three passages appearing to be quotations 
 from the canonical gospels which I have cited last, 
 
 ' I 
 
V f 
 
 114 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 and which alone have separate interpretations, are 
 most likely to have been used by Papias, and especially 
 the first of the three, as to drinking of the cup at the 
 last supper. Papias must have been acquainted with 
 this incident in some form or other, either from tradi- 
 tion or the usage of the Christians at their love feasts, 
 or from the book which he mentions as written by 
 Mark. The same book probably contained other 
 matter which was adopted by the writers of the cano- 
 nical gospels ; things recorded by Papias from tradi- 
 tion may also have found their way into the canonical 
 gospels. Many writers are of opinion that the story 
 of the woman taken in adultery, in the fourth gospel, 
 comes from Papias, and it has been printed as one of 
 the extant fragments of his works in a posthumous 
 work bearing the name of the late Dr. Lightfoot. 
 This, I think, was an error, for there does not appear 
 any evidence that this particular story is taken from 
 Papias, but the process is a perfectly possible one, and 
 in all probability some portions of the canonical 
 gospels are based upon the traditions he collected, 
 though we have no means of pointing to any particular 
 passage as having been so based. Still, though there 
 is no improbability in these passages being mentioned 
 by Papias, we have no ground to infer that he did 
 mention them, for they are passages that Irenacus 
 might not improbably add himself, and it must be 
 noticed that the quotation as to the taking the cup 
 has no such connection with the preceding words as 
 the ' propter hoc,' with which the sentence is mtro- 
 duced, would lead one to suppose. It does not appear 
 intelligible that Jesus took the cup and spoke to his 
 disciples in order to preach the gospel to Abraham and 
 
 THE MEANING OF TAI'IAS 115 
 
 those that were with him. The omission of the quota- 
 tion as to the cuj) would, therefore, rather improve 
 the sense of the 2'>as8age ; the opening words of which 
 would then be ' on account of tliis enduring the passion 
 that he might preach to Abraham and those who were 
 with him the good news of the opening of the inheri- 
 tance.' This is good sense. It might be contended 
 that unless Jesus suffered death, he could not go to 
 the place of departed spirits to preach to Abraham, and 
 the words, ' undoubtedly he will himself renew the in- 
 heritance of the earth and restore the mystery of the 
 glory of his sons, as David says, who lias renewed the 
 face of the earth,' will follow without greater abrupt- 
 ness than in their present context. After this, omit- 
 ing all the intervening words, the context would run 
 quite naturally. ' These things are to take place in 
 the times of the kingdom, &c.,' that is to say, it is in 
 the times of the kingdom that the face of the earth is 
 to be renewed. We see, therefore, it is not at all im- 
 probable that these quotations from the gospels have 
 been interpolated into a text which did not originally 
 contain them. Sui^posing, therefore, Irenaeus based 
 this i)art of his work upon Papias, these quotations 
 from the gospels and their interpretations are probably 
 additions of his own. 
 
 I will now pass on to consider the passage I omit- 
 ted in which Irenaeus quotes from the elders. It is 
 as follows : 
 
 ' For when this form passes away, and man is renewed 
 and flourishes to incorruption, so that he cannot any 
 longer grow old, the heaven will be new and the earth new. 
 In these new places man will remain always new and 
 holding intcrcourso with God. And since these things 
 
 I 2 
 
116 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 shall always remain without end Isaiah says, "For as 
 the new heaven and the new earth which I make remain 
 before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your 
 name continue." And, as the elders say, then also those 
 who have been thought worthy of the spending of their 
 time in heaven {rrj^ iv ovpaviZ SiarpiPrji) shall go there, 
 others shall enjoy the delight of paradise (t^s tov wapa- 
 Scia-ov Tpv<f>jji), and others shall possess the brightness of the 
 city {rriv XaixirpoTTfTa t^s irdXtois) ; for everywhere the Saviour 
 [or, according to the reading of the old Latin version, God] 
 shall be seen, as they shall be worthy who see him. And 
 that this is the difference of the habitation of those who 
 bring forth a hundredfold and those who bring forth sixty- 
 fold and those who bring forth thirtyfold (tSv to tKOTov 
 Kap7ro(j>opovvTii>v <cai tGv Ta i^Kovra Koi rCtv to. rpiaKOvrd) : 
 of whom the first will be taken up into the heavens, the 
 second will pass their time in paradise, and the third will 
 dwell in the city, and that on this account the Lord said, 
 " In the realms of my Father (eV rots tov iroTpds /lov) are 
 many stations {/jlovoh, translated mansions, John xiv. 2)." 
 For all things belong to God, who affords a fit habitation 
 to everyone ; as his Word says [quemadmodum verbum 
 ejus ait), that it has been distributed by the Father to all 
 men, according as each is worthy or will be. And this is 
 the banqueting couch on which those shall recline who 
 are called to the marriage and feasted. The elders, the 
 disciples of the Apostles (presbyteri apostolorum discipuli), 
 say that this is the arrangement and disposition of those 
 who are saved, and that they progress through stops of tliis 
 sort, and that through the Spirit indeed they ascend to the 
 Son, and through the Son to the Father, the Son in turn 
 yielding his work to the Father, as it has been said also by 
 the Apostle [quemadmodum et ab apostolo dictuvi est), 
 " For he must reign until he putteth all his enemies under 
 his feet." The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 
 For in the times of the kingdom the just man existing on 
 tbo earth shall already forget to die.' ' 
 
 ' Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 30, 1 Stieren, p. 817. 
 
 THE MEANJNO of l^U'lAS 
 
 111 
 
 The words here quoted from the elders stand for 
 the purpose we have in hand in a different position 
 from the context in which they occur. That context 
 purports to be the work of Irenaeus, but it is plausibly 
 conjectured that it is based upon Papias, and may, 
 therefore, throw some light upon the nature of his 
 work. The words in question may, as has been 
 argued, be a quotation from Papias ; in that case, so 
 far as they go, they afford direct evidence of the nature 
 of his work, of which they form a portion ; on the 
 other hand, they may not be a quotation from Papias, 
 and in that case, as they have come from a different 
 Eource, will throw no light, or but very faint light 
 indeed, upon the nature of his work. The argument 
 in favour of the quotation coming from Papias con- 
 sists in this : Irenaeus expressly cites Papias as his 
 authority for the last previous quotation he makes 
 from the elders, whom he describes as the elders who 
 had seen John the Disciple of the Lord (presbyteri qui 
 Joannem discipulum Domini vider unt) . In the present 
 instance he describes them first, simply as ' the elders ' 
 (oi Trpsa^vTepoi.), and in the second place, as the elders, 
 the disciples of the Apostles, ' presbyteri, apostolorum 
 discipuli.' This distinction is, of course, by no means 
 conclusive of a separate source, as Papias might record 
 one tradition on the authority of the elders who had 
 seen John and another on the authority of the elders 
 the disciples of the apostles, though we have no know- 
 ledge that ho did so, and one would rather expect from 
 what he promises, that he would cite the particular 
 apostle upon whose authority the tradition rested. 
 
 In this passage it must be noticed, the elders are 
 not describing the millennium which was to take place 
 
118 
 
 THE OKACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 before the judgment, but the state of those who are 
 saved after the judgment. This has some httlc bear- 
 ing upon the question whether the passage came from 
 Papias, in that we know from Eusebius that Irenaeus 
 held views similar to those of Papias concerning the 
 millennium, but we have no evidence what may have 
 been the views of Papias as to what took place after 
 the judgment. The probability, therefore, of the 
 passage coming from Papias is rendered a little more 
 remote. 
 
 We will next consider whether we can trace in 
 Irenaeus any other probable source from which he 
 could have derived knowledge, or supposed he could 
 have derived knowledge, of what was said by elders 
 who were disciples of the apostles, except from Papias. 
 In his third book he makes the following remarks : — 
 
 • And Polycarp also, not only having been made a disciple 
 by Apostles, and having lived among many who had seen the 
 Christ, but also having been appointed by Apostles bishop 
 in Asia in the church in Smyrna, whom we also have 
 seen in our early youth (for he survived for a long time, 
 and being very aged, gloriously and most conspicuously 
 having suflfered martyrdom, he departed this life), always 
 taught tliese things which he learned from the Apostles, 
 which also the church hands down, and which only are 
 true. All the churches which are in Asia bear witness to 
 them, and those who till now have succeeded Polycarp, 
 who is a witness of the truth much more worthy of credit 
 and reliable than Valentinus and Marcion and the rest of 
 those who are wanting in judgment. Wlio also Jiaving 
 come to Rome in the time of Anicetus, turned many of 
 the heretics before mentioned to the church of God, having 
 proclaimed that he had received from the Apostles as the 
 one and only truth, that which has been handed doWn by the 
 church. And there are some who heard from him (Kal iivlv 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 119 
 
 oUK,.Jor.. airov) that John the disciple of the Lord hav 
 ing gone to bathe at Ephesus, and seeing Cennthus within 
 sprang out of the bathing house without having bathed, but 
 eLlaiming, Let us flee lest the bath ng house should fall 
 since Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth is in it. And Polj 
 carp himself once answered Marcion when he came mto s 
 sight, and said, Do you recognise me? I '•ecogn.se the 
 firstborn of Satan. So great caution the Apostles and 
 
 their disciples (ol irrocrroXot Kal ot ^aOrira. avro,v) had 
 
 in not holding communication even so far as a word with . 
 one of those who falsify the truth, as Paul also said A 
 man that is heretical after a first and second admonition, 
 refuse, knowing that such a one is perverted and sinneth, 
 being self-condemned." ' ' 
 
 We see from this passage that Irenaeus had, or 
 thought he had, means of knowledge of what was said 
 and done by the disciples of the apostles, by reas^on of 
 statements" made to him by persons who had heard 
 Polycarp when he visited Kome in the time of Ani- 
 cetus, who had been bishop of Home before Soter (the 
 predecessor of Eleutherus), who was, as Irenaeus tells 
 us, the bishop of Eome'at the time he was writing. 
 According to Eusebius, Anicetus was bishop for 
 eleven years, Soter for eight, and Eleutherus for 
 either thirteen or fifteen. The visit of Polycarp to 
 Eome would therefore be not less than eight years, 
 and not more than thirty-four years, before Irenaeus 
 was writing. This possible source of traditions, sup- 
 posed to be derived from disciples of the apostles, goes 
 a long way to weaken any inference that the passage 
 we are considering is derived from Papias; but he 
 matter can be pursued further. Irenaeus makes 
 mention of elders who were the disciples of the 
 . Irenaeus, Adv. llacr. lib. iii. cap. 3, s. 4. 1 Blieren. p. 433. 
 
120 
 
 THE ORACLES 01' PAPIAS 
 
 apostles in an earlier part of his fifth book (chapter v.) 
 which is as follows : — 
 
 ' Where, then, was the first man placed ? Obviously in 
 paradise, as it is written, And God planted a garden 
 (imradis'um) eastward in Eden, and there he put the man 
 whom he had formed. And thence he was cast out into 
 this world, having been disobedient. Wherefore the elders, 
 
 the disciples of the Apostles (oi irpecr/Jifrcpot, riov (IjrofrroXaii/ 
 
 fiadr)Tai, presbyteri qui sunt apostolorum discipuli), also 
 say that those who were translated were translated there. 
 For paradise was prepared {yyToifiaa-Br) 6 TrapaSeio-os, prae- 
 paratus est paradisus) for just men and those who have 
 the spirit ; into which also Paul the Apostle was carried 
 and heard words unspeakable {tla-Koiiia-OtU TjKova-tv apfnyra 
 pTJfiaTo) as regards us at present ; and that those who have 
 been translated remain there until the consummation as 
 a prelude to incorruption.' ' 
 
 As paradise is the subject of both quotations, there 
 can be little doubt that the elders, the disciples of the 
 apostles, are the same in both cases. It will also be 
 noticed that in both cases a quotation is made from 
 Paul which may be an addition made by Irenaeus, or 
 may, which is perhaps more probable, come from the 
 authority from whom he quotes. If that is so, one 
 object of that authority would seem to be to show that 
 the elders he quotes from agree with Paul. 
 
 The last previous mention of elders as the sources 
 of information made by Irenaeus is in chapter xxvii. of 
 his fourth book, and is in this wise : Irenaeus is 
 endeavouring to controvert the contention of the 
 Gnostics that the God of the Old Testament was not 
 the same God as the God of the Christians ; and in so 
 
 ' Adv. Haer. lib. v. cap 5, s. 1, 1 Sticreu, pp. 727, 728. 
 
 THE MEANING OV PAHAS 
 
 121 
 
 doing he backs up his argument by the authority of 
 an elder, whom ho docs not name. 
 
 ' As I have heard from a certain elder who had heard 
 from those who had seen the Apostles and from those who 
 had learned (Qucmadmodum aiulivi a qtiodam prcsbijtero 
 qui audierat ab his qui apostvlos vidcrant cl ab his qui 
 didiccrant).' ' 
 
 What Irenaeus means by those who had learned may 
 not be quite certain. I understand the term to mean 
 from those who had learned what the apostles taught, 
 not necessarily from the apostles themselves, but 
 from others who might know. There is a probability, 
 therefore, that these persons are the persons whom 
 he afterwards describes as the elders, the disciples of 
 the apostles, and that the source of his knowledge as 
 to what was said by the last-named elders was the 
 unnamed elder who had heard those also who had 
 seen the apostles. Irenaeus makes various statements 
 on the authority of this elder : — 
 
 ' That that reproach which would be from the Scriptures 
 was enough for those of old time for what they did without 
 the counsel of the Spirit.' ' 
 
 After this, after some other examples, Irenaeus 
 quotes from 1 Kings xi. 1, as to Solomon and his wives, 
 according to the LXX, winding up 
 
 'And the Lord was angry against Solomon, for his 
 heart was not perfect towards the Lord as was the heart of 
 David his father,' ^ 
 and proceeds, 
 
 'The Scripture sufficiently rebuked him, as said the 
 elder, that no flesh may boast in the sight of God ; and 
 that on account of this the Lord descended to those places 
 ' 1 Stieien, p. 048. ' ^^id, p. 650. 
 
122 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 which are under the earth, preaching for them also the 
 good tidings of his coming, there being remission of sins 
 to those who believe in him. Now all those who were 
 hoping for him believed in him, that is all those who 
 announced beforehand his coming and were subject to his 
 directions, the just men, both prophets and patriarclis, to 
 whom like as to us he remitted their sins, which wo ought 
 not to impute to them if we would not despise the grace of 
 God." ' 
 
 We see here the elder deals with a topic akin to 
 those dealt with by the disciples of the apostles in 
 the two previous extracts ; the state of the prophets 
 or patriarchs who died before the coming of Christ 
 naturally leading up to the state of those who were 
 translated, as the state of those who were translated 
 leads up to the consideration of the resurrection of the 
 just. After more to the like effect, Irenaeus pro- 
 ceeds : — 
 
 ' We ought not, therefore, saith that older man (senior), 
 to be proud nor to blame the ancients, but ourselves to 
 fear lest by chance after the knowledge of Christ doing 
 something which does not please God, we may not have 
 further remission of our sins, but may be excluded from 
 his kingdom. And that Paul therefore said. " For if he 
 spared not the natural branches perchance neither may he 
 spare thee, who when thou wast a wild olive wast grafted 
 into the fatness of the olive and wast made a partaker of 
 its fatnesa." Similarly also you see that the misdoings of 
 tlio jicopio woro dc'Hcrlbed, not on account of those who 
 liiiKi irMtHKimHiiil, hut for our rebuke, and tliat wc might 
 hiiiiw ihut tliuClod ugainHtwhom they ofroiidcd and against 
 wlio/ii curlulii of llioHd who uro HiiiJ to liavo bcilievod now 
 od'oMd, Ih ono and the Haiiio. And that the Apostle showed 
 this very plainly in his epistle which is addressed to the 
 I 1 atioron, p. GCO. 
 
 THE MEANING OE PAPIAS 
 
 12a 
 
 Corinthians, saying, " For I would not, brethren, have 
 you ignorant how that onr fathers wore all under the 
 cloud," &c. (quoting 1 Corinthians x. 1-13).' ' 
 
 Irenaeus then proceeds further to enforce his 
 position in words not nccossiirily tliosc of the older, 
 making two (luotiitiona from tho goHpcla, and seven 
 from Paul, and ono from the Psalms when in the 
 twenty-eighth chapter he makes the following re- 
 mark : — 
 
 ' Truly tho elders (prcshijioii) sliowed those to be 
 senseless who from those things which happened to them 
 who formerly obeyed God try to introduce another Father.' ^ 
 
 We see here that Irenaeus, from speaking of the un- 
 nanied elder, suddenly jumps to the elders. It may 
 be presumed that these elders are those who had 
 learned, who are referred to as the sources of the 
 information coninmnicatcd to Irenaeus by the un- 
 named elder. We see also that the unnamed elder 
 had a habit of winding v^p his statements with an 
 appeal to the authority of the apostle Paul. This 
 appears, certainly, from the passages which Irenaeus 
 expressly quotes from the unnamed elder, and is 
 suggested by the abundance of quotations from Paul 
 occurring in places which, though not expressly quoted 
 from the unnamed elder, are not improbably derived 
 from him. Again, in the thirtieth chapter Iienaeus 
 cites an elder (presbyter) in justification of the 
 spoiling of the Egyptians, and in support of the 
 position that we ought not to upbraid the patriarchs 
 and prophets al)0ut those things which the Scriptures 
 themselves lay to their charge. The similarity of the 
 
 I 1 Stieren, pp. G51, 052. ' Ibid. p. G54. 
 
124 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 topic shows that the same unnamed elder is meant. 
 Again, in the beginning of the thirty-second chapter 
 IrenaeuB remarks : — 
 
 'Thus also an older disciple of the Apostles used to 
 contend about the two testaments (hijusmodi quoquc de 
 duobus testamentis senior apostolorum discipulus dis- 
 putabat), showing that both were by one and the same 
 God,' &c.' 
 
 Here we see Irenaeus, instead of describing the elder 
 as one who had heard from those who had seen the 
 apostles, describes him as a disciple of the apostles ; 
 but the identity of the topic raises the inference that 
 the same man is meant, and we ought not to correct 
 the former and more precise description by the latter 
 and vaguer. The former description rather shows in 
 what sense the latter is to be taken— that is, that by 
 disciple of the apostles Irensus merely meant a man 
 who held the apostolic doctrine, which he had derived 
 from others who had themselves derived it, but not 
 immediately, from the apostles. The next reference 
 we get to elders is to the elders the disciples of the 
 apostles, mentioned in the fifth chapter of the fifth 
 book. There cannot be any reasonable doubt that 
 they are the same elders as were previously mentioned 
 in the twenty-eighth chapter of the fourth book, and 
 that they aro the authorities upon whom the unnamod 
 elder makes his statements : that is to say, they are 
 men who had learned the apostolic doctrine, not from 
 the apostles directly, but from other persons, who 
 were, as Irenaeus supposed, able to teach it. We see 
 Irenaeus makes the same change in referring to these 
 elders as he does in referring to the unnamed elder. 
 ' 1 Stieren, p. 664. 
 
 TIIK MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 121 
 
 The unnamed elder is first presbyter, or senior, and 
 afterwards becomes senior apostolorum discipulus. 
 The elders, his authorities, arc first prcsbytcri, after- 
 wards presbytcri apostolorum discipuli. 
 
 The question now to determine is, who is the 
 unnamed elder ? He is, to begin with, some one with 
 whom Irenaeus has come into personal contact ; and 
 Irenaeus professes to quote his oral teaching, not his 
 books. Several persons have been suggested, such as 
 Papias, Polycarp, Pothinus. It may be taken as 
 certain that neither Papias nor Polycarp can be meant, 
 for Irenaeus would not describe cither of them as 
 having heard those who had seen the ajjostles, and 
 omit to mention what he believed of both of them, 
 that they had actually. heard the apostle John. This 
 objection would not apply to Pothinus ; but the fact 
 that the elder is unnamed is a strong argument that 
 he was not Pothinus. Irenaeus would have every 
 motive to mention his predecessor in the see of Lyons, 
 a bishoi) and a martyr, and this is a further reason 
 why neither Polycarp lior Papias can be intended. 
 The manner in which Irenaeus rejjeatedly refers to 
 this elder without mentioning his name suggests that 
 he must have had some reason for his reticence, which 
 was prol)al)ly that tlie older in question was not a 
 persona ijrald to tlio Church of lvonu>, and, having 
 regard to the jjosition taken up by Irenaeus, that may 
 well have been. He was himself prepared to yield to 
 the teaching of the Church of Pome and abandon the 
 practices of his youth, as was shown in the matter of 
 the celebration of Easter ; but he was not prepared to 
 excommunicate his old associates. He may therefore 
 very well have been prepared to cite as an authority 
 
126 
 
 THE OBACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 some one whose peculiar views on some points mny 
 not have been at all acceptable at Rome. The opinion 
 that the unnamed elder was not Papias is strengthened 
 by the fact that he appears to be a man having a 
 great reverence for Paul-in fact, he appears to cast 
 his teachmg mto such a form as to show that the 
 doctrines of the elders upon which it was based were 
 the same as those of the apostle. Now we have shown 
 that there is reason to suppose that Papias had an 
 aversion to Paul, that Paul was the other man to 
 whose teaching (riy dWor/jt'ay ivroXks) Papias pre- 
 ferred that of the Lord, to whose books he preferred 
 the oral traditions of the elders. 
 
 We may therefore conclude that the citations 
 made by Irenaeus from the elders, the disciples of the 
 apostles, do not come from Papias, and that, therefore, 
 they have no bearing upon the present discussion.' 
 It is very probable that the unnamed elder is the 
 authority from whom Irenaeus derived his information 
 as to the visit of Polycarp to Eome. If so, we see 
 another instance of his habit of teaching in the cita- 
 tion which shows that the conduct of John towards 
 Cerinthus and of Polycarp towards Marcion was in 
 accordance with the teaching of the apostle. 
 
 Papias is mentioned three times by Jerome. But 
 Jerome appears to have derived all his information 
 from the ' Ecclesiastical History ' of Eusebius, for he 
 mentions nothing that is not to be found there and 
 repeats a portion of the commentary of Eusebius. 
 In one place Jerome denies a report that he had trans- 
 lated the books of Josephus and of the saints Papias 
 and Polycarp, saying that he had neither leisure nor 
 strength to express such great works in another 
 
 THE MEANING OF PAPIAS 
 
 127 
 
 tongue with the same elegance (eadem venustate), 
 from which perhaps the inference ought to be drawn, 
 that Papias had the reputation of writing in good 
 Greek. 
 
 Another notice of Papias is the passage which has 
 been interpolated in chapter xxxvi. of book 3 of the 
 ' Ecclesiastical History ' of Eusebius : ' A man in all 
 things in the highest degree very learned, and knowing 
 the Scripture ' {avqp ra iruvTa on fiaXiaTa Xoyiwra- 
 TOi Koi Tijs ypa<(>!]s eiB^/j.cov). Though not the words of 
 Eusebius, these words proceed from some one who must 
 have admired Papias and therefore it may be presumed 
 have been acquainted with his writings. As the New 
 Testament and especially the gospels are better known 
 than the Old Teslampnt, an acquaintance with the 
 latter would be the more likely to furnish the occasion 
 for the commendation. 
 
 I have now gone through the whole of the extant 
 notices of Papias by writers who were acquainted with 
 his works or, at all events, had the opportunity of 
 becoming acquainted with them. In those notices we 
 find evidence that Papias commenttd upon the Old 
 Testament, but we do not find evidence that he used 
 any books of the New Testament except the Apocalypse, 
 the first epistle of John, and the first epistle of Peter. 
 If the object of his work was to expound cither the 
 gospels or the discourses of Jesus, this is a very 
 curious result, for in that event his work must have 
 contained comments upon nearly every passage in the 
 gospels, and it is strange that no one of those com- 
 ments should have been preserved. It would not do 
 from the scanty remains of Pajiias to draw the infer- 
 ence that he did not cite and comment upon some 
 
128 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 passages parallel to those contained in the canonical 
 gospels. As I have already noticed, it is highly 
 probahle that some snch passages were to bo found in 
 his book, but on the other hand the nature of the ex- 
 tant notices makes it highly improbable that the bulk 
 of his work was made up of comments upon such 
 passages, that out of (say) twenty specimens taken at 
 random no one should be a fair sample of the bulk. 
 
 The examination of the notices of Papias therefore 
 supports the conclusion that his work consisted of 
 comments upon the Old Testament and perhaps also 
 of some on the Apocalypse which he may have re- 
 garded as equivalent to one of the prophets. That is 
 to say, the investigation into the extant notices of the 
 work leads to the same conclusion as the investigation 
 into the usage of the name by which it is called. 
 That is to say that by the word \oyto, or oracles, 
 Papias meant the Old Testament or some part of it, and 
 that when Papias says that Matthew wrote or com- 
 piled the oracles he means that he wrote a catena of 
 Old Testament prophecies. 
 
 I 
 
 12!) 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 uleek's analysis of the old testament 
 quotations in the 00spel3 
 
 I WILL now pass on to consider whether any other 
 traces can be found of a book such as I have inferred 
 Papias attributed to Matthew, that is to say, a col- 
 lection of Messianic i)rophecies in Hebrew, with or 
 without their interpretation as applied to the life of 
 Jesus. 
 
 There has been great controversy, as is well known, 
 upon the question whether the canonical gospel of 
 Matthew was originally written in Greek, or in Hebrew 
 or Aramaic. "And with" a view of determining this 
 question, the quotations of the Old Testament con- 
 tained in it have been subjected to a rigorous scrutiny 
 to try and ascertain whether they were taken from 
 the Septuagint version, or arc independent transla- 
 tions from the Ilubrew. Of course if it could bo shown 
 that the quotations were independent translations 
 from the Hebrew, it would be evidence so far that the 
 book was originally written in Hebrew, or at all events 
 in some language other than Greek. If, however, the 
 quotations came from the Septuagint, that would tend 
 to show a Greek original. 
 
 Now, examining the quotations with this object, the 
 
130 
 
 TIIK OKACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 German critic Bleek arrived at the following conclu- 
 sions, which I will cite in the words of Dr. Davidson, 
 through whom I am acquainted with them : ' — 
 
 ' According to him (Bleek) the citationg in the Gospel 
 are of two kinds, namely, those in which the Evangelist 
 gives pragmatic indications respecting the fulfilment of 
 expressions in the Old Testament, and those where the 
 passages are quoted or used in the course of the narrative, 
 as they occur in the discourses of persons who are intro- 
 duced speaking. The latter are adduced according to the 
 LXX, sometimes verbally even in cases where the LXX 
 depart from the Hebrew, and sometimes with more free- 
 dom, but not in such a way as to lead to the supposition 
 of the deviation being due to consultation of the Hebrew 
 text. The former are adduced according to the writer's 
 own translation from tlie Hebrew, departing not merely 
 from the words, but also the sense of the LXX, whose 
 expressions are seldom seen through the places.' ^ 
 
 Davidson then makes the following remarlc : — 
 ' The fact that the Messianic passages are everywhere 
 cited after the Hebrew is obviously favourable to the 
 hypothesis of an Aramaic original,' and he then pro- 
 ceeds to combat the argument in favour of a Greek 
 original, which is deduced from the much larger 
 number of quotations which follow the Septuagint. 
 
 At a subsequent place he sets out a list of sixty- 
 one quotations, or rather quotations from and allusions 
 to the Old Testament.' Of these, eleven are marked 
 as Old Testament statements, stated to be fulfilled, 
 cited from the Hebrew. Thirty-two are marked as 
 belonging to the second class, in which the LXX are 
 
 ' In his introduction to the study of the New Testament, Bleek 
 merely refers to the matter shortly. See the translation in Clark's 
 Voreign Tlieological Library, vol. i. p. 2U5. 
 
 ' IntroductUni to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 378. ' Ibid. p. 420. 
 
 (H'OTATIUNS IN THE (JOSl'KLS 
 
 131 
 
 followed, and twenty are not marked at nil. It will be 
 noticed that two quotations arc marked both ways, 
 and when looked at they are found to be mere allu- 
 sions too vague to bo of any account. Of the twenty 
 not classed, some I think might be fairly set down as 
 quotations from the LXX. The rest are allusions rather 
 than quotations, but usually give sufficient indications 
 of the LXX as their source. 
 
 Davidson, after some remarks, sums uj) the ques- 
 tion in the following terms : — 
 
 ' ]?nt, notwitlistanding tlie oxceptions taken to tiie 
 classification by Ebrard and Delitzsch, it is substantially 
 a sound one. In the first class seven agree more or less 
 closely with the Hebrew, and only two witli the LXX ; 
 in tlio socoiul cliisH tticro are tbrou gradational exceptions 
 to the derivation from the LXX.' ' 
 
 Davidson has only before mentioned one quotation 
 of the first class as agreeing with the LXX, that in 
 Matthew i. 23 :— 
 
 ' Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring 
 forth a -son and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which 
 is, being interpreted, God with us ('iSou r/ irapBlvo^ Iv 
 
 yatTTpi c^ti KoX Tt'^frai v'wv Kai KaXiaovcriv to ovoixa avTov 
 'EyttynavouTjA. o Itniv /xfOepfirivevofievov Mt.')' yfiuiv o ®to;).' 
 
 This quotation agrees with the LXX according to the 
 Alexandrine and Sinaitic Codices, with the exception 
 that it has KoXiarovaiv, in the third person plural 
 iictive, instead of with the Alexandrine, KoXiaeis, in 
 the second person singular active, or with the Sinaitic 
 KaXeaei, in the second person singular middle or third 
 person singular active, and that it adds the words ficQep- 
 
 ' Introduction to the Xew Testament, vol. i. p. 422. 
 
 E 2 
 
132 
 
 THE OKACLES OF I'APIAS 
 
 firfvevofievov Me6' rjfiayv 6 ©eoy, ' which is, being inter- 
 preted, God with lis.' If it be compared with the common 
 or Vatican text which agrees with the Alexandrine in 
 the reading KaXeaeis, there is the further difference 
 that the word s^ei is used instead of X>;^/feTat,' in the 
 phrase ' be with child ' (literally, ' have in her womb '), 
 instead of ' take in her womb.' The first impression 
 produced is undoubtedly that Davidson is right and 
 that the quotation came from the LXX. I shall, how. 
 ever, be able subsequently to adduce reasons which 
 will make it probable that the quotation is taken 
 from an independent translation, and that the resem- 
 blance to the LXX is produced by assimilation, 
 whether by the original author of the gospel or a sub- 
 sequent hand. 
 
 Passing on to the quotations of the second class 
 which agree with the Hebrew — one of them, Matthew 
 ii. G, ' And thou Bethlehbm,' &c., is a Messianic 
 prophecy put into the mouths of the chief priests and 
 scribes, and ought rather to fall into the first class, 
 not occurring in the discourses of Jesus or his inter- 
 locutors. Another, 'Behold I send my messenger 
 before thy face who shall prepare thy way before 
 thee,' put into the mouth of Jesus, Matthew xi. 10, 
 occurs verbatim as part of the narrative in J^fark i. 2. 
 We have only to assume, with many critics, that 
 Mark here represents the more ancient form of the text, 
 and the quotation will fall into the first class. The re- 
 mainingallusion, for it can scarcely be called a quotation, 
 that in Matthew xxii. 24, ' Moses said, if a man die 
 
 ' The reading of the Vatican codex, according to the edition pub- 
 lished under the auspices of Pius IX, Pontifex Maximus, Bomae, 
 1872, is AV'^«Tol ; accordingto Tischendorf, Lipsiae, 1850, it is A^i/it toi. 
 
 OCOTATJONS IN TItl'; (iOSi'ELS 
 
 13-3 
 
 having no children, his brother shall marry his wife 
 and raise up Ki'od luito his brother,' I must leave to 
 Hebrew scholars. A comparisron of the Greek and the 
 English version of Deuteronomy does not disclose any 
 reason why it should not come from the LXX as well 
 as anywhere else. 
 
 Li considering iJlcek's clasMilicaticm of the (juo- 
 tatioiis and ])avi(lson's coiiinieiits on it, it must be 
 remembered that Bleek's contention is that the gospel 
 comes from a Greek original and Davidson's that it 
 conies from an Aramaic original, and that the clas- 
 siiication of the ([iiotations, in which they both 
 substantially agree, supports neither theory effectively, 
 but Eleek's better than Davidson's, by far the larger 
 l)ortion of the quott^tions coming from the LXX. It 
 is therefore not surprising that the theory should hold 
 rather better than Davidson allows it to do.' 
 
 ' This distinction between the i|uotations is recognised by Dr. 
 Westcott, the present Uishop of Durham. He says, Introduction to 
 the iStady of the Gos})cls, 7th edit. p. 22!) note a, speaking of the OKI 
 Testament quotations in M^ttliew : ' These may be divided into two 
 distinct chisses ; the first consisting of sucli passages as are quoted 
 by tlie Evangelist liiniself, as fulfilled in the life of Christ ; the 
 second of such as are interwoven into the discourses of the different 
 characters, and foini an integral part of the narrative itself. . . . The 
 lirst class is made up of original renderings of the Hebrew text, while 
 the sccDud is in tlit! main in close uccordance with the IjXX, even 
 wlicru it deviates fn>Mi the llebrinv.' Dr. SaliiMHi is jtlso to the samci 
 clTect. Sjieaking of the Old Testament tpiotiitiuns in the gospels, he 
 siiys : ' Several such <|uotations are peculiar to St. Matthew, imd arc 
 introduced by him with the formula " that it might be fulfilled."' In 
 these cases the ordimiry rule is that the Evangelist does nut take the 
 (piotation from the I;XX, but translates directly from the Hebrew. It 
 is otherwise in the case of quotations which Matthew hasinconnnon 
 with the other Evangelists. As a rule they are taken from the LXX, 
 and when they diller from our text of the LXX, all agree in the devia- 
 tion.' See Inl>(Kluc ion to the New Testament, 4th edit. p. 145. 
 
134 
 
 THE ORACLKS OF PAPLVS 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE SYKOPTIO GOSPELS PARTLY FBOM GREEK AND PARTLY 
 FROM ARAMAIC SOURCES 
 
 The theory, jJrimil facie supported by the analysis of 
 the quotations, is that the canonical gospel of Matthew 
 comes from two different sources, one a Mork on the 
 interpretation of the Messianic prophecies originally 
 written in Hebrew, another containing the discourses 
 of Jesus originally written in Greek. 
 
 If this theory can be sustained, it evidently sup- 
 ports and is supported by the interpretation I have 
 put upon the extracts from Papias. The Hebrew 
 book attributed to Matthew will be the origin of 
 the portion of the gospel which deals in the inter- 
 pretation of Messianic prophecies, and the Greek book 
 attributed to Mark may be the nucleus of the portion 
 of the gospel containing the discourses of Jesus. 
 
 Now is there anything to be said against this 
 theory ? I think there can be no doubt at all that the 
 quotations which are independent translations from 
 the Hebrew indicate a Hebrew or Aramaic original, 
 but it is not so certain that the quotations agreeing 
 with the LXX indicate that the work which contains 
 them was not originally written iii Hebrew or some 
 language other than Greek, or did not contain Hebrew 
 
 SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
 quotations. For in translating into Greek there 
 would no doubt be a tendency to assimilate the 
 quotations to the LXX. Now the first thing to con- 
 sider is — Can the resemblance of the quotations in the 
 discourses to the LXX be explained on the supposition 
 ofintentional or unintentional assimilation? And now 
 we are at once confronted with the difficulty — that the 
 quotations from the LXX occur exactly in the places 
 where assimilation would be difficult, and an indepen- 
 dent translation where the assimilation would be easy. 
 When a quotation is made in the course of a speech 
 and its language worked up into the language of the 
 speech, the temptation to make an independent 
 translation must be very great. 
 
 For to adapt the language of the speech to an 
 already existing version must be very difficult. Still 
 greater must be the difficulty where there is a mere 
 allusion and not a quotation, to preserve this allusion 
 in the translation, not on the one hand obscuring it 
 altogether or on the other turning it into a quotation. 
 Yet many such allusions to the LXX are to be .^ound 
 in the gos25el8, and, with the doubtful exception I 
 have mentioned, not one, as Davidson concedes, to 
 the Hebrew. 
 
 This argument is strengthened when it is recollected 
 that it is assumed on all sides that the gospel would 
 not, properly speaking, be written in Hebrew but in a 
 language having a relation to it, described as Aramaic 
 or Aramaean ; an allusion therefore would pass from 
 Hebrew to Aramaic. As thus disguised, how very 
 difficult would be the process of producing the resem- 
 blance to the LXX in a Greek version ! Thus in 
 Matthew xxvi. 04, Jesus says : — 
 
w 
 
 136 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
 137 
 
 ' Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the 
 right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven (<J7r' 
 
 apri otj/caOt TOf vlov tov avOpw-rrov KaOajfitvov cV Scfiii' t^s 
 Bwdfitwi Koi (p^^o/J.cvuv cVi ri;/ v€<f>(\S)v tcv oipavov).' 
 
 This contains an allusion to Daniel vii. 13, and 
 also to Psalm ex. 
 
 Daniel vii. 13, according to the proper LXX 
 version, may be rendered thus : — 
 
 ' I beheld in a vision of the night, and lo, in tlie cl6uds 
 of heaven one came as a son of man ('EUtt^ipow iv upti/xuTi 
 
 T7;? wKToi Koi iSov, iirl twv yetfxXwv tov oi'pavov, ws vios avdpi!>- 
 Ttov rjp)(fTo). ' 
 
 Or, according to the version of Theodotion, which 
 in the case of the book of Daniel supplanted the LXX 
 in the jnimitive church : — 
 
 ' I beheld in a vision of the night, and lo, with the 
 clouds of heaven one coming as a son of man {'EetiLpovy 
 
 fv opafiari T^s i vktos kui iSoii, /xcra tuiv vc^tA.uii' tov oipavov, 
 <D« uios avOptoirov tp^d/xccos).' 
 
 The words of Psalm ex., to which allusion is made, 
 are as follows :— ' The Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit 
 thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies 
 thy footstool.' According to the LXX— EtTrei/ 6 Kvpios 
 Tc3 Kvpi<{) fiov, Kudov ix Bs^ieav fxov, k.t.X. 
 
 We see therefore that the passage in Matthew 
 blends together allusions to two distinct passages in 
 the Old Testament which have no connection what- 
 ever with each other ; that as far as the allusion 
 goes the very words of the LXX are used in both 
 cases, that is, of course, allowing for the grammatical 
 changes rendered necessary by the form of the allusion. 
 There are in this way repeated eight words out of 
 
 the passage in Daniel and three out of the passage in 
 the Psalms. The allusion in one respect approximates 
 more nearly to Theodotion than to the LXX, that is 
 in the use of the participle sp^o/xevov. But this is 
 too natural a change to lay stress on. The parallel 
 passage in Mark agrees with Theodotion in the use of 
 the preposition fierd instead of i-Tri, that is according 
 to the weight of autlioritj', though one uncial G and 
 some other authorities read i-n-i. However, this would 
 not be enough to raise an inference of the use of 
 Theodotion by Mark or even of an assimilation to his 
 text, as the allusion to tlio same passage in Daniel in 
 the Apocalypse (i. 7), which must bo older than both 
 Mark and Theodotio^i, has fisrii instead of eTrt'.' 
 
 Now there are several points to be noticed upon 
 tiie production of a resemblance of this sort. What 
 is to suggest to the supposed translator that the 
 l)assage disguised in the Aramaic is an allusion to the 
 particular text of Daniel or the Psalms ? Having 
 found this out by the process of turning it into Hebrew 
 and Chaldee, he has j.o find what words are intended 
 to reproduce the words of Daniel and the Psalm. 
 
 He must then further compare these with theLXX so 
 as to get the corresponding rendering into Greek, being 
 careful meainvliile not to quote exactly, and so turn 
 the alhiuiun into a (piotation. Sui)posing this part of 
 the gospel originally written in Greek, the resemblance 
 arises naturally from the effect upon the mind of the 
 writer of his i-ecollcction of the Greek version. 
 
 But when a quotation is to be made independently, 
 
 ' As to the antiquity of the version of Dnnicl found in most copies 
 of the IjXX, nnd iisciihed to Theodotion, see Dr. Siihiion's Introduc- 
 tion to tlie Neio Tisliiiiu'iil, 4th edit. p. u'J'i. 
 
138 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 •SOURCES OV THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 
 
 189 
 
 not worked into the context of any speech, as in the 
 case of the Messianic prophecies, whicli are quoted to 
 show their fulfilment, the assimilation to the LXX 
 might he made with ease. 
 
 But the strongest argument against the discourses 
 having originally quoted the Hebrew, in whatever 
 language they were written, is to he found in the fact 
 that in places where the sense of the LXX differs 
 from that of the Hebrew, the LXX agrees with the 
 context of the passage, which the Hebrew does not. 
 
 I will give two illustrations. In the narrative of 
 the temptation, when Satan tries to persuade Jesus 
 to fall down and worship him, Jesus answers him, 
 ' It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
 and him only shalt thou serve.' — Matthew iv. 10. 
 Kvpcov Toi> Seov aov irpoaKVi/ijaeis kuI ai/rm fioixp 
 Xarpevaeis. 
 
 This quotation follows the LXX. The emphatic 
 word is ' only,' and is to be found in that version, Deut. 
 vi. 13, according to the LXX, Kvpiov top ideov aov 
 (po^rjdrjat) Kal avrm fiovai 'Karpevaeis.^ 
 
 If we turn to Deut, vi. 13, we read in the revised 
 version translated direct from the Hebrew, ' Thou 
 shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him,' where 
 that word is wanting. If this be substituted for the 
 quotation from the LXX, it would make a compara- 
 tively flat answer. It would be strange that the force 
 of the expression should be so much improved by a 
 translation. 
 
 To take another illustration. In Matthew xv. 
 Jesus accuses certain Pharisees and scribes of trans- 
 gressing the commandment of God because of their 
 
 ' The Alexandrine Codex reads ^foanvrliirin in place of (pofir\e-l\a\i. 
 
 tradition, instancing the permitting a son to make a 
 gift to the temple instead of honouring, which I sup; 
 pose means supporting, his father. Ho then goes on : — 
 
 ' Ye hypoorites, well did Isaiali prophesy of you, saying, 
 " This people lionoureth lue with their lips, but their lieart 
 is far from lue ; but in vain do tlicy worship me, teaching 
 as tlieir doctrines tlio connuandnicnts of men." ' 
 
 This quotation is taken from the LXX, with, according 
 to the better texts of Matthew, the omission of some 
 phrases, and at all events fairly represents the meaning 
 of that version, and as so construed describes the 
 liractice condemned by Jesus. It is indeed possible 
 that the LXX ought t« be construed ' Teaching the 
 precepts and doctrines of men ; ' but still, even if the 
 word Kai is retained, as of course it should be, it is 
 possible to construe the sentence as a double accusative, 
 ' Teaching as their precepts even the doctrines of men.' 
 But turning to the version of the i)assagc translated 
 direct from the Hebrew, we I'ead : — 
 
 ' For as much as this'people with their lips do honour 
 me, but have removed their heart far from nie, and their 
 fear of nie is a coinmandnient of men wliich hath been 
 taught them, therefore behold I will proceed to do a mar- 
 vellous work among this people,' kc. 
 
 Here we see the charge is wholly dlHerent ; it is not 
 that the people substitute for the commandments of 
 God the commandmentsof men which are inconsistent, 
 but that they fear God, which no doubt is itself a com- 
 mandment of God, not because it is such, but because 
 it is a commandment of men. It will be seen, there- 
 fore, that the text, as appearing in the Hebrew, would 
 not answer the purpose for which the quotation is 
 
 
140 
 
 THK OllACLES OF I'APIAS 
 
 made ; it would not deBcribe the practice condemned 
 by Jesus. It follows, therefore, that the passage must 
 have been originally written by some one who derived 
 his knowledge of Isaiah from the LXX version, and 
 therefore, we may conclude, in Greek. There is no 
 possibility here of avoiding this conclusion, by suppos- 
 ing the quotation to have been assimilated to the LXX. 
 If this were done, the whole of the context must have 
 been altered to fit the quotation, which under the cir- 
 cumstances is impossible. 
 
 We see, therefore, that an examination of the 
 canonical gospel of Matthew strongly supports the 
 conclusion that it is derived from two sources — one 
 Hebrew, or at all events which quoted the Old Testa- 
 ment in Hebrew, and the other Greek, and the Hebrew 
 source related exclusively to the Messianic prophecies, 
 and might, therefore, be such a book as Papiaa attri- 
 buted to Matthew, if I have interpreted his meaning 
 aright. 
 
 It must be noticed that of the quotations we have 
 been considering which show traces of being indepen- 
 dent translations from the Hebrew, one only is to be 
 found in any other of the gospels besides Matthew, 
 that from Malachi iii. 3, ' Behold I send my messenger 
 before thy face,' itc, which is found also in identical 
 words in Mark and Luke. Now, assumhig that the 
 writers of the three synoptic gospels made use of 
 common written materials, it is an interesting inquiry 
 whether this diflference is produced by the writer of 
 Matthew having inserted these quotations in the text, 
 or by the writers of Mark and Luke having struck 
 them out. Of the eleven quotations to be considered, 
 four occur in the early chapters of Matthew, and 
 
 SOUJiCKS OK TlIK SYNOl-riC COSl'ELS Ml 
 
 another in the narrative of the repentance and death 
 of Judas, where the narrative of ]\Latthew is not parallel 
 to Mark and Luke. This reduces the number to be 
 compared to six, for of course whatever mduced a 
 variation in the facts recorded would account for the 
 omission of the prophecies of which those facts were 
 stated to be a fullilment. Of these six, one is m fact 
 contained in all three synoptic gospels. The contexts of 
 the passages in which four of the remaining live occur, 
 do not afford any certain indication whether the quo- 
 tations have been inserted by the author of Matthew, 
 or left out by the authors of Mark and Luke. 
 
 The remaining case, which is that of the quotation 
 contained in Matthew xii. 18-21, I will consider at 
 
 length. 
 
 ]\[atthew and ]\Iark both contain the account ot 
 the healing of the man with the withered hand in 
 nearly the same words, from the conclusion of which 
 they run as follows :— 
 
 Matthew xii. 13-21. Mark iii. 5-12. 
 
 Tlicn saitli ho to the man, He saith unto the man 
 Stretch forth thine hand. Stretch forth thy hand. And 
 And he stretched it forth ; he stretched it forth ; and 
 and it was restored whole, his hand was restored, 
 as tl.o olIuT. liut ti.e And iU'. I'luinsei-s went 
 IM.aiisccs wtnt out and took out and strai-htway with 
 counsel against him, how the Herodians took counsel, 
 thev nuKht destroy him. how they might destroy him. 
 And Jesus perceiving it And Jesus with his discples 
 withdrew from thence; and withdrew to the sea; and a 
 many followed him, and he great multitude from ^ali- 
 healed them all. lee followed him, and rom 
 
 Judaea, and from Jerusalem, 
 and from Idumaea, and from 
 
142 
 
 THE OJIACLKS OF I'AWAS 
 
 And charged them that 
 they Bhould not make him 
 known, that it might be ful- 
 filled which was spoken by 
 Isaiah the prophet, saying, 
 Behold my servant whom 
 I have chosen ; 
 
 My beloved in whom my 
 soul is well pleased : 
 
 I will put my Spirit upon 
 him. 
 
 And he shall declare judg- 
 ment to the Gentiles. 
 
 He shall not strive, nor 
 cry aloud. 
 
 Neither shall any one hear 
 his voice in the streets. 
 
 A bruised reed shall he 
 not break, 
 
 beyond Jordan and about 
 Tyre and Sidon, a great 
 multitude, hearing what 
 great things he did, came 
 unto him. And he spake 
 to his disciples, that a little 
 boat should wait on him 
 because of the crowd, lest 
 they should throng him. 
 For he had healed many ; 
 insomuch that as many as 
 had plagues pressed upon 
 him that they might touch 
 hiin. And the unclean 
 spirits whensoever they be- 
 held him fell down before 
 him and cried, saying, 
 Thou art the Son of God. 
 
 And He charged them 
 nmch that they should not 
 make him known. 
 
 I 
 
 SOUlUir.S OK TlIK SVNOn'iC 1!0.SI'1';L.S 113 
 
 And smoking llax sliall he 
 not quencli, 
 
 Till ho send forth judg- 
 ment unto victory. 
 
 And in liis name sliall tlio 
 Gentiles hope. 
 
 Tlieso luurativt.'s arc evidently taken from ii com- 
 uion written source. They difl'er in two respects. 
 Matthew, instead of the detailed description of the 
 healing of the great multitude, including strangers 
 from Idumaea and beyond Jordan and about Tyre and 
 Sidon, has short!}', ' Many followed him and he healed 
 them.' On the otlier hand, this gospel sets out the 
 passage from Isaiah which is not found in Mark. It 
 will be noticed that the words immediately preceding 
 this quotation are nearly identical with the concluding 
 words in the extract from Mark. 
 
 Matthew xii. IG. 
 
 Mark iii. 12. 
 
 Koi liTiTiix'qfTiv avTOL'i iva KOA. TToXAa lireTifia avToi^ 
 
 fjLrj (jtavepov avTuv irotijcrwcrii', "fa /iti/ avTuv (fiavepuv iron^(ru>- 
 'Ifa ir\r]ptDHrj, k.t.A.. " triv. 
 
 Now, is it possible to determine what was the 
 original text of this passage ? Did the writer of 
 Matthew abridge the account of the healing of the 
 multitude, or tlu! writer of Mark amplify it? Did the 
 writer of ^latthew insert the quotation from Isaiah, 
 or the writer of Mark leave it out? Both questions 
 admit of a satisfactory answer, which is this : both 
 writers abridged their original, the Avriter of Matthew 
 by substituting a short summary for the detailed 
 narrative of the healing of the multitude, and the 
 writer of Mark by omitting the quotation, so that the 
 
144 
 
 THE ORACLES Ol' I'Al'IAS 
 
 original might be restored by adding to the extract 
 from Mark the latter part of the extract from Matthew 
 containing the quotation from the words, ' Tiiat it 
 might be fulfilled,' &c. 
 
 This may be shown from the following considera- 
 tions. The material part of the prophecy is contained 
 in the words, ' He shall declare judgment to the Gen- 
 tiles,' and again, ' And in his name shall the Gentiles 
 hope.' ' But Matthew's narrative contains nothing 
 of which this could be a fulfilment ; on the other hand, 
 in Mark we read of a great multitude from Idumaea 
 and beyond Jordan and about Tyre and Sidon, to 
 which the prophecy is evidently intended to refer. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed when we look at the 
 parallel passage in Luke vi. 17. There we read of • a 
 great number of the people from all Judaea and Jeru- 
 salem, and the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which 
 came to hear him and to be healed of their diseases.' 
 
 For a passage analogous to what I suppose the 
 original narrative, altered differently in Matthew and 
 Mark, to have been, I may refer to Matthew iv. 13-lG. 
 
 Before leaving this topic, it may be as well to re- 
 mark that the reason of the writer of Matthew omitting 
 the words containing the description of the great 
 multitude from Galilee, Judaea, Jerusalem, Idumaea, 
 beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, is this. 
 In his anxiety to assemble a large audience for the 
 sermon on the Mount, he transplanted some of them 
 into another place (see chapter iv. 23-25 and chapter 
 v.), and so left the projihecy standing without its 
 fulfilment. 
 
 ' Compare the comment of Justin on the same passage : ' Is it 
 then on the patriarch Jacob that the Gentiles and you yourselves 
 hope ? ' Dial. c. 135. 
 
 SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 115 
 
 The consideration, therefore, of this passage sup- 
 ports the conclusion that the Messianic prophecies, 
 which arc independent translations from the Hebrew, 
 formed part of the material connaon to the three 
 synoptic gospels, and that it was the writers of Mark 
 and Luke who struck out, and not the icritcr a/ Matthew 
 irliu insciti'd tliesc jmssaijcs. 
 
146 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES COJIMON TO JIATTIIEW 
 AND JUSTIN MARTYR 
 
 If a collection of Old Testament prophecies relating to 
 the Messiah existed in the early Church, we might 
 expect to find traces of it in other books besides the 
 canonical gospels, and the first place to which one natu- 
 rally turns to test this expectation is Justin Martyr. 
 
 Upon his quotations. Dr. Abbott, in his article on 
 the Gospels in the ' Encyclopajdia Britannica,' after 
 observing that in long passages he generally quotes 
 the LXX accurately, makes the following remark : 
 ' Messianic passages, even when long, are modified 
 (sometimes with a closer return to the Hebrew original) 
 by Christian use and adaptation to Christ.' It must 
 be noted that Dr. Abbott is dealing with Justin's quo- 
 tations from the LXX for the purpose of combating 
 the inference that might be drawn from his evangelical 
 quotations, that he did not use the canonical gospels, 
 by showing that he quoted the LXX with equal in- 
 accuracy. He has to make the admission that in his 
 long quotations Justin quoted the LXX accurately, 
 but out of this admission he makes the exception I 
 have quoted. So far as my own reading of Justin goes, 
 I should say that he always quotes the LXX accurately, 
 except in Messianic prophecies — that is, with such 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC I'ROPilECIES 
 
 147 
 
 accuracy as to leave no doubt as to the source of the 
 (piotations. 13ut I can make no claim to have compared 
 the whole of his quotations. But the converse is not 
 always true ; there are Messianic passages in Justin 
 which appear to have been quoted from the LXX. 
 
 But it must be borne in mind that Justin's quota- 
 tions have certainly to some extent — i)ossibiy to a 
 considerable extent— been assimilated by liis tran- 
 scribers. This can be proved to have taken 2)lace with 
 regard to a quotation from I'salm Ixxxii. in his 
 dialogue with Trypho (cap. 124), which Justin gives 
 expressly as according to the Hebrew text (ws fj,£v 
 vfius s^i]yela6e), and then goes on to point out how 
 the LXX differs ('Kw Be jfj twv k^hofii'iKovTa i^riyi'ja-ei, 
 Biprfrai). But when the passage is looked at, it is 
 found to agree with the LXX verbatim. In fact, it 
 has been assimilated by some copyist or editor in such 
 a way as to destroy the sense of Justin altogether. 
 It is unlikely that such a stupid piece of assimilation 
 is the only specimen to be found in Justin. It is 
 more likely to be the work of some editor who heed- 
 lessly carried out some general plan of assimilating the 
 quotations. The inference to be drawn is that nmch 
 greater weight is to be attached to Justin's differences 
 liom, than to his agreement with, canonical books.' 
 
 There arc eleven ((uotations contained in Matthew 
 which, according to the theory of Bleek, as explainec! 
 above, might be expected to depart from the LXX. 
 Of these five are to be found in Justin.^ 
 
 ' See note at end of chapter. 
 
 ■' 111 arriving at this statement I have relied upon the tables of 
 (nictations from the Old Testament contained in Dr. Davidson's Jn- 
 liviliictioii to the Stiidij of the Nciv Tcbtmncnt, and on the index to 
 J. C. T. Otto's edition of Justin Miutjr. 
 
148 
 
 THE OKACLES OF TAWAS 
 
 1. Isaiah vii. 14 : ' Behold a vu-gin shall conceive,' 
 &c. ; quoted Matthew i. 23, Justin, 1 Ap. c. 33, 
 and with its context before and after Dial. cc. 43 and 
 CG, and partly quoted i. Ap. c. 33, Dial. cc. G7, 68, 71 
 and 84. 
 
 2. Micah v. 2: 'But thou, Bethlehem,' &c. ; 
 quoted Matthew ii. G, Justin, 1 Ap. c. 34 and Dial, 
 c. 78. 
 
 3. Jeremiah xxxi. 15 : 'A voice was heard in 
 Eamah,' &c. ; quoted Matthew ii. 18, Justin, Dial, 
 c. 78. 
 
 4. Isaiah xlii. 1-4: 'Behold my servant,' &c. ; 
 quoted Matthew xii. 17-21, Justin, Dial. c. 123 and 
 c. 135. 
 
 5. Zechariah ix. 9 : ' Tell ye the daughter of 
 Zion,' &c. ; quoted Matthew xxi. 5, Justin, 1 Ap. 
 c. 35, Dial. c. 53. 
 
 Every one of these quotations as it occurs in 
 Justin agrees with Matthew in something or other in 
 which Matthew differs from the LXX. 
 
 In quoting Isaiah vii. 14 in the 'Apology,' Justin de- 
 parts from the LXX considerably more than Matthew 
 does, but his subsequent quotations of the entire pas- 
 sage agree with the LXX, according to the Vatican 
 text, exce2)t in one word in which the two quotations 
 differ both from each other and from the LXX, but in 
 which the last quotation agrees with Matthew. The 
 partial quotations, as far as they go, 'iSov t] irapOevos 
 iv yacrrpl XijyfrsTai ical re^erai vlov, agree exactl}' 
 v/ith the LXX. These partial quotations usually have 
 >J]->^erai, but one immediately following the quotation 
 above cited from the 'Apology' like it, has efet, and 
 again in chap. 43 of the ' Dialogue ' Justin declares 
 
 SOUllCE OK MK.SSIANIC rUOPirECIKS 
 
 149 
 
 that the Jews said that Isaiah did not say, 'Uov r) 
 7rapdho9 iv jaarpl e^n, but 'Uoi, v p^^"^^ ^^ 7«<^^/'' 
 \i'}-feTai Kai re^eTUi viuv. 
 
 In quoting ^licah v. 2 and Jeremiah xxxi. 15, 
 Justin agrees with Matthew exactly, except that in 
 both places he fails to quote the last two words of 
 Micah V. 2, quoted in Matthew, and both Matthew 
 and Justin depart largely from the LXX. _ 
 
 Justin quotes Isaiah xlii. 1-4 and Zechariah ix. 9 
 twice. In both instances Justin's quotation resembles 
 the LXX more nearlv than Matthew does ; in both 
 instances Justin agrees with Matthew in some points 
 in which he differs fr^m the LXX, and m both 
 instances the latter of Justin's quotations agrees 
 more nearly than the former with the LXX. 
 
 The quotations from Isaiah vii. 14, Micah v. 2, 
 and Zechariah ix. 9 are given by Matthew from ' the 
 prophet,' but by Justin the quotation from Isaiah 
 and the quotation from Micah in the ' Apology ' are 
 referred correctly to Isaiah and Micah, and the quota- 
 tion from Zechariah iif the ' Apology ' incorrectly to 
 Zcphaniah, and in the ' Dialogue ' correctly to Zecha- 
 riah. On the other hand the quotation from Jeremiah 
 xxxi. 15, which IMatthcw refers correctly to Jeremiah, 
 is given by Justin as from the prophet. 
 
 "^Jlolh Mattliow and Justin agree in correctly refor- 
 lin" the remaining quotation to Isaiah, and in the 
 ' Dfalogue ' Justin, like Matthew, refers the quotation 
 from Micah to the prophet. 
 
 It will be noticed that in only one of the cases m 
 which Justin agrees exactly with Matthew in the 
 words, does he agree also in the reference ; and in 
 the other case in which he agrees in the reference he 
 
150 
 
 THE OllACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 differs in the words, and that passing by the last two 
 words of tlie quotation from Micah, in all cases, 
 except in the quotations of Isaiah vii. 14 in the 
 ' Dialogue,' in the extent of the quotation Justin agrees 
 with Matthew, by which I mean that the quotation 
 begins and ends in the same place, Justin or his 
 transcribers sometimes supplying intermediate phrases 
 from the LXX, which are omitted in Matthew. 
 
 I will now consider more closely Justin's quotation 
 of Isaiah vii. 14. He quotes it in his ' First Apology,' 
 cap. 33, in the following words : ' 'ISoii ^ vapdevos iv 
 •^acTTpi s^ei kuI re^eTai vlov KaX ipovcriv iirl tw 
 ovofiart, aiiTou Me0' ■ijfiwv 6 ©eJs.' (Behold the virgin 
 shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and 
 they shall say in reference to his name, God with us.) 
 
 It will be noticed that the passage as quoted by 
 Justin agrees with the passage as quoted in Matthew 
 in all the differences of the last-named joassage from 
 the LXX. 
 
 1. It has the third person plural of the verb ipoO- 
 aiu, ' they shall say,' instead of the second person 
 singular of the verb KuXia-eis, 'thou shalt call,' or 
 taking the reading of the Sinaitic Codex, KoXeaei, ' thou 
 shalt call ' or ' she shall call,' where, though Justin 
 agrees with Matthew in the difference as regards the 
 number and person, he diverges further from the 
 LXX than Matthew, in using a different verb. 
 
 2. It has the words Me^' ij/iwj/ 6 ©eoy, ' God with 
 us,' also found in Matthew, but not in the LXX, but 
 here again the divergence of Justin from the LXX is 
 much greater than the divergence of Matthew, for in 
 Matthew these words are added as an explanation of 
 
 SOimCE 01- MESSIANIC rROPHECIES 
 
 151 
 
 the word Emmanuel, used in the LXX, while m 
 Justin thoy talvo the place of that word itself. 
 
 When we were comparing the passage as quoted 
 in Matthew with the LXX, we remarked tlm the 
 pnnu.farir impression produced would be that it was 
 originally taken from the LXX. 
 
 We do not think that would be the impression 
 produced by the passage from Justin. There the 
 latter part of the quotation appears an entirely inde- 
 pendent version, though the former part would seem 
 to have been either originally influenced by a recollec- 
 tion of the LXX, or to have been subsequently 
 
 assimilated to it. , ., , <■ lu- 
 
 It will now be necessary to consider how far this 
 ,.,,•„„? /.compression is affected by the other quota- 
 tions of the passage by Justin. Justin quotes the 
 whole passage with its context before and after- that 
 is to sav, from the tenth to the sixteenth verse in- 
 clusive-twice in his dialogue with Trypho. Havmg 
 made the quotation the first time, he diverges from 
 the topic to answer sohie objections of iiTpl^o and 
 then, after a considerable interval, expressly returns 
 to it again, and in so doing repeats the quotation he 
 had made before the digression. Both passages 
 with a few exceptions, are intende.l to be, and m fact 
 are, verbatim quotations from the LXX, and therefore 
 must have been intended to be exactly like one 
 another. But, notwithstanding this, there are a few 
 differences between them. These differences must, 
 under the circumstances, be mere errors, either on 
 the part of Justin himself or his transcribers. On 
 the other hand, where the two quotations agree m 
 
152 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 dififerences from the LXX, we may be confident that 
 ^Ye have to deal with what Justm intentionally wrote. 
 
 The differences from the LXX, not noticing 
 recognised various readings in which both passages 
 agree, are as follows : — 
 
 (1) In verse IG both passages have irovripd after 
 aireiOel instead of irovTjpta. 
 
 (2) Both passages interpolate in verse IG words 
 accurately quoted from the LXX version of the 
 fourth verse of the following chapter, making it run, 
 ' For before the child shall know good or evil, he 
 refuses evil by choosing good. For before the child 
 shall know to call father or mother, he shall receive 
 the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria 
 before the King of the Assyrians.' 
 
 (3) In the same verse IG both passages read Kara- 
 Xr]ip6t]aeTai, instead of KaTa\£i(f)di]a-erai, meaning 
 ' the land shall be taken ' instead of ' the land shall be 
 forsaken.' 
 
 (4) Also in the same verse IG both passages read 
 (TKkTjpSis oia-eif for <f>o^ii, making the meaning ' the 
 land shall be taken, which thou shalt bear hardly,' 
 instead of ' the land shall be forsaken, which thou 
 fearest." 
 
 (5) In verse 17 both i)assagcs have utto rys 
 r/fiepas f/s instead of dif)' rjs -qfiepas. 
 
 Besides these differences, in which both quotations 
 agree, the former quotation has the following differ- 
 ences from the LXX not found in the latter. 
 
 (6) In verse 13, 'Akovets for ^AKovaare. 
 
 (7) In the same verse 13, d before oIkos. 
 
 (8) In verse 15, koX before sKXi^aa-dai. 
 
 SOIIRCK Ol'- MKSSIANIC PIIOI'IIKCIKS 
 
 153 
 
 The latter quotation has the following differences 
 from the LXX, which are not found in the former :- 
 
 (9) In verse IG, kukov f, dyadiv for AyaOhv /, 
 
 (10) In verse 17, rm' omitted before 'k^avpt^v 
 11) Besides this, in verse 14 the fornicr <iuota- 
 
 tion has KaUaera^, the third person singular ot the 
 future middle, and the latter quotation has koKs- 
 .ov.., the third person plural of the future active 
 where the LXX has the second person singular of the 
 future active of the same verb. 
 
 (12) Besides these differences from the I^>->^. '" 
 verse 15 the former quotation has i^Xe^^^a., he 
 reading of the Vatican, and the latter .KXe^^rat, the 
 reading of the Alexandrine codex. 
 
 (G), (7). f8), (fl), (10) and (12) are in all probability 
 .neii^ errors' of transcription, (12) beh.g probably due 
 to some copyist correcting one of the passages accord- 
 L to a text of the LXX which lie had before him, 
 which happened to differ from the text used by 
 
 ''"'w'the others, (1) and (5) may be different read- 
 ings of the LXX, and (3) looks very like a blunder o 
 
 u^tin's. But we shall have to notice another view o 
 2) is an instance of the running together of 
 
 i;tinct passages, which is a marked characteristic 
 of Justin's quotations of Messianic prophecies, and i 
 rendered the more peculiar in this case by the general 
 exactness of the quotation. vff.v.nPPq we 
 
 Before considering the remainmg f ff^^^^^^^JJ^^^ 
 must here remark that Justin quoted from a wittei 
 document. The discrepancies which we have noticed 
 
154 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 are not of a kind to raise any presumption that the 
 quotations were made from memory. 
 
 To pass on now to (12), the reading KoKeaeTai 
 would make the meaning Hke that of the EngUsh 
 version, ' a virgin ehall conceive and bear a son, and 
 shall call his name,' &c. 
 
 Mr. Cheyne renders ' the young woman is witli 
 child and shall bring forth a son, and shall call his 
 name,' &c., which, as regards the word in question, is 
 the same. KoKiasTai is probablj', therefore, a more 
 correct rendering of the Hebrew than either the 
 KoXiaus or KaXicme of the LXX, or the KaXecrovcri 
 which is to be found in Matthew ' and in the later of 
 the quotations we are considering. In ancient times 
 there ap^iear to have been a good many different 
 renderings of this word — that is to say, renderings 
 which differ in voice, number, and person. Thus the 
 LXX, according to the Vatican and Alcxandrino 
 codices, Aquila, Hymmachus, and Theodotion, have the 
 second person singular of the future active KoKca-eis, 
 the Sinaitic codex has the second person singular of 
 the future middle or the third person singular of the 
 future active KoKiaeiJ Justin in this place has the 
 third person singular of the future middle. The 
 Vulgate has the third person singular of the future 
 passive, ' vocabitur ; ' Irenaeus (lib. iii. cap. xxi. 4) lias 
 the second person pluralof the future active, 'vocabitis,' 
 and Matthew and Justin in other places have the 
 third person plural of the future active. 
 
 ' It is found also in a few cursives of the LXX, but may be there 
 set down to assimilation. 
 
 ' Possibly this may be a mere copyist's blunder. The scribe was 
 not too particular about his sigmas ; a few words back he has yorpl 
 for yatrrpi. 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 155 
 
 As regards the passages now under consideration, 
 I thhik we may be certain that Justin wrote the same 
 word in both places, and that of the two readmgs one 
 Tother is due to the error of a transcriber ; and sup- 
 posing either .aX.V.r«.or KoXiaov.. to have been the 
 Snal reading, there seems no difficulty in supposing 
 the other to have arisen from it by mere error of 
 ti^nsc iption. On the whole, it would seem more 
 XblJ that Justin used the -"le voice number 
 uul person that ho made use of in the Apology -that 
 I o'say, that ho wrote .aX.Vo... course it is p - 
 Bible that Justin originally wrote KoXsas.^ or .oK.a.-re 
 with le LXX in both passages, and that the copyists 
 h,t made different blunders in each; but I do not 
 tliLk his BO probable. There would be two errors 
 "eadof one, and if he had .aX.W., the common 
 reading, in neither case would the transcriptional pro- 
 l„a,ilit; be so great. ^^^^ 
 
 There remains to consiiiLi v-*;. ^ 
 Justin for some reason or other, has clearly departed 
 fiom the LXX. -It is not easy to divine any object 
 rtle vacation. Having regard to the e.ndence 
 affor led by the passage in the ' Apology ' that he had 
 some othJr verkn of this passage, as probable a 
 luse as any would appear to be a mixture o versions. 
 That is to say, that these words belonged to some 
 independent version which Justin in some manner 
 
 inivpd with the LXX. , ,.«■ 
 
 It should be noticed that the principal differences 
 from the LXX follow one another consecutive y-i.e. 
 aft^- he interpolation of the words from chapter mii 
 Se text reads on, Ka\ .araXv<f>e',-^ra. ,) jl n^ - 
 i X, I L.. This is very favourable to the theory 
 
15G 
 
 THE ORACI^ES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ! 
 
 of a mixture. Justin, or the authority he followed, 
 must have turned to another text to make the inter- 
 polation, and may have followed it for several words 
 further than was necessary. On the other hand the 
 meaning, ' The land shall be taken, which thou shalt 
 bear hardly,' might suit the desired interpretation 
 better than ' The land shall be forsaken, which thou 
 fearest,' interpreting the words as referring to the over- 
 throw of the Jewish nation by the Eomans. Still, oven 
 if this was the reason for the intentional retention of the 
 words, they must have come from somewhere, and they 
 are more likely to have formed part of an independent 
 version of the passage with which Justin was ac- 
 quainted than to have been an original version of his 
 own. On the whole, the examination of these quota- 
 tions in the ' Dialogue ' rather strengthens than other- 
 wise the inference to be drawn from the quotation in 
 the ' Apology,' that Justin had access to some version 
 of that passage, independent of the LXX. 
 
 The argument that Justin followed some authority 
 different from the LXX is not a little strengthened 
 by the form in which the passage is quoted by Ter- 
 tullian : ' — 
 
 ' Sic Esaias dicit. Audita Donius David, non pusilluin 
 vobis certamen cum hominibus, quoniain Dcus pracstiit cor- 
 tiunon, propter boo ipso IJeus dabit vobia HJ^iiuiii : Ecco 
 virgo concipiet et pariet filium et vocabitis nonien ejus 
 Emmanuel, quod interpretatur nobiscum Deus. Butyrum 
 et mel manducabit : quoniam prius quam cognoscat infans 
 vocare patrem aut matrem accipiet virtutem Damasci et 
 spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum.' 
 
 It will be seen that Tertullian here runs together 
 the words out of the eighth chapter of Isaiah with the 
 ' C. Jud. 9. 
 
 SOURCK OF WKSSIANIC rUOI'llKClES 
 
 157 
 
 ;r^:l;lurt'JontainstheconHat^.c.^^^ 
 
 ' Immanuel which is, being ^"^f l'^^^^^ ' ,^"'1,^ fj, . ;, 
 
 10 be found in Matthew. If, tberefoic, ieitull.an 
 
 n:edJustin,bcmustlnueassinnM^Uu.j..^^^^ 
 
 to Matthew ; but it is aganist this that be ha. Hit 
 
 :or^ vocabitis,' agreeing -th the ordmary reachng 
 
 Z^^rsr^ll^SjC^asfohowedbyboth 
 Just n and Matthew; but in a later «taj^^ than ha 
 irwhlh it was before either of them m which it had 
 
 o the differences between the quotation in the 
 :•?::;! ■ l? t LXX is whether those differences 
 c:u 1 fiy ^vay be traced to any other version ot the 
 
 "'t^SngtoAquilaandThoodotionitwasas 
 Tc^o ling to Symmacliu. : 'iBov v v.a... .vX- 
 
 '^"^:;' Which may be rendered sufficiently exactly 
 for our present purpose :— 
 
 , Miunc I', c;. ton. xvi. This is the sou.cc from wUich all .ny 
 
158 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ' Behold the young woman is pregnant and brings 
 forth a son, and thou shalt call hia name Ennuanuel.' 
 
 A glance at these versions is enough to show that 
 the differences between Justin or Matthew and the 
 LXX cannot have arisen from any of them. 
 
 We have noticed that in verse 10 some of the 
 MSS. of the LXX read h yaa-rpl Xi'iyfrerai, and others 
 f.v yaarpl ef et. It is a question whether Matthew and 
 Justin derive the latter reading from the LXX, or 
 whether the various reading in the LXX is attribut- 
 able to assimilation with Matthew. Ui)on this it may 
 be remarked that on the occasions where Justin is 
 undoubtedly quoting the LXX, he uses Xrj'^eTai,, and 
 he also, for the most part, uses Xrj-^rsrai in his partial 
 quotations of or allusions to the passage. It would 
 appear, therefore, that in Justin's time Xi^yfrerai must 
 have been a well-established reading of the LXX, 
 probably the only reading known to Justin. It may 
 also be noticed that the passage is cited by Origen 
 in his book against Celsus, lib. i. cap. 34, with the 
 reading \ij\jreTai. This, I believe, is the only citation 
 by Origen which has any weight on the present 
 question ; for short citations, without the context 
 before or after, might as well come from Matthew. 
 It may also be remarked that no ground of tran- 
 scriptional probability can be alleged why \>j-\lreTai 
 should be substituted for s^et or vice leisii.^ The 
 most probable ground of the various reading would 
 appear to be assimilation to some other text, whicli, 
 in this case, must be Matthew. It would seem thero- 
 
 ' Dr. Hatch cites in favour of A^iperoi, Codd. AS, xii. 2(!, 41, !I0, 
 100, 144, 2il<J, 300, but I suspect has made some sliii. Sec J'Jssaijs in 
 iSiblical Greek, p. 197. 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC l-ROi'HFClES 
 
 159 
 
 fore move probable that the reading ^|« in the LXX 
 
 ni^ to Issiuulation ^o Matthew, than Uia^^^Jun 
 
 nnd the writer of Matthew derived the wore liom 
 
 nf 1 ,0 LXX which contained it in their day. 
 
 LmX.LXX in which Justin and ^t'^^'^-" ,,, 
 To return to Ih.i other .luestion, wluthei tlio 
 .g«t between the .stations in Matthew tui^^ 
 Justin in their differences from the LXX, does not 
 Jl"w Ihat these quotations had a common origin 
 
 ^Xrthl^^uiS^^-e light may be thrown by 
 
 ,1.1^1 have rendered ' is pregnant,' for the XHera^ or 
 ;: ;"pl X^t-- ^^ ^he LXX. m tl. place where 
 
 Matthew and J-^;" j-^^.ttd^ed : on the one hand 
 
 'Phis a"rccment is uouuie i.ut,i-<.i • 
 
 it wou d tend to point out avXXaf^^dvec as the woid 
 
 1 ch would appear more obviously appropriate to a 
 
 rie of the second century, and so give greater 
 
 vetht to the4nference of a common origm, other than 
 
 LXX, for the quotations in Matthew and JusU. 
 
 to be derived from their agreement m the use of the 
 
 ^^^^C^^r^^C^:^ points out ..agi.ement in 
 
 the use of the future tense which might not otherwise 
 
 ave been noticed between Justin and Matthew and 
 
 ZlIT, which might be supposed due to the influence 
 
 "^^^ZriLhowthis double edge reahyf^s it 
 ^vill be necessary to consider the true meamng of the 
 :!^Sl. iLssago in Isaiah, and the proclivities 
 
160 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 of the different translators. To determine the true 
 meaning of the original I will consider the different 
 ways in which it has been rendered. 
 
 In the Vulgate it is rendered, ' Ecce virgo concipiet 
 et pariet filium et vocabitur nomen ejus Emmanuel.' 
 
 ' Behold a (or the) virgin shall conceive and shall 
 bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.' 
 
 In the authorised English version it is rendered, 
 ' Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and 
 his name shall be called Immanuel.' 
 
 In the revised version it is rendered in the text : 
 ' Behold a virgin shall conceive and shall bear a son, 
 and shall call his name Immanuel ; ' or, according to the 
 marginal readings, ' Behold the maiden is with child 
 and beareth a son, and shall call his name Imnianuol.' 
 
 As rendered by the Bev. T. K. Cheyne it is, ' Behold 
 the young woman is with child and shall bring forth 
 a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.' 
 
 Mr. Cheyne gives his reasons for the rendering ' is 
 Avith child ' as follows : ' So we should render, and not 
 " shall be with child," in view of the parallel passage, 
 Gen. xvi. 2 (Judg. xiii. 5, 7, is doubtful) and of verses 
 15, 16.' The parallel passage in Genesis appears to 
 consist of identical words addressed to Hagar, in a 
 context which shows that a present, and not a future, 
 must be intended, and verses 15 and 10 api)car to rai&u 
 the same inference in the jjassage under consideration. 
 
 However, Mr. Cheyne's reasons do not jippear to 
 show that there is any obvious grammatical impro- 
 priety in the use of the future ; and though, therefore, 
 one may susiiect that the rendering in which he 
 concurs with the margin of the revised version and 
 the three ' Hexapla ' translators is correct, the adoption 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 161 
 
 of the future does not appear to be so forced that the 
 agreement of Justin and Matthew in the tense should 
 be taken as evidence of the influence of the LXX to 
 counterbalance their difference in the word. 
 
 But it may be further urged that the agreement 
 of the three translators, AquiUi, Symmachus,and Theo- 
 dotion,in departing from the LXX ought to show that 
 their rendering was the obvious one to adopt, accordmg 
 to the state of knowledge in the second century. 
 
 To deal with this argument we must consider the 
 procUvities of these translators: Aquila was a Jew, 
 Bymraachus and Theodotion were Ebionites. The 
 object of all three, therefyre, was to give a rendernig 
 of the passage in Isaiah that was inconsistent with its 
 application to Jesus of Na/.aroth, or, at all events, 
 with his parthenogenesis. 
 
 This takes very much from any weight that might 
 bo attached to their agreement in the use of the 
 present tense instead of the future, as showing that it 
 would appear in the second century the preferable ren- 
 dering, and therefore tracing up the future of Matthew 
 and Justin to the influence of the LXX ; but it does 
 not at all detract from the similar argument to be 
 derived from their choice of the word. On the other 
 liand, when it is remembered that the object of Aquila 
 was to give the exact meaning of the Hebrew, of 
 Symmachus to write in good Greek, and that the 
 practice of Theodotion was not to depart unnecessarily 
 from the LXX, it will be seen that their agreement 
 in the use of one word is evidence that it was the 
 obvious word for anyone at that time to adopt for the 
 
 purpose. 
 
 Again, it will be noticed that all these versions 
 
162 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 agree with the LXX in the use of KaXstreis in the 
 second person singular, instead of KaXsaovaiv or 
 Epovaiv in the third person pUual, which not a httlc 
 emphasises the weight to bo attached to the agree- 
 ment between Matthew and Justin in their divergence 
 from the LXX. 
 
 But it will be further noticed that Matthew and 
 Justin agree not merely in having the third person, 
 but in having the third person plural ; in that they 
 differ from ah the other authorities I have cited ; 
 which again affords strong evidence of a common 
 origin for the difference.' 
 
 "We may therefore conclude with confidence that 
 the quotations in Matthew and Justin have a common 
 origin, which is not the LXX. 
 
 The next point to consider is which form of the 
 quotation is the older— that in Matthew or that in 
 Justin. 
 
 There are three reasons which concur in proving 
 that the form of the quotation in Justin is the older. 
 
 (1) If the original were originally in the form con- 
 tained in Justin, the alteration to the form in ]\Iatthew 
 is readily explicable 'as a partial assimilation to the 
 LXX ; but no reason can be given for altering the 
 form in Matthew into the form in Justin. 
 
 (2) If the form in Matthew was altered into the 
 form in Justin, the person who made the alteration 
 must have preserved unaltered every point in which 
 Matthew differed from the LXX, a thing unlikely to 
 
 ' KaKiaovai also appears in some MSS. of the citation in Origen 
 Contra Cclsum noticed above, but it is probably due to assnnilation 
 to Matthew. The passage after the word 'E^/jotoutiA. runs on, uirtp 
 ipiJLllvfifTai /ie8' iiiiay i Qtos. 
 
 SOimOE OF MESSIANIC PROI'HKCIES 
 
 163 
 
 be effected, either by accident or design— for which 
 latter there was no motive. On the other hand, if the 
 cliange was made in the contrary direction, the pre- 
 servation of those diU'ercnces is easily explicable : 
 they merely show that to tbat extent the intention to 
 assimilate to the LXX was imperfectly executed. 
 
 (U) The LXX transliterates and Justin translates 
 the Hebrew word for Eunnanuijl, while IVfatthew both 
 transliterates and translates it. The renderijig there- 
 fore of Matthew stands to tlie rendering of Justin and 
 the LXX ill the position of a composite reading, and 
 by the ordinary rule of criticism must therefore be 
 assumed to be later than, either of the simple readings 
 it combines. 
 
 We may therefore conclude that the writer of the 
 first gospel, or some person he copied, had the quota- 
 tion before him in the form given by Justin, and this 
 leads to the inference that at all events the latter 
 part of the quotation comes from some version of the 
 passage independent of the LXX. 
 
 It has, however, been contended that the former 
 part of the quotation certainly came direct from the 
 LXX, on the following grounds, which 1 must con- 
 sider. 
 
 'J'his portion of the quotation, as is well known, 
 formed the foundation-stone of the faith of those 
 among the primitive Christians who succeeded in 
 transmitting their belief to the Catholic Church. 
 AVlien the Aramaic-speaking Christians of Palestine 
 and other Ebionites asserted that as a matter of fact 
 Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary by natural 
 generation, they replied that tliis was impossible, as 
 it was prophesied that the Messiah should be the son 
 
 IX 2 
 
164 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 of a virgin. When the Ebionites went further and 
 denied the prophecy, pointing in conlirmation to the 
 more accurate versions of Aquihi, Symniachus, and 
 Theodotion, a myth was invented that Ttoleniy liad 
 shut up each of the seventy translators in a separate 
 cell and that so, without any communication with the 
 others, each had produced a version of the entire ()ld 
 Testament, and when they had done it was found that 
 all the seventy versions agreed verbatim. After such 
 a manifest miracle it was contended that the LXX 
 version must be absolutely accurate.' 
 
 As the LXX version of this passage came ulti- 
 mately to be so strongly relied on, it has been supposed 
 that that version must have been the source from 
 which the Messianic proi^hecy in question was origi- 
 nally taken ; but that does not follow. 
 
 The LXX is long anterior to the Christian era. 
 The version it contains therefore of the passage in 
 question, although erroneous, expresses the meaning 
 which perhaps many Jews put upon it at that time, 
 and which therefore may have been put upon it Ity 
 some persons after the Christian era, altogether ir- 
 respective of its application to Jesus of Nazareth. 
 besides, even if correctlj' understood in this particu- 
 lar, the passage may still have been capable of being 
 applied in some way as a Messianic prophecy, and 
 might therefore be included in a collection of Messianic 
 prophecies compiled in the Hebrew, even by a man 
 who had never questioned the natural generation of 
 Jesus. 
 
 No doubt the aptness of the words of the LXX to 
 
 ' Justin? CohortatioadGraecos, cap. xiii.; lienneas, Contra Haer. 
 lib, iii. cap xxi. eb. 1, 2, H. 
 
 SOUUCE OF MESSIANIC rROPIIECIES 
 
 1()5 
 
 express the Catholic doctrine, accounts for the com- 
 plete assimilation of the conniienccmcnt of the pro- 
 phecy to that version. 
 
 This history of the quotation docs not, therefore, 
 afford any reason why it should not have formed one 
 of a collection of j\ressianic propliecies made and cir- 
 I'lilati'd in Hebrew. 
 
 The remaining subject to refer to is the context of 
 the quotations in Justin, and, as regards the first, it is 
 found in the same context with an evangelical (juota- 
 tion ; which would probably indicate that the source 
 was a gospel of some sort. 
 
 The quotation is stat(jd by Justin to be spoken by 
 an angel of God to the Virgin and to be, ' As those 
 who have related all things about our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ taught, whom we believe ' (toy ol uTrofivrj/xovsv- 
 (juvTSs TTiivra to irspl TovamTrjpos ))fJi.wv^]i)aov\pia70v 
 iBiBa^av ols eiTi<Tjevaafi.Ev).^ 
 
 It is as follows : — 
 
 ' B«hokl, thou slialt conceive in thy womb of the Holy 
 (ihost and bring fortli a son, and he shall bo called the 
 son of the Most High, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, 
 for he shall save his people from their sins ('iSou avXk-qtpyj 
 
 i>> yiUTTfii CK TTvei'/iaTos aywv xal Tf^rj v'luv Kul uios v\pC<Trov 
 KXijOytriTtu KiLL KuXttrii^ Tt) uio/id avTOv lyjiTovf uvTO^ ynf) (rii}(Tet 
 Toy Xaui' auTov inri) tCh' afjLUftTlCjv aurtT^r').' 
 
 The words down to ' Jesus ' might be a summary of 
 the words stated in the first chajjter of Luke to be 
 addressed to Mary on the occasion of the annuncia- 
 tion by the angel Gabriel, and the words from ' And 
 thou shalt call his name,' Sec, down to the end agree 
 
 1 Ap. c. 33. 
 
166 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 exactly with the words stated in the first chapter of 
 Matthew to have heen spoken by an angel of the Lord 
 in a dream to Joseph. On the other hand, these 
 latter words agree exactly with words stated in the 
 ' Protevangelium ' of James to have been spoken by the 
 angel of God to Mary on the occasion of the annun- 
 ciation, and the former words might just as well 
 be taken from the ' Protevangelium ' according to the 
 text of Fabricius as from Luke, for they have exactly 
 the same degree of agreement with it, and further it 
 must be noticed that Justin agrees with the same 
 text of the ' Protevangelium ' in describing the angel as 
 an angel of God, while in Luke the angel is described by 
 name as Gabriel, and in Matthew as the angel of the 
 Lord. With some texts of ' Protevangelium ' the agree- 
 ment of the former part of the words spoken would be 
 closer than with Luke. On the whole, therefore, if we 
 had to confine ourselves to extant books, it would seem 
 more reasonable to infer that Justin cited ' Protevan- 
 gelium ' accurately, than that he made ii.n inaccurate 
 jumble of Matthew and Luke, and at the same time 
 stumbled into a consecutive narrative and an agree- 
 ment with ' Protevangelium,' following it up with an 
 emphatic appeal to the authorities he, in common 
 with his fellow Christians, believed (oh eTriffTsvaa^isv) 
 as the source of his statement. As a further proof 
 that the putting the latter part of the quotation into 
 the mouth of the angel is not an oversight, it should be 
 noticed that Justin repeats the statement a little 
 further on. ' But the name Jesus in the Hebrew lan- 
 guage means the same as saviour in the Greek dialect. 
 Whence also the angel said to the virgin " And thou 
 shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his 23eople 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC rROPIIECIES 
 
 167 
 
 from their shis." ' ' It is, however, not necessary to 
 assume that Justin cited from ' Protevangehum,' or 
 even that that book was in existence m his day. 
 What is proved is that Justin's account and that m 
 ' Protevangelium ' had a common origin. Li other 
 words, that there was a gospel extant in Justin's day, 
 which contained the particulars in which Justin and 
 ' Protevangehum " agree, of which Justin made use and 
 which was certainly not our Matthew. These con- 
 siderations fortify the conclusion we have already 
 come to from considering the language of the quota- 
 tions in Matthew and Justin, that though these quota- 
 tions had a common origin different from the LXX, 
 that origin was not Matthew, and would appear to 
 point to" the probability that the immediate source 
 from which .luHtin look the quotation was some 
 gospel which formed a basis for the present canonical 
 Matthew, as well as for ' Protevangelium.' The quota- 
 tion from Isaiah itself is not found in ' Protevangehum,' 
 but the words put into the mouth of the angel are 
 evidently modelled upon the LXX version of that 
 quotation, which some ^ISS.of ' Protevangehum 'follow 
 
 closely. 
 
 The next quotation from Micali v. 2 follows in the 
 < Apology ' almost immediately. The probability there- 
 fore is strong tlmt it comes from the same source as 
 the (piotation from Isaiah we have been considering, 
 notwithstanding that it agrees verbatim with Mat- 
 thew, with the exception of the omission of the last 
 two words Tov 'I<Tpa.;X, a differencenot without weight 
 when we remember that it is repeated in the ' Dialogue.' 
 Justin again differs from Matthew in referring it to 
 
 ' 1 Ai>. I.-. Ai. 
 
1G8 
 
 1 
 
 ■rilli OHACLES 01-' I'AI'IAS 
 
 the prophet by name. After making the quotation 
 Justni goes on speaking of Bethlehem :— 
 
 ' It is a village in the country of the Jews distant thirty- 
 five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was 
 born ; as also you can learn from the census made under 
 Qummus, who was your first procurator in Judaea (tV rCv 
 a-,roypa4,mvrS>v ywo^ivmv iirl Kvpy,viov toC ip.iTi(>ov iv'lovSaU 
 irpioTOv yivoixivov fwiTpoirov) .' ' 
 
 Now had Justin had Luke before him when lie 
 was making these quotations, or even been acquainted 
 with the work, he would have learned that Quirinius 
 was governor (^ysfioov) of Syria, not procurator of 
 Judaea, when this census was made, and it must be 
 remembered that Justin, having lived in Palestine, 
 was not likely to have confounded the offices. It 
 must be noticed too that Justin appeals to the census 
 in a way Luke never ventures to do. He tells the 
 Emperors that if they looked into it, they would find 
 the birth of Jesus recorded. There is no doubt in 
 such matters that Justin wa.^ a man of great faith. 
 But for the present purpose, as the evangelical quota- 
 tion which I just now considered could not possibly 
 have been concocted out of Matthew without the aid 
 of Luke, anything which shows that Justin had not 
 Luke in his mind just then, tends also to show that 
 there must have been some other source for that 
 quotation than Matthew, and that therefore Matthew 
 is not the source of the two quotations from Isaiah and 
 Micah we have been considering. 
 
 The circumstances under which Justin quotes the 
 passage ' Thou, Bethlehem,' &c., the second time and 
 the passage from Jeremiah are these. He is explaining 
 ' 1 Aft. 0. 34, 
 
 yoUliC'IO OK JUCSSIANIC J'lJOI'llMClKS 
 
 ICiJ 
 
 Isaiah viii. 4, which he quotes accurately from the 
 LXX, iiH a Mossiiuiic pi-opliocy. llr construes it 
 thus : ' For before the child shall know how to call 
 his father or mother he shall receive the power of 
 Damascus and tiie spoils of Samaria before the king 
 of the Assyrians.' ' For the purpose of explaining the 
 fulfilment of this prophecy, Justin sets out the story of 
 the visit of the wise men, whom he always calls the wise 
 men (or perhaps rather I should say wizards) from 
 Arabia and of the slaughter of the Innocents, and in so 
 doing gives the quotations from Micah and .Jeremiah 
 exactly as they occur in Matthew, with the excejition 
 that he does not quote the concluding words of the 
 former passage Tor "loyjaiJX. From the position there- 
 fore in which these quotations occur, I do notthink there 
 can be much doubt that they came from some gospel. 
 The question is whether that is Matthew, and in the 
 main the narrative is consistent with that supposition ; 
 but there is one objection which seems insuperable, 
 and that is the description of the wise men. No one 
 who had been accustomed to the account in Matthew, 
 would ever turn the wise men from the East into the 
 wise men from Arabia, but if any one could have done 
 so, certainly not Justin on this occasion, for he was 
 labouring to show that this visit of tlio wise men was 
 a fulliliuent of the prophecy in Isaiah viii. 4, and ho 
 did it in this way. The king of Assyria meant Herod, 
 who was so called on account of his godless and law- 
 less niiiul. The wise men or wizards were the servants 
 of the evil demon, and when they turned from their 
 evil deeds and worshipped Christ, they were as spoils 
 received by him. But now comes the difficulty. How 
 
 ' Dial. 77. 
 
170 
 
 THE ORACLES OF I'APIAS 
 
 are they the spoils of Damascus ? Justin meets the 
 matter by saying : ' But that Damascus was and is 
 ni the hmd of Arabia, even if it is now asBigncd to 
 the country called Syrophoenicia, none of you can 
 deny.' ' But though Justin here says that nobody can 
 deny Damascus was and is in the land of Arabia, it is 
 notwithstanding sufficiently certain that Damascus 
 was and had always been reckoned in Syrin, not in 
 Arabia. We may therefore be quite certain, that if 
 Justin had had a gospel to quote from, using such a 
 phrase as ' wise men from the East ' instead of ' from 
 Arabia,' he would have been only too glad to adopt it. 
 From his not doing so, we may conclude that our 
 Matthew was not in his hands, at all events in its 
 present state. 
 
 This conclusion is supported by some other circum- 
 stances. Thus Justin agrees with ' Protevangelium ' 
 in saying that the wise men found Jesus in a cave 
 (o-TTT/Xat'o)), instead of a house (oUia) as stated by 
 Matthew ; he also dilTers from Jfatthew in saying tliat 
 they found the child in a manger {<^drvri). 
 
 Again, Justin makes the wise men say, ' That from 
 a star appearing in the heaven they knew that a king 
 was born in your (i.e. Trypho's) country, and wc are 
 come to worship him ' (e^ a<TTspos rov it/ t(o ovpaixo 
 (f>avevTOs iyvtoxhai uri ^aaiXevs ysyeinjTai ij> t/J X''''f^"- 
 VfiSiv Kai fiXOofisv vpoa-Kwijcrai avrov),"^ instead of 
 ' Where is he that is born King of the Jews ? for we 
 saw his star in the East and are come to Morsln'p 
 him ' {trov earlv 6 re'xOels ^aaikevs tSjv 'lovSaitou ; 
 eioo/xei> yap avrov tov tKnipa ev Ty uvaroKfj koX i'fkOo- 
 /lev irpoa-Kvvrja-ai avTw).^ This difference of language 
 ' Dial. c. 78. - Ibid. ' Matthew ii. 2 
 
 I 
 
 SOUliCE OF MKPSIANIC I'liOI'IlEClES 
 
 171 
 
 miglit be taken merely to be the result of a paraphrase, 
 did it not happen again to bring Justin into agreement 
 with tiie words put into tlie nioullis of tlie wise men in 
 ' Protevangelium.' 
 
 ' Wo saw a vci-y great utay, sliining among the stars of 
 lieavoii, and blotting out tliu other stars, so that they did 
 not appear, and irc kiicir lliat Ihc [^'rcat) /,/»;/ vas bora in 
 Isiacl, and tlu'OMt;h tliis wif aiu conio to worship hiiii(KKo- 
 fXd' nirrffm TrafifieyfOi/ kdfjL\f/aiTa £i' Tens uirr/iois to? uvfiavuv 
 Kal ufjL^Xvi'orTU TOi'S uAAou? a(rrc/j(is ourT€ fiy (^atVctr^ut avTUvq 
 Kal tyvtiifxcv [ov Kftl 7y/xet9 uvTw^ iyrutKUfjiey] ttTi it /3aiTL\£L'': 
 [jLicya?] iyeryyOy) Iv T(p Ifr^xzjyA. Koi utu Toi'T<i ijXOo^tv irpocr- 
 Kun'/rrai ulvtw).' ' 
 
 The words in squfwe brackets indicate various 
 readings. 
 
 It will be noticed that not reckoning as a difference 
 the double v in eyevvt]6r) which distinguishes the aorist 
 of yevvda from the easily confounded and nearly 
 synonymous aorist of yiyvofiai, all the words used by 
 Justin occur in ' Protevangelium,' except that Justin, 
 by reason of his work taking the form of a dialogue with 
 a Jew, substitutes sp rf/ x'^P'} vp-wv for ev tm 'lapaifK. 
 Whether the words not found in Justin wci-e omitted 
 iiy liim as unnecessary for his purpose, or whotiier the 
 wi'iter of 'Proteviingeliinn'iimpiiruulacoiiimon original, 
 it is not necessary to consitier. 'J'liat Justin eitiicr 
 followed 'Protevangelium ' or some other original which 
 ' Protevangelium ' also followed, and which was not 
 Matthew, is, I think, certain. It should furtiier bo 
 noticed that Matthew makes the star to be seen in the 
 east, where, according to Matthew, the wise men came 
 from ; Justin and ' Protevangelium ' make it to appear 
 
 ' Cap. xxi. 
 
172 
 
 TlIK ORACLES OF I'AI'JAS 
 
 1 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC rROPlFECIES 
 
 17a 
 
 in the heaven. This shows that Justin's materials were 
 consistent with themselves in not bringing the wise 
 men from the East, and therefore were not ' Protevan- 
 gelium," where the wise men come from the East 
 though the star appears in the heaven, but that Justin 
 and ' Protevangelium 'must have had a common origi- 
 nal which was not Matthew. 
 
 In his account of the slaughter of the innocents 
 which follows, Justin again has an important difference 
 from Matthew, which again agrees with the account of 
 the visit of the wise men contained in ' Protevangelium,' 
 at all events according to four MSS. in a point in 
 whicli that differs from Matthew. Justin says that 
 Herod ordered that absolutely all the children (-rrdvTas 
 a-jr\S)s Tovs iraiSai) in Eetlilehem should be slain,' 
 instead of the children from two years old and under, 
 and there can be no doubt that tbese four MSS. con- 
 tain the true text of ' Protevangelium,' for none of tlio 
 MSS. of that work contain the passage in which 
 Matthew, in order to prepare for the latter statement, 
 makes Herod diligently inquire what time the star 
 appeared. 
 
 It must be noticed that the quotations we are 
 considering— Micah v. 2, 'And thou, Bethlehem,' Sec, 
 and Jeremiah xxxi. 15, ' A voice was heard in Pamali,' 
 (fee— are. not found in most manuscripts of ' Protevan- 
 gelium,' but there are MSS. of that work which contain 
 both of them. Thus, the former, which is found in 
 the text of Fabricius in the same words as in Matthew, 
 is also found very slightly assimilated to the LXX in 
 the MSS. cited by Thilo as Paris B, and the latter, 
 
 ' Dial. c. 78. 
 
 which is not found in the text of Eabricius, is found 
 in the MSS. cited by Thilo as Paris F.' 
 
 The passage from Zechariah ix. 9 is quoted twice 
 in different language, once in the ' Apology,' where it is 
 wrongly referred to Zeplniaiali, and once in the 
 ' J)ialogue,' where it is rightly referred to Zechariah. 
 The words of these quotations differ considerably from 
 one another and from Matthew ; the former approach- 
 ing more nearly in some places to the LXX than 
 does Matthew, the latter in some points approaching 
 more nearly and in other jioints departing further from 
 the LXX than either Matthew or the former quotation. 
 
 I will consider the latter quotation first. It differs 
 in language both from J\Iatthew and the LXX, some- 
 times agreeing willi one, sometimes with the other, 
 and sometimes differing from both. It begins thus : 
 ' Piejoice greatly, daughter of Zion (xalpe a^ohpa 
 Ouyarsp ^ta>i'), wliich agrees witli the LXX, differing 
 from Matthew which has, ' Tell ye the daughter of 
 Zion ' {Eivars tj/ Ovyarpl ^toJi^). It proceeds, ' liaise 
 the war cry' {dXdXu^ov), not found cither in Matthew or 
 the LXX. It proceeds, ' Shout, daughter of Jerusalem ' 
 (Ki'jpva-ae dvyarep 'lepovcraKi'jfM), wliich agrees with the 
 LXX, but is not found in Matthew. It proceeds, 
 'Behold, thy king' (lit. //(c king) ('iSoi/ o ^aaiXsvi), 
 wliich iigrecs with both ]\hittliew and the JjXX. it 
 proceeds, ' Of thee ' (aou), found in Matthew, but not in 
 
 ' In editing I'rutcvanr/eliiim, Thilo did not attemiit to discovor 
 which was tlie tiue text, ijiit it must be noticed thut, Imving regard 
 to the antiquity of Justin, as likely a method as any to arrive at the 
 original text would be to adopt throughout those readings which 
 agree best with Justin. I may here state that the only editions of 
 I'rotciduge.Unm I have studied are thosie of Fabricius and Thilo, and 
 my statements regarding it must be taken as limited to what appears 
 in those editions. 
 
174 
 
 THE OEACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 1 
 
 SOURCE 01' JIESSIANIO I'UOI'IIEGIES 
 
 175 
 
 the LXX. ' Will draw nigh' {v^ei), which differs from 
 both Matthew and the LXX, which luivo ' conieth ' 
 (epxerai). It proceeds, 'to thee' (o-ot), which agrees 
 with both Matthew and the LXX. It proceeds, ' Just 
 and a Saviour, he is meek ' (BUaios kuI aw^av auros 
 Koi irpavs). This agrees with the LXX, but differs 
 from Matthew, which has merely the word irpaxis, 
 meek. It proceeds, ' and poor ' (/cat inwxos), which is 
 not found either in Matthew or the LXX. It proceeds, 
 • riding upon ' {eTn^e^r^Kias kirl), differing from most 
 texts of Matthew, and from the LXX only in the 
 omission of the word icai, ' and,' before iiri^e/BrjKws. 
 Kal, however, is also omitted in Matthew according to 
 Codex D and some other authorities. It proceeds, 
 ' a beast of burden and a foal of an ass ' (vTro^vyiov koI 
 irwXov ovov), differing from the LXX, which says, ' a 
 beast of burden and a j'oung foal ' (vTro^vyiov koX iroyXov 
 vsov) ; and from Matthew which says, ' an ass and a 
 foal, the son of a beast of burden ' {ovov Kal sttI 
 iratXov viov inro^vyiov ; accoiding to codex D, however, 
 the last word should be viro^vyiov). 
 
 The differences from Matthew, wliich consist in 
 adopting or approaching to the words of the LXX, 
 might be accounted for by the process of assimilation, 
 but not so the differences which are divergencies 
 from the LXX, that is to say the insertion of aXaXa^ov, 
 ' liaise the war cry;' the substitution of ?/fet for epxerac ; 
 and the insertion of the word tttwxos, poor. The lan- 
 guage of this quotation therefore leads to the inference 
 that it is not made from Mattliew. 
 
 When the context is looked at, that would be con- 
 sistent with the inference that the quotation comes 
 from a gospel, and the substance of the narrative does 
 
 not differ materially from tliat of the synoptic gospels, 
 or from what might have been derived from combining 
 
 tlieni. 
 
 Thus Justin agrees witli Matthew as against Mark 
 and Luke in the curious statement tliat Jesus entered 
 Jerusalem riding upon both beasts, the colt and the 
 ass ; and gives a reason for it that the colt, unused to 
 harness, was a symbol of the Gentile converts, and the 
 ass, used to harness, of tlie Jews. When, however, 
 the language of Justin is looked at closely, there are 
 differences which suggest that he followed rather a 
 common original of our synoptics, or some parallel 
 narrative founded on such a common original, than 
 those books themselves. Thus, instead of saying with 
 Mark and Luke that the colt was one whereon no man 
 ever yet sat (s^)' ov ovSsls oinro) avOpco-n-uv EKtldiaev),^ he 
 twice describes it by the unusual, not to say barbarous 
 word «o-«7>/s, muised to liarness, which he explains to 
 mean not having a yoke on his neck. Then ho says that 
 Jesus l)id his disciples bring him ' an ass tied with 
 lier colt at an entrance of a village called Bethphage ' 
 (oTOi/ TU'rt avi> irioXm auTi> ■n-poahihsfx.iviiv h> Tii'i 
 «Vo8o) K,hp.vs \\e6<i>ay?ii \Byop.sin,,):' Now Matthew, 
 which is the only one of the synoptic gospels which 
 mentions the ass as distinguished from the colt, 
 simply makes Jesus tell his disciples that they will 
 find ' an ass tied and a colt with her ' {ovov hehsfiiviju 
 Kal TTwXov fier aurT^s)? Mark however, which only 
 recognises the colt, says the disciples found a colt tied 
 at the door without in the open street {vwXov hsBefxei^ou 
 nrphs Bvpdv i'fo, iTTi ToO aii<^6hov)* Luke gives no 
 
 Dull. 
 
 I I\fiirk <\. 2, TiiiUc xix. ;!0. 
 MiiUlu'w \\i. -1 1- 
 
 Murk xi. 4. 
 
176 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPlAS 
 
 paitioiilars. Now we seo that Justin, while he agrees 
 with Matthew in slating that there was an ass as well 
 as a colt, states particulars which Matthew does not 
 give, and even if we sup^iose he has applied to the ass 
 what Mark says of the colt, the two statements arc 
 seen to be different. Justin says that the animal was 
 tied at the entrance of the village, and Mark in the 
 open street befoio the door. 
 
 Now when we consider that Justin must have 
 studied the statements of his gospels muiutely, with a 
 view of showing the fulfilment of prophecies, it is very 
 unlikely that he would get so far astray. The exami- 
 nation of the context, therefore, supports the con- 
 clusion, pointed at by the examination of the language 
 of the quotation, that though the quotation is made 
 from a gospel, that gospel is not Matthew. 
 
 To consider now the same passage as quoted in 
 the 'Apology.' ' As has been noticed, the language of 
 that quotation differs from the LXX, from Matthew 
 and from the ' Dialogue.' Where, however, it differs 
 from Matthew it agrees with the LXX, and where it 
 differs from the LXX it agrees with Matthew. It 
 does not contain any of the words not found either in 
 Matthew or the LXX, to be found in the ' Dialogue.' 
 It agrees with the LXX in some points in which the 
 quotation in the ' Dialogue ' agrees with the LXX, and 
 in which both differ from Matthew ; on the other 
 hand, it agrees with Matthew in some points in which 
 Matthew differs from, and the ' Dialogue ' agrees with 
 the LXX. 
 
 ' Kaipf a(p6ipa Siiyarep Siiif, niipvaat Bvyarep 'ItpouiroAiiji ■ 'l5oi> 
 d $aai\tii aou /jixfTiil aai wpuos, iwtf}ifi)iKmi iir\ urui- Kal irciAor uiiii' 
 ixaiuyiov. Justin, 1 Axi. cap. <B5. 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 177 
 
 As to the source of the quotation, it may bo at 
 once concluded, notwithstanding the agreement of the 
 latter part, that it does not come from Matthew. For 
 it begins in the words of the LXX, ' Ecjoice greatly, 
 daughter of Zion, shout, daughter of Jerusalem,' 
 instead of ' Toil ye the daughter of /ion,' as in 
 Matthew {-yalps a(}>6Bpa OuyaTep Stoii', Kt]pva<Te dxi'^arsp 
 'lspova-a\7]fi, K.T.X.), instead of EiiraTS rrj dvyarpl l.icov, 
 ISoii, K.T.X.). Now any one accustomed to read Matthew 
 would be much more familiar with the quotation as 
 given there than as standing in Zechariah, and, even 
 if through quoting from memory he were to make 
 some errors, would be certain to begin in the same 
 way. On tiic other ImTid, that Justin did not on this 
 occasion refer to Zechariah is shown by his wrongly 
 referring the pro2)lieey to Zephaniah. For the same 
 reason the assumption would not be admissible that 
 Justin originally gave the quotation as in Matthew, 
 and that it has been since assimilated to the LXX. 
 Transcribers of Justin from a few years after his own 
 time have been all too familiar with the form tiie 
 quotation takes in Matthew, to seek to change it, and 
 any transcriber who corrected the language of the 
 quotation would have also corrjcted the reference. 
 On tiie other hand, the agreement of the latter part of 
 the quotation with Matthew, which is exact with the 
 exception of a single letter, which does not affect the 
 sense (irpdos for irpavs), and of the omission of xal 
 before kTri^e^rjKws, which agrees with Codex D and 
 some other authorities, would seem to show that the 
 quotation as given by Justin must have a common 
 original with the quotation in Matthew. 
 
 The context does not give much aid in determin- 
 
 N 
 
178 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ing the source of this quotation. Some way back 
 Justin had cited from Genesis xlix. 11, the text, 
 ' Binding his foal to the vine,' &c., wliich ho inter- 
 preted as a prophecy fulfilled by the disciples finding, 
 as Jesus had told them, an ass's colt in the entrance 
 of a certain village tied to a vine {ei> nvi £ic7o8&) Kw/ir]s 
 trpos dfjLTreXov BeBefisvos), riding on which Jesus 
 entered Jerusalem.' It will be noticed that Justin 
 here has the same difference from Mark in the descrip- 
 tion of the position of the colt, that he has in the 
 'Dialogue,' with the additional point of dilTcrenco 
 that it was tied to a vine. After this Justin quotes 
 five, or more properly six, other Messianic prophecies 
 including the words 'Behold the Virgin,' &c. And 
 the words ' And thou, Bethlehem,' &c., we have 
 already considered. Of these, the three or four 
 that have not teen already considered are quoted, 
 with differences in words more or less considerable, 
 from the LXX; some of the quotations also are 
 abridged, in some the order of the words is altered, 
 and in one place already cited some words out of 
 Numbers together with others from Isaiah are run 
 together and quoted as. from Isaiah. None of these 
 quotations, except the two already mentioned, are 
 to be found in the canonical gospels. After this 
 he quotes from Psalm xxii. in the words of the 
 LXX, ' They pierced my feet and my hands and cast 
 lots for my vesture.' He then proceeds as follows 
 to explain the fulfilment of this and the preceding 
 prophecies : — 
 
 ' For, as said the prophet, mocking bim they set him 
 on a judgment scat and said, "Judge for us" {StacrvpoyT^s 
 ' 1 Ap. 0. 35. 
 
 •SOURCE OF MESSIANIC PROWIECIES 
 
 179 
 
 avTiiv (KaOicrai' iwi PrjfiaTO<; Kal tiirov KpTroi' inxiv).^ But the 
 propliecy " They pierced my hands and uiy feet " was a 
 statement of the driving in of the nails into liis bands and 
 fcL't on the cross. And after crucifying him, those who 
 crucified him cast lots for liis vesture and divided it 
 among them. And that these tilings happened you can 
 learn from the "' Acts in the time of I'ontius Pilate." And 
 to show tliat it was definitely prophesied tliat sitting on an 
 ass's colt be sliould enter Jerusalem, we will repeat the 
 words of the propliecy of another prophet Zephaniah. 
 They are as follows : '' Rejoice greatly," Ac' 
 
 After this Justin passes on to another topic. It 
 will be seen that the context gives little aid iti deter- 
 mining where the ^quotation comes from. Justin, 
 having previously considered the entry into Jerusalem, 
 abruptly returns to it when he has finished the topic 
 on band. Tlie last book cited, the ' Acts in the time of 
 Pilate,' cannot be identified with the extant work under 
 that name, otherwise called the ' Gospel of Nicodemus.' 
 It must be noticed that in the short passage out of 
 Justin under consideration, two noteworthy statements 
 have been encountered not in the canonical gospels, 
 that the colt was tied to a vine, and the mocking words 
 ' Judge for us.' 
 
 I will now again return to the quotation as it 
 occurs in the ' Dialogue,' and sec if any explanation 
 can be given of its peculiar form. The peculiarity of 
 this passage is that it contains words not found in the 
 LXX, which appear to bo alternative versions, or in 
 other words part of the quotation is rendered into • 
 Greek twice over, once according to the LXX and once 
 
 ' 1 All. c. 3.5. The newly discovered fiaRtnent of the gospel of 
 Peter contahis ii similar slatenient. We may suppose therefore that 
 tliat also is founded on the Acts in the time of Pilate. 
 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 otherwise. The only waj' that I can suggest to 
 account for this is that the passage was originally an 
 independent version from the Hebrew considerably 
 abridged ; that it was collated with the LXX by some 
 one who wrote the renderings of the LXX in the 
 margin, both where passages had been left out and 
 where they had been translated differently ; and that 
 some transcriber carelessly incorporating these pas- 
 sages in the text, produced the effect 1 have noticed. 
 
 Restoring from the different quotations of the 
 passage the points of difference from the LXX, we get 
 the follewing as the original form of it : ElVare rf} 
 Ovyarpl ^idf, aXaXa^ov, ISou 6 ^acriXevi crov ij^ei aol 
 irrto'Xps £Tri^e^r]K(os iTrl ovov koX kiri ttuiXov viov 
 viro^vyiov. 
 
 If this be compared with the LXX, which is as 
 follows : xcups a^oSpa dvyarep "Zidv, Ki'jpvaae ffvyarep 
 'lepovaaX'qfj., IBoii 6 fiaaiKeiis epj(erai croi Bikuios kuI 
 fftoi/ui/ aiiTos iTpavs KaX i-jri^s^-qKoys ettI vvo^vyiov Koi 
 TrwXof k/oi/, it will be seen that not more than nine 
 words agree, including "Zuov, Ihov 6 ^acrCkevs, aol and 
 KaL It is therefore altogether an independent version. 
 It will also be seen that the word oKoKa^ov, which 
 when added to siiraTe may be rendered ' Say hurrah ! ' 
 restores the meaning ' rejoice ' which is altogether 
 lost in Matthew. 
 
 The quotation standing as we have restored it, some 
 one must have collated it with the LXX, and written 
 the points of difference in the margin of the codex 
 something in this way, 
 
 Xaipt a-<f>6Spa Ovyartp 
 KijpvcrtTt Ovyarcp lepov(ra.X.r]p 
 ip^trai 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSUNJC rjJOJ'JIEClES 
 
 181 
 
 8t'/caios kal (Ti!)^ij)V avTOi Tr^avs koi 
 CTTt vTTO^vyiov Kol TrCiXov viov. 
 
 With the aid of the margin, at some subsequent 
 date, the text of the quotation must have been re- 
 constructed. But the reconstructor must not have 
 quite known when he ought to insert the phrases in 
 the margin and when to substitute them for the 
 text : in this way he left standing uKuKa^ov and 
 
 ■KlW)(hs!. 
 
 As express mention. of the ass seemed to be re- 
 quired, he preserved it by substituting ovov for viov ; 
 perhaps the original collator had omitted to insert 
 epX^cTai in the margin ; perha2)S the reconstructor of 
 tlie text did not Ifliow where to place it. Whether 
 tiiis process was performed by Justin himself or by 
 some writer from whom he copied the quotation can- 
 not be in this case determined, though the way in 
 which he differs from himself in making the quota- 
 tion would be explicable by supposing that he made 
 the reconstruction himself and made it differently 
 on each occasion.' 
 
 I will now pass on to coneider the last quotation, 
 that from Isaiah xlii. 1-4, quoted in Matthew xii. 17- 
 21 and by Justin twice, 'Dialogue,' c. ]2!)and 135. Both 
 ([notations are made by Justin in ordci' to show that 
 God, speaking of Christ in the Old Testament, calls 
 him Jacob and Israel. They differ somewhat in 
 language ; sometimes agreeing with the LXX, some- 
 
 ' The latter part of the (juotation is extant in all the llexnpla 
 texts. Aquila t,'ives it : avrhs vpabs Koi i-trt0f$ijKtiiS iirl vvou Kal ttuXou 
 i/IoD ofiiuv. Syniniachus ; avriis irraxiif Kal imfifPriHiis e'lri Syoy xal iiai\ov 
 uihv ofriSoj. Theodotion : atirhs iiraHoOuii Kal iiriPiBiiHus M ovov Ka\ 
 TiaiKov vUif ivov. And the llftli version : aurlis ittihx'" "a! /iti/Jc^ikus ^irl 
 uiru^uvior Kat vutKuv vihv itiuv. 
 
182 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 times with Matthew ; and neither differing from the 
 LXX in any material point in which Matthew does not 
 also differ. Both quotations begin in the words of the 
 LXX, ' Jacob is my servant, I will helj) him ; Israel is 
 my chosen,' instead of, as with Matthew, ' Behold my 
 servant whom I have chosen.' ' The purpose of the 
 quotations required the mention of the names Jacob 
 and Israel, which are not contained in Matthew, or, as 
 I judge by the Authorised Version, in Isaiah. From 
 these facts it may be inferred (1) that Justin did not 
 quote from Matthew; (2) that he did not make an 
 independent translation from the Hebrew. 
 
 His quotations must therefore be supposed to 
 have arisen from his in some way mixing the text 
 of the quotation adopted in Matthew with the LXX 
 version. Now this is done by him in two places in the 
 ' Dialogue ' in different ways, and the only supposition I 
 can make to account for it is this : That he used some 
 MS. containing Messianic prophecies translated in- 
 dependently from the Hebrew, which he or some one 
 else had collated with the LXX, writing the differ- 
 ences in the margin, and that then as he made his 
 quotations he constructed his text from these two 
 sources as he went on, sometimes taking more from 
 one source and sometimes from the other, thus bring- 
 ing it about that the one quotation agrees more 
 closely with Matthew, and the other with tiie LXX. 
 This theory would, I think, explain most of tlie 
 difficulties with regard to Justin's Messianic quota- 
 tions. It is, however, probable that in some cases 
 they came from evangelical works, but that even in 
 
 ' For the different quotations of this passage in Justin and 
 Matthew, and also the LXX version of it, Boe-Appoiidix iv. 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSLiNIC PROPHECIES 
 
 183 
 
 such cases he may have more or less assimilated them 
 to the LXX ill tiie way I have stated. 
 
 NoTK. — Some interesting remarks upon the text of 
 Justin Martyr by tlie late Dr. Hatch are to be found 
 in his 'Essays in Biblical Greek,' p. IBG ct seq. It 
 appears that .luslin's text n.'sls practically upon one 
 MS. only, known as Cod. Paris •l.'iU, dated 1.'}G1, tliat 
 tliu texts of other works contained in that ]\IS. which 
 can be tested by comparing tliein with better authorities 
 are not good, and internal evidence is adduced to show 
 ' that the scribe of the MS. or its original neglected 
 Justin's own quotations and copied them for himself 
 from some other MS.' After citing some cases of as- 
 similation, not including that I have given aliove. Dr. 
 Hatch draws the following conclusions: — 
 
 ' It is clear I'loin thuso instances that the longer quota- 
 tions in the Paris MS. of Justin cannot be trusted as repre- 
 sentations of Justin's own text, and that arguments based 
 upon them alone fall to the ground. But it is also clear 
 tliat the untrustworthiness of the longer quotations does 
 not alfect the shorter quotations which form an integral 
 part of Justin's own text, and which are in many cases 
 confirmed by his comments.' 
 
 These conclusions of Dr. Hatch I should be dis- 
 posed to accept with a certain qiiiililication. The 
 ciiaiigcs whii'li jiave iieeii niadu in the MS. of Justin, 
 so far as ascertainable, have been with the view of 
 bringing him into conformity with standard authori- 
 ties. Anything, therefore, in Justin which tends to 
 conlirin opinions current in the church ought to be 
 accepted with caution, especially if it turns upon a word 
 or two which might have been changed or interpolated. 
 But arguments which turn upon differences from 
 
184 
 
 THE OHACLES OF I'APIAS 
 
 standard authorities are not in any way vitiated by a 
 consideration of tlio treatment to wliieli llio MK. of 
 Justin appears to have been subjected. AVIiere mixed 
 quotations occur, the Hkeness of the separate parts to 
 canonical authorities may be the work of a tran- 
 scriber, but scarcely the mixture or dislocation of the 
 texts. So a transcriber might produce mixed render- 
 ings by a partial assimilation, but a transcriber who 
 copied out of another book, as described by Dr. Hatch, 
 would rather produce a complete agreement with 
 some one generally accepted text. Besides, for a mixed 
 rendering to have been produced in this way, the 
 (piotation as it stood in the original text of Justin 
 must have differed from any canonical authority ; 
 otherwise there would have been no motive to tamper 
 with it. 
 
 SOUUCK OF ilKSSIANJC I'liOl'JlFl'lliS 
 
 ClIAPTEll X 
 
 SOURCli 01' S0:\IE JIESSIANIC I'liOl'IIECIJiS IN 
 JUSTIN J[.UITYR, NOT FOUND IN MATTHEW 
 
 The Messianic proi)lit;cies quoted in Justin which 
 I have hitherto dealt witli are those also found in 
 Matthew. I will now notice some not found in the 
 c'lUionical gospels, and I will lirst dual witli the 
 curious quotation which 1 have already noticed lor 
 another purpose, and which is contained in the pas- 
 sage immediately preceding the passage which con- 
 tains the quotation from Isaiah vii. 14, also found in 
 Matthew i. 'i-U, ' Behold the Virgin,' &,c. It is as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' And Isaiah also, another in-ophet, prophesying the 
 same things in other words, thus said : "A star shall arise 
 out of Jacob and a flower shall go up from the root of Jesse, 
 and in his arm shall the Gentiles hope" ('AruTtAci ifrT/iov 
 
 £^ *laK(')/^, Ktti at'Ott^ aia^y<r€T(ii riTro rys {n'Cv^ Ictrcrnt', kuX ctti 
 Tov f^jiu^itti'a avTtiU tOxnj tX7rtou(ni') . ' 
 
 As I have said, this quotation is not a little curious. 
 Justin quotes the whole as from Isaiah, but the lirst 
 four words, 'A star shall arise out of Jacob ' (Xvartkel 
 (iarpov if ']aKco^), really come out of the book of 
 Numbers, where they are put into the mouth of Balaam, 
 and are to be found word for word in the LXX. (See 
 I 1 Ap. c. 32. 
 
 1^^ 
 
186 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Numbers xxiv. 17.) The remaining words come, some 
 from the lirst verse anil the otliors from the tenth 
 verse of the eleventh chai)ter of Isaiah, and are all to 
 be found in the LXX, except that it has ev avroi, ' in 
 him,' instead of swl rov ^pa-y^iova avTov, ' in his arm.' 
 Justin quotes the passage from Numbers xxiv. 17, in 
 chapter 106 of his ' Dialogue with Tr^'pho,' a little 
 more fully. 'A star shall rise out of Jacob, and a 
 leader out of Israel' (AvareXei aa-rpov if 'laxch^ koX 
 ^oufisvof if 'l(rpat^\), and here refers it to Moses. 
 The additional words added in this place (Kal I'jyoufievos 
 if 'l(Tpa^\) differ from the LXX, which has ' A man 
 shall stand up out of Israel ' {dvaa-Tija-srai, avOpatiros 
 if 'Icrpa»;\).' 
 
 The same passage, Numbers xxiv. 17, is quoted by 
 Irenaeus in his third book against heresies, chapter is. 
 2, apparently, as near as we can judge by the Latin 
 version, with one exception, in the words used by 
 Justin in the ' DLalogue.' The quotation runs thus : — 
 ' orietur stella ex Jacob et surget dux in Israel,' where 
 the word ' dux ' (leader) is evidently a translation of the 
 fijovfievis found in Justin, and not the avdpwrros of 
 the LXX. In the ordinary text of Irenaeus the quo- 
 tation is put into the mouth of Balaam, but accord- 
 ing to the Vossian codex Irenaeus makes the same 
 blunder as is done by Justin in the ' Apology,' and 
 attributes the quotation to Isaiah.^ Now from these 
 facts we may draw the following inferences. In the 
 
 ' The Alexandrine codex has Ka\ before avaarfiatTOi. 
 
 ' See Stieren's edit. vol. i. p. 453. Sticren brands this reading as 
 ' perperam,' but he describes the Vossian codex which contains it as 
 ' optimis MSS. adnumerandum esse,' and gives reasons which show 
 that it was copied from a very ancient exemplar, in which Greek 
 passages were written in uncial letters. See Prulcgomcna, xx. xxiii. 
 
 SOUKCK Ol'' -MK.SSJANIC I'ltDl'llECIES 
 
 187 
 
 Ih'st place, there can bo no doubt the reading of tiic 
 \'ossiau coiUix exhibits the Iruii text of Irinuious. No 
 reason can be supposed why any transcriber of Irenaeus 
 who found Balaam, should erroneously substitute 
 Isaiah, and at the same time stumble into an agree- 
 iiii'iitwith .Justin in sucli jiii obvious bhnuh'r. On Ihi! 
 (illicr hand, it is not al all surprising that such a 
 bhmder as the reference to Isaiah should be corrected. 
 Secondly, the agreement of Irenaeus with Justin in 
 the erroneous reference to Isaiah, and also in the use 
 of the word ' loader ' (I'/yovfienos of ilux) not found in the 
 LXX, shows that Irenaeus either quotes from Justin 
 or from some source, not the LXX, which Justin also 
 followed. Thirdly, Ifenacus cannot have quoted from 
 the ' Apology,' because he would not there get the word 
 ■>'jyovp.ei/os,iiiu\ would probably have taken some of the 
 words found in that quotation which in fact come from 
 Isaiah. Fourthly, Irenaeus cannot have quoted from 
 the ' Dialogue ' as we have it, because there he would 
 have found the quotation with a reasonable degree of 
 correctness referred to Moses instead of to Isaiah. 
 
 We are therefore driven to the conclusion that 
 Irenaeus quoted from some source other than tlie 
 LXX, tiom which Justin also quoted. 
 
 Tins conchision is fortilied by the consideration of 
 tlie dill'ereiice between I be quotation in .lustin and the 
 quotation in Irenaeus. Justin uses only one verb, 
 ' A star shall arise {avareXsl) out of Jacob, and a 
 leader out of Israel.' Irenaeus uses another verb in 
 the second clause, ' A star shall arise (orietur) out of 
 Jacob and a leader shall stand up (surget) in Israel.' 
 Now as a fresh verb is used in the second clause in 
 the LXX, in the Vulgate, and in the Eughsh versions. 
 
188 
 
 THE ORACLES OF I'Al'IAS 
 
 it may be safely considered that this is the moi'c 
 natural way of rendering the original. But the pas- 
 sage as it stands in Justin does not halt in any way for 
 want of a second verb. Supposing therefore Irenaeus 
 had taken his quotation from this source, he would 
 have had no inducement to supply it. On the other 
 hand, nothing is more probable than that Justin might 
 omit the second verb as superfluous or by accident. 
 
 The only escape from this conclusion possible would 
 be by supposing that Justin originally referred the 
 quotation in the ' Dialogue ' to Isaiah ; that this was 
 copied by Irenaeus ; and that the reference in Justin 
 was afterwards corrected by his transcribers. But 
 this theory does not account for the use of the second 
 verb by Irenaeus and not by Justin. Jforeover, upon 
 it Justin would on two distinct occasions make the 
 same gross blunder in the reference, a thing in itself 
 improbable, unless there was some cause for it ; and 
 such a cause could only be the existence of the mis- 
 reference in some work he followed, for in the ' Dialogue ' 
 he cannot have copied from himself in the ' Apology,' 
 as the ' Dialogue ' contains words not found either in 
 the LXX or in the ' Apology.' We should therefore 
 equally on this hypothesis establish the existence of 
 sonic work on Messianic prophecy used by Justin, in 
 which the prophecies were given in a version other 
 thin the LXX. 
 
 There is, however, still the possibility that this work 
 might have consisted of notes compiled by Justin him- 
 self. This however is imiirobablc. Had Justin labori- 
 ously extracted the prophecies from the Hebrew text 
 and translated them into Greek, he would probably 
 have remembered where they came from. 
 
 SOURCE 01' MESSIANIC rROrilECJES 
 
 189 
 
 Again there remains to consider the verbal agree- 
 ment the quotations have in part with the LXX. 
 This I explain, as I have done before, by the hypo- 
 thesis that the work on Messianic prophecy used by 
 Justin had been collated with the LXX and the 
 renderings of the LXX written in the margin, and 
 that these marginal readings, so fur as they could be 
 conveniently identified, were substituted by Justin for 
 the original text.' 
 
 I will now pass on to another quotation made by 
 Justhi. In his 'First Apology,' cap. 35, he says 
 thus : — 
 
 ' And that the Christ when born would be concealed 
 from the rest of nianlfind until he became a man, which 
 actually happened, bear the things IbrotolJ on this point. 
 They are as follows : " A child was born to us, and a 
 young man was restored to us, whose dominion is upon 
 his shoulders " (lluiSiov iyiwi'fir) yixiv, Kol veavla-Kii^ I'liuy 
 aTriS6eri, oC ^ ipxv e'^rt Twv ui/xwv),^ disclosing the power of 
 the cross to which ho applied his shoulders when crucified, 
 as will appear more clearly as my discourse proceeds.' 
 
 The prophecy cited by Justin is from Isaiah ix. G, 
 and according to the LXX runs thus, "Ort iraiSiov 
 sy£vv/l0n r)fuv vVos Ka\ eB66r) rjfi.lv ov t) dpxh h^vridrf 
 lirX Tov wfiov avTov. ' For a child was born to us, a son 
 also was given to un whoso dominion was upon his 
 shoulder.' 
 
 It will be noticed that Justin differs from the LXX 
 in using the words, ' And a young man was restored 
 to us,' instead of the words, ' A son also was given 
 
 ' The only one of the Ilcxapla texts of the passage in (jtiestion 
 which has been preserved is that of Symmachus, which, instead of 
 the ii'Spu-nos of the LXX, and the Jiyoiixifos of Justin and Irenaeus, 
 reads oKiiinpoi'. 
 
 ■ 1 Ap. 35. 
 
190 
 
 THE OliACLES OK PAl'lAS 
 
 to US,' and also of the word ' shoulders ' in the plural, 
 instead of ' shoulder ' in the siuRular. It will be further 
 noticed that, as rendered by .Iiistin, the puHMii<;t> may 
 with some difliculty be construed as he would have it, 
 hito a proijhecy that the Messiah should be unknown 
 until he was a grown man, with an obscure reference 
 to his crucifixion, but that this would be imposHible if 
 the rendering of the LXX be adopted. The passage 
 may therefore be safely taken as an independent 
 translation from the Hebrew, not as an inaccurate 
 quotation from the LXX. Its partial agreement 
 with the LXX is capable of explanation either by 
 assuming that the translator made use of that version 
 as far as it served his purpose, or by supposing that 
 the passage was afterwards collated with the LXX, and 
 assimilated to it so far as could be done without 
 destroying the interpretation put upon it.' 
 
 The passage we have just quoted follows in the 
 ' Apology' immediately after the passage in which 
 ' Thou, Bethlehem,' &c., is quoted from Micah. 
 
 The next quotation I will consider is of a prophecy 
 which, though perhaps not strictly Messianic, is on a 
 topic, the destruction of Jerusalem, which, when viewed 
 as a consequence of the rejection by the Jews of the 
 Messiah, is so closely related that it might be well 
 included in any work on Messianic prophecies. Justin 
 writes thus : — 
 
 ' Also concerning its desolation and concerning the fact 
 
 that none of them would be permitted to dwell there, it has 
 
 been said thus by Isaiah the prophet, " Their land is 
 
 desolate, in their presence their enemies devour it, and 
 
 ' This passage is preserved according to the versions of Aquiln, 
 S;mmachus, and Theodotion, but none of them agree with Justin in 
 any of the points in which he differs from the LXX. 
 
 SCU'HOK or MKSSIANIC I'UOrilEOIKS 
 
 191 
 
 there sliall be none of them who dwells in it " ('H yiy avTwv 
 
 t/j)//i()9, (/nrixxTOd' avTMi' «( (xOfxn arToii' (ivTijU <f>ityovTai, Kul 
 (ji'k tirTui i.$ ai'Tioi' o kutiiiki'ii' iv hi'ittJ).' 
 
 This prophecy, though referred by Justin to Isaiah, 
 is really a combination of texts taken from Isaiah 
 i. 7 and Jevemiah 1. H (xxvii. according to the arrange- 
 ment of the lAX) ; tbe hiiignage diU'ers considerably 
 from the LXX, according to which the portion quoted 
 of Isaiah i. 7, that is, all the words in the quotation 
 down to (jydyovrai, runs thus : — 'II yf] vfiuv eprjfios, al 
 TToXus v/xwv TTvptKava-Toi, Tijv ■)(wpnv vp-oiv ivcoTTiov 
 iiixwv dWuTpioi Kdreadiovaiv aiJTijv.' ' Your land is 
 desolate, your cities burned with lire, your country 
 before your face strangers eat it up,' while the portion 
 which comes from Jeremiah 1. !?, that is, the remainder 
 of the quotation, runs thus : — kuI ovk earai 6 kutoikwu 
 eii auifj (iTTo (ivOpwTTov Kal kcos kt)]vovs.'^ ' And there 
 shall be none who dwells in it, from a man even to a 
 beast.' 
 
 It will be noticed that in that part of the prophecy 
 whicli comes from Isaiah, the sense is not materially 
 different from that of the LXX, though there is a 
 great difference in language. In the part whicli comes 
 from Jeremiah, with the exception of the insertion of 
 the words ef avTo>i>, the liinguiige of .FustiM, as far as 
 it goes, is identical witli the LW. Tbe insertion of 
 these words, however, coupled with the omission to 
 quote the words which follow, and also, perhaps I 
 should say, of the preceding words, makes a great 
 change in the meaning. Jeremiah intended to 
 prophesy of Babylon that it should be uninhabited by 
 
 I 1 Ap. c. 47. 
 
 ' The Alexandrine codex omits ifol between ii/flpuirou and (us. 
 
192 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 man or beast. Supijosiiig this prophecy to be api^lied 
 to Jerusalem by the process of taking words out of 
 their proper meaning, so customary with interpreters 
 of prophecy, there still remains the difficulty that at 
 the time Justin wrote the city of Aelia Capitolina was 
 standing or in process of erection upon the site of 
 Jerusalem. If, therefore, the words of Jeremiah had 
 been quoted exactly, even after surmounting the 
 difficulty that he was speaking of Babylon, not Jeru- 
 salem, their fulfilment in the sense in which they are 
 applied by Justin would not be at all apparent. 
 
 Now it is very hard to suppose that Justin inten- 
 tionally falsified this prophecy. The facts of the case 
 appear to be best met by supposing that he made use 
 of a catena of extracts originally made from the 
 Hebrew, translated into Greek, and afterwards collated 
 with the LXX more or less perfectly, and the words of 
 the LXX written more or less perfectly in the margin. 
 In such a case the mixture of the words of the LXX 
 with an independent version, and the running together 
 of quotations from different prophets would be easy of 
 explanation. So would the alteration made by Justin 
 in the sense of the passage. At the time the catena 
 was formed Jerusalem probably had not been rebuilt 
 after its destruction by Titus, and the framor of the 
 catena might omit the words ' They are lied ; they 
 are gone both man and beast ' as immaterial. The 
 question of their materiality would not be considered 
 by the collator, and Justin, having before him only 
 the words xal ovk carat 6 KaroiKciv ev avrfi, would 
 readily insert if uvTmv to bring out more clearly what 
 he did not doubt was the sense. It must be noticed 
 that no dogmatic reason can be given for the varia- 
 
 SOUKCE or MESSUNIC TROPJIECIES 
 
 193 
 
 tion from the language of the LXX in the part of the 
 prophecy that comes from Isaiah. 
 
 The confusion together of extracts from Isaiah and 
 Jeremiah should also be compared with the similar 
 confusion of extracts from different places in Isaiah 
 and from Numbers and Isaiah we were just considering, 
 and also the similar confusion between Malachi and 
 Isaiah in Mark i. 2 ; also the reference by Justin of 
 a prophecy to Zephaniah instead of Zechariah, also 
 the similar reference in Matthew (xxvii. 9) of a 
 prophecy to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. All 
 these mistakes are of a class incident to the use of a 
 catena of extracts in which extracts from one author 
 get readily mixed with extracts from another, and 
 entire extracts get referred to the wrong author. They 
 therefore point to the existence of such a catena which 
 was used by Justin and Irenaeus as well as by the 
 authors of Matthew and Mark, or rather, I should say, 
 of the work whence was derived the matter common 
 to the three synoptic gospels. 
 
 Justin again quotes Isaiah i. 7 in his ' Dialogue 
 with Trypho ' : — 
 
 ' For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is 
 from Abraham, was given for a sign, tliat you might be 
 (lifltiu^'ui.shod from olliur nations iiiul us, and tliiit t)io 
 thin},'s wlych now in justice you sufifor you might siiil'or 
 alone, and that your countries might become desolate, and 
 the cities burned with fire, and the crops strangers might 
 cat up before your face, and none of you should go up into 
 Jerusalem (ifu ytviovTai al ^uipat Vfiuiv Iprj/ioi, Kal ai ttoAcis 
 irvpiKOLVtrToi, koX tous Kapiruvi iviinriov v/iwv KaTKrOiOKriv 
 aWoTpioi, Koi /iTjScts (f vfiuiv (irePaivrj tU rfyi' 'Itpova-aX-rj/j.).' ' 
 
 Vial. c. IG. 
 
194 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Notwithstanding the indirect nature of this quota- 
 tion, it will he found to follow the LXX much more 
 closely than the direct quotation in the ' Apology,' the 
 only difference being the substitution of tovs Kapnovs 
 for TTjv x^^/sai/ and the transposition of the latter word 
 into the first clause and its substitution there for yij, 
 also the omission of vfi&p after TroXeis. These changes, 
 coupled with the indirect form of the quotation, are 
 sufficient to show that Justin was quoting from 
 memory and not with the book before him ; and there- 
 fore that the words which ran in his head were those 
 of the LXX, not those which he used when quoting 
 directly in the ' Apology.' It will be further noticed 
 that the sense of the latter part of the prophecy quoted 
 in the ' Apology,' that which comes from Jeremiah, ran 
 in Justin's head also when writing the ' Dialogue,' but 
 not the words. He expresses it in altogether different 
 language : 'And none of you should go up into Jerusa- 
 lem ' (*cat firjBels i^ vficov eTri^aiiirj els rijv 'lepovaa\r]fx). 
 These considerations tend to support the conclusion 
 that when Justin was quoting directly in the 'Apology ' 
 he was not quoting from memory, and that therefore he 
 made use of some document which contained a version 
 of the passage independent of the LXX. 
 
 Immediately after the passage wo have just been 
 considering Justin introduces another prophecy as 
 follows : — 
 
 ' Also that it was foretold that our Christ would heal all 
 diseases and raise {avfytptiv) the dead, hear what has 
 been said. It is as follows : " At his coming will a lame 
 man leap as a hart, and plain will be the tongue of the 
 stammerers, the blind will receive their sight, the lepers 
 will be cleansed, and tlie dead will rise up and walk " (Tj; 
 
 .SOURCE OF MESSIANIC I'ROFUECIES 195 
 
 Trafjovcrui airov uKiLTai )^ti>Xu's iti cKatfiOS Kai rpavrj itrTai yXCitraa 
 fioyiXaXuit', TU<^A.oi avaj3\i\pov<Ti /cat Xiirpoi KadapKrOrjcrovrai, Kal 
 I'fKpoi (liao-TiJcro^Tai Kal TrtpiTrarriaovcnv) ; and tliat he did 
 these tl)iii<,'3 yon ciiu k^ai'n from tl)e " Acts in the time of 
 I'ontillS I'illlte " (ex ruii' tVilJoi'TioiilJiAiiTou yoofifviuv aKTuiy).' ^ 
 
 In his ' Treatise on thellesurrection,' Justin again 
 makes the siime qnoliition in somewhat different 
 language.'^ 
 
 ■ ' For did tliey not see on the earth the blind receiving 
 their sight and the lame walJdng (t-ik^Xous an/?Ac7rovTas, x<uA.ol's 
 TrtpiiraTuvvra';) at his word ? All which things the Saviour 
 did; firstly indeed that it might ho fulfilled which was said 
 by the prophets about him that " The blind receive their 
 sight and the deaf fcear &c.," (tvjjXoI dya/SXtirovcn kol kok^oi 
 aKovov(Tiv, Kal tol aXAa), but also that We may have faith 
 that in the resurrection the flesh will be raised whole.' 
 
 The passage supposed to be quoted in both places 
 is Isaiah xxxv. 5, according to the LXX : Tore 
 avoi-)(6riaovTai 6<pda\p,oi, tv^\o)V Koi wra K(t)<f)0}V 
 UKOViTovTai. Tore dXeiTai, tis sKa^os o ^euXor, Tpavrj 
 he earai yXcoaaa fioyiXaXtov. ' Then will the eyes 
 of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf will 
 hear. Then will the lame man leap as an hart, and 
 plain will be the tongue of the stammerers.' If 
 wo compare tiiis with Justin, we see that, instead 
 of ' Then will the eyes of the blind be opened ' (Tors 
 dvoi^di^aovTai oc^daXfioi Tv<f>\ci)v), he has ' The blind 
 will receive their sight ' (TvtfyXol dva^Xeyjrovai), evi- 
 dently an altogether different version. In the ' Apo- 
 logy ' the words ' And the ears of the deaf will hear ' 
 are left out ; but in the ' Discourse on the Kesurrec- 
 tion ' he has ' The deaf hear ' {KW(fiol ('iKovovaiv) ; again 
 
 1 A^). c. 48. 
 
 - c. 4. 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
19fi 
 
 THE ORACLES 01-' PAPIAS 
 
 a version different from the LXX, ' The ears of the 
 deaf will hear ' (Sna KoxfyStv uKovaovTai). 
 
 The words ' Then will the lame man leap as an 
 hart and plain will he the tongue of the stammerers ' 
 he has in the ' Apology ' word for word with the LXX ; 
 but in the ' Discourse on the Resurrection ' another 
 rendering of these words also is disclosed in the 
 words j^wXovy irepivarovvras, which would be 'xmXol 
 irepmarrjaovaiv, ' the lame will walk.' We must sup- 
 pose, therefore, that an attempt was made in the 
 ' Apology ' to substitute the words of the LXX for these 
 words ; but that in so doing the word vspnran'iaovaiv 
 was left in by mistake, and so found a nominative in 
 vexpol, so making the dead to walk as well as rise. 
 
 There remains to consider the words ' And lepers 
 will be cleansed and the dead will rise.' There is 
 nothing in the passage in Isaiah of which these words 
 can be a rendering or a paraphrase. They are there- 
 fore probably words from some 'other place which 
 have been run together, as we have already had 
 occasion to notice in previous cases. This is rendered 
 the more probable as in the ' Discourse on the Resur- 
 rection' the citation is made from the prophets. 
 What places they are supposed to come from is more 
 difficult to say. In Leviticus xiv. 2-1) we road : ' TIiIh 
 shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing 
 ... he shall be clean ; ' and in Psalm Ixxxviii. 10 : 
 ' Shall the dead arise ? ' Free renderings of these 
 passages might produce the words cited by Justin. 
 If it be objected that this is simply to find the quota- 
 tions totidem verbis, it may be answered that other 
 prophecies, probably from the same collection, are no 
 better. For instance, ' That it might be fulfilled which 
 
 SOUIiCK Of MKSSIANIC I'liOrilKClKS 
 
 197 
 
 was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a 
 Nazarcne,' for which no better original can be found 
 than the statement of the angel to Ihe wife of Mjinoah, 
 as to the future Samson : ' For the child shall be 
 called a Nazarite unto God from the womb.' 
 
 The explanation of the foregoing phenomena is the 
 siime as that we have had suggested before. Justin 
 used a catena of quotations, originally made in Hebrew, 
 translated into Greek and afterwards collated with the 
 LXX, and the LXX renderings written in the margin. 
 Justin's quotations were produced by mixing the 
 renderings of the LXX with those of the original 
 document, and also by running consecutive quotations 
 from differeiit boOks together as if they were con- 
 tinuous. That the mixture was made by Justin him- 
 self is shown by the components being found to vary 
 in different quotations of the same passage. In this 
 case by comparing the quotation in the ' Apology ' with 
 that in the ' Discourse on the Resurrection ' we can 
 restore the passage as it stood in tlie text of the catena 
 used by Justin without much doubt. It must have 
 been as follows : '\!v<f)\.ol ava^Xeyfrovacv Kal kco^oI 
 uKovaovrai, koI XeTrpol KaOapicrOijaovTai, koI vexpol 
 avaari)<T0VTiii, Kal j^wXoi TrepiTraTtjaovaiv. ' The blind 
 will rocoivu tlioir siglit and tho deal' will liuar, and the 
 lepers will be cleansed, and tho dead will rise up, and 
 the lame will walk.' It will be noticed the quotation 
 was so familiar that Justin winds it up in the ' Dis- 
 course of the Resurrection ' with an &c. (ku'i to, dWa). 
 Before leaving this passage we must not fail to 
 compare it with the answer said to have been given 
 by Jesus to John's disciples, which is found in almost 
 the same words in Matthew and Luke : — 
 
 i 
 
198 
 
 THE ORACLES OP PAPlAS 
 
 SOURCE OF MESSIANIC I'ROPIIECIES 
 
 199 
 
 ' Go your way, tell John tlie things which ye do heiir 
 and see, the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, 
 the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead 
 are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to 
 
 them (Tul^Xol a.vap\iiroviTLV Koi. )^ii>\oi ntftiiruTuvirii', Ktir/iol 
 KiiOapi^oVTai Koi KUK^ot OLKOvoviTiv, Kal vtKpol iytipovrai Kal 
 7rT0);^ol tvayytki^ovrai).' ' 
 
 It must be noticed that this must be taken to be 
 an answer in the affirmative to John's question 
 whether Jesus was the Messiah. It can only be such 
 an answer on the supposition of a well-known pro- 
 phecy, of which these words stated the fulfilment ; and 
 this prophecy we see to be the same as that which 
 was in the hands of Justin. The only difference, 
 apart from a slight difference in order ^ — which may 
 perhaps be owing to an error in my restoration of the 
 prophecy that was before Justin — being the substitu- 
 tion of iyeipovrai for dvaa-Tijaovrai, or rather, as it 
 would be the present and not the future, uviaravTai ; 
 and the addition of the words ' the poor have the good 
 tidings preached to them.' 
 
 Possibly these differences ought to be reduced, as 
 the passage in Matthew is quoted by Clement of 
 Alexandria and Origen with the reading uviaravTai 
 instead of iyeipomai. 
 
 But apart from this latter possibility the agree- 
 ment between the prophecy implied in the words of 
 Matthew and Luke (and which, therefore, we may 
 suppose was in the hands of the writers of those 
 books — or perhaps, rather, of some book, portions of 
 which are embodied in both their narratives) and the 
 
 ' Matthew xi. 6, Luke vii. 22. 
 
 ' The words which are differently placed (xw^ol wipiirar^iirovinf) are 
 omitted altogether in Codex D. 
 
 prophecy in the hands of Justin, is so close and 
 remarkable as to leave no doubt of their derivation 
 from a common written source — and that source must 
 have contained a rendering independent altogether of 
 the LXX. Moreover, the agreonicut is not merely in 
 the rendering, but in the running together of quota- 
 tions from different places, so as apparently to form 
 one prophecy, some of Avliich are only to be found in 
 the Old Testament at all by great straining of the 
 words as well as the meaning. We see, therefore, the 
 common source must have been a catena of extracts, 
 and this is confirmed by the fact that Matthew and 
 Luke follow the catena one step further by the addi- 
 tion of the words ' And the poor have good tidings 
 2)reiiclied to them {kuI tttiu^oI evayyeXi^ovTai), which 
 appear to refer to Isaiah Ixi. 1, ' The spirit of the Lord 
 God is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me 
 to preach good tidings unto the poor.' According to 
 the LXX : llvevfia Kvpiov eir e/xe ov eiveKsv expicr^ 
 fi£ evayysXi^eaOai tttu'^ois u-rricrTaKKi fis. Having 
 regard to the nature of the reference, the words of 
 Matthew perhaps in this last case follow the LXX as 
 closely as might be expected if we supposed that to 
 be the source from which the part of the prophecy 
 relating the evangelisation of the poor came. But 
 there is nothing in this to shako the inferences drawn 
 from the former part of the passage. The same two 
 words used in the LXX, tttcd^oI evayyeXl^ovrai, may 
 have been used by the original translator, or they 
 may have become assimilated to the LXX at some 
 subsequent stage. 
 
 The only possible escape from the foregoing con- 
 clusion would be to argue that Justin constructed his 
 
200 
 
 TUK ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 prophecy after the model of the prophecy implied in 
 Matthew and Luke. To this there are insuperable ob- 
 jections. Such a process must have been intentional on 
 the part of Justin. Now in no one place in his writings 
 is to be found the prophecy implied in Matthew and 
 Luke. We only arrive at the conclusion that he had 
 such a prophecy before him by piecing together what 
 he says on two different occasions. The supposition, 
 therefore, of his having intended to construct the 
 prophecy to supply the place of that implied in 
 Matthew or Luke, falls to the ground. Had he done 
 so he would have stated it explicitly. 
 
 Moreover (according to the more probable reading 
 in the ' Apology ') Justin expressly refers to the ' Acts 
 in the time of Pilate ' as the source of his information 
 as to the fulfilment of the prophecy. 
 
 Before leaving this passage we must not omit to 
 notice its bearing upon another question noticed 
 above : that is, whether the passages from the Old 
 Testament, cited as having been fulfilled in Jesus, 
 were in the material common to the three synoptics 
 and left out by Mark and Luke, or whether they were 
 absent from the common material and were inserted 
 by Matthew. 
 
 We have already found an argument from com- 
 parison with Matthew and Mark in favour of the 
 former contention. The passage now before us affords 
 an argument bearing in a similar direction — that is, 
 it shows that a writer of material common to Matthew 
 and Luke had before him a work containing pro- 
 phecies originally extracted from the Hebrew. 
 
 To pass on to another quotation, in the ' First 
 Apology,' cap. 51, we read : — 
 
 SOURCE OF BIESSJANIC PROPIIECIEH 
 
 201 
 
 ' But that he was to ascend into heaven as it was fore- 
 told, hear. For it was spoken thus: "Lift the gates of the 
 heavens. Be ye opened, that the King of Glory may come 
 in ! Who is tliis King of Glory ? the strong Lord and the 
 
 mighty Lord " {'Aparf nvKai ovpavwv, at'0i\6riTe iva flcrfKfii] 6 
 ^atriXci'S TJjs Sri^s. Tt's itrriv ovtoi u fimnXcv'; r^s So^tjs ; 
 Kvpioi Kparaiui Koi Kvpio'S SwaTui).' 
 
 The passage here cited comes from Psalm xxiv. 
 7, 8. According to the LXX it runs thus : — 
 
 'Apart 7njA.ttS o\ ap^^oi'Td vfiMV Kal (Tn'ip6r)Te TTvKai a'luinoi, 
 Kui ti(TeX.(va-(T(U o ySaeriXtus tj/s Su^s ■ Ti's iuTiv ovrii'; o ySacriAcvs 
 Ttys Sd^s ; K.vpio'i K/juratos Kal Smaros, Ku'pios Swaroi if 
 iroXf/Miii. 
 
 ' Lift your gates, ye princes and be ye lift up ye ever- 
 lasting gates, and the King of Glory will come in ! Who 
 is this King of Glory ? The Lord strong and mighty, the 
 Lord mighty in battle.' 
 
 It will be noticed that this quotation differs from 
 the LXX down to the words 6 ^aaiXsi/s where they first 
 occur. After this it agrees with the LXX verbatim, 
 with the exception of the omission of the word Bwaros 
 where it first occurs and of the words iv iroXefia). 
 
 The passage would appear to be the result of the 
 mixture of an independent version with the LXX, as 
 in previous cases. It cannot bo a case of careless 
 citation, as tho LXX would not bear the meaning 
 Justin puts upon it.' 
 
 Immediately following the passage quoted above 
 
 Justin proceeds : ' But that also he is about to come 
 
 ' A portion of this passage has been preserved in twt* of the 
 Hcxnpla texts. Ayuila reads : 'Apart iruAai KtipaKhs ifiuv Kal itipSrirf 
 oKOiyfiara aiilivia \ and Symniachus reads : Ktrifiarf iriJ\ai oi ipxovrt! 
 i/fian' i/iltuditrwaav Sc ai iruAat alwiwi. It is obvious that the ditferences 
 of Justin from the LXX are not in any way due to the influence of 
 either of these versions. 
 
202 
 
 THE OnACLES OF TAl'IAS 
 
 with glory out of the heavens, hear also what has been 
 said upon this point by Jeremiah the prophet. It is 
 as follows: "Behold, as a son of man one comes 
 above the clouds of heaven and his angela with him : 
 'ISov msvlos dvdpwTTOu sp^eTai iirdvo) rwv vei^eXoiv 
 Tov ovpavov Kal oi dyyeXoi aiiTov avp aurm." ' ' 
 
 The LXX version of this passage, which does not 
 come from Jeremiah, but from Daniel vii. 13, is as 
 follows : 'ISoii ivl Twp ve^eXwv tov ovpavov ws vios 
 uvdpmTTOv fipxero Kal tuy TraXaibs i)p.£paiv irap^v Kal oi 
 irapeaT-qKOTes wapijaav avrm. ' Behold in the clouds 
 of heaven one was coming as a son of man and one 
 was present as ancient of days, and the attendants 
 were present with him.' 
 
 Here again we see an independent version, in- 
 fluenced, probably, by the recollection of the language 
 of the LXX rather than afterwards affected by mixture. 
 It may be noticed that this direct quotation departs 
 further from the language of the LXX than the 
 allusion to the same passage in Matthew xxvi. l54 we 
 have noticed above. 'Eirdvo) is used instead of stti, 
 and the use of the present epxerai, for the imperfect, 
 there being no change of construction to require it, 
 constitutes a real difference, which the use of the 
 participle in the allusion does not. I do not here 
 notice the concluding words, as tliey do not occur at 
 all in Matthew xxvi. G4. In the false reference to 
 Jeremiah we again see the mark of the use of a catena 
 of citations. 
 
 ' 1 Ap. cap. 61. According to Theodotion, 'ISov /icra tuc vtiptiiui' 
 TOV oi/payori &s vihs hvdpt^-Kov ipx^f^*fos Kal tots tov iroAaioO rwv iffitpwy 
 l<p$aiTf Kal rpoffTiy^xfri aiirif. ' Behold with the clouds of heaven one 
 coming as a son of man, and he came first to the anuient of days and 
 approached him.' Justin both resembles and differs from this version 
 about as much as he does from the LXX. 
 
 203 
 
 CIIArTEB XI 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 I DO not think it necessary to continue the examina- 
 tion of Justin's quotations from the Old Testament 
 any further. 
 
 I have now cxtfrnined eleven passages containing 
 citations of sixteen passages from the Old Testament, 
 fifteen of which differ more or less from the language 
 of the LXX. Of these, five are also cited in Matthew, 
 one in Irenaeus and one in TertuUian, and two are the 
 subjects of an allusion in Matthew. 
 
 As regards the passages in which Justin agrees 
 with Matthew and Irenaeus in words not found in the 
 LXX, the fact that he is quoting from some written 
 source, independent of the LXX, may be taken as 
 established beyond doubt, and the same inference 
 follows with but little doubt as regards the 2iassnge in 
 which he agrees with TertuUian. The question then 
 arises whether that source with regard to the quota- 
 tions which partly agree with Matthew, can be 
 Matthew. I think the examination I have made, both 
 of the language of the quotations and of the context 
 in which they occur, proves that this was not the case. 
 But there still remains the question whether he was 
 not (juoting from some old evangelical work which 
 
 t 
 
 ■Ik. 
 
204 
 
 THE OKACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 was made use of by the framers of our present texts 
 of Matthew and ' ProtevangeUum.' I incHne to the 
 opinion that in some places this was the case, and of 
 course it is possible that some of the quotations not 
 found in Matthew come from such a source. But as 
 regards the bulk of the quotations, there is nothing to 
 indicate any such source. On the other hand there is 
 much to show that they came from a catena of 
 extracts originally made in Hebrew, then translated 
 into Greek, and afterwards collated with the LXX, 
 and the renderings of that version written in the 
 margin ; and that the citations in the gospels, as well 
 as Justin, came originally from such a document. This 
 is shown by the mixture of the renderings of the LXX 
 with different renderings ; by differences in the mix- 
 ture in different quotations of the same passage ; by 
 the double renderings in the same quotation, once in 
 the words of the LXX, and again in other words, e.g. 
 vpaos, which can scarcely be said to differ from irpaiis 
 and TTTw^oy in Zechariah ix. 9, by the way in which 
 words which appear superfluous in Justin, added to 
 words in Matthew, restore an otherwise lost sense ; 
 e.g. in the same quotation the apparently superfluous 
 a\d\a^ou added to the eiiraTe of Matthew gives the 
 meaning ' Say hurrah ! ' which is equivalent to ' rejoice 
 greatly,' the meaning of the original ; also by the 
 running together of quotations from different books 
 and their reference to the wrong author. The extra- 
 ordinary distortion of some of the quotations, so that 
 it becomes impossible to do more than guess where 
 they come from, again very much favours the theory 
 that they were made in Hebrew by some one im- 
 perfectly acquainted with it, which I suppose would 
 
 CONCLUSIONS 
 
 205 
 
 the Palestine 
 
 be the case with many, even am 
 Jews. 
 
 On the whole, the examination of the quotations 
 in Justin tends to show that such a book, as I have 
 contended Papias attributed to Matthew, was in exist- 
 ence in the Primitive Church. 
 
 f 
 t 
 
206 
 
 THE ORACLES OF ' PAl'US 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 
 MESSIANIC PnOPHECIES NOT FOUND IN CANONICAL 
 BOOKS 
 
 I WILL now pass on to consider some passages of 
 another kind, that is to say, passages cited by Justin 
 and some other fathers as quotations from canonical 
 or apocryplial books of the Old Testament, but which 
 are not now, and apparently never were, to be found 
 in the books from which they are said to have been 
 ?aken in any MS. or version. That these passages 
 were not in the copies current in his day, Justin was 
 aware, and he is prepared with an explanation. In 
 the ' Dialogue with Trypho ' (chap. Ixxi.) he charges 
 the Jews with having altogether taken away many 
 passages from the translations made by the seventy 
 elders with Ptolemy, and at the request of Trypho he 
 gives some instances as follows (I quote from tiio 
 ' Ante-Nicene Christian Library ') : — 
 
 ' From the statements, then, which Esdras made in 
 reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away 
 the following : " And Esdras said to the people, This pass- 
 over is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have 
 understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall 
 humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, 
 then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God 
 of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and Avill not 
 
 MESSIANIC PROrilKCIES 
 
 207 
 
 { 
 
 listen to his declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to 
 
 the nations " (Kut eln-ei' 'EirS^ias to) \a<u- ToCto to Tratrp^a 6 
 (TWTTjfi Tjfxuiv KaX 7/ Kdraffntyif yjfxCty, Kni tar oiai'orjOiJTC Koi ava/3rj 
 v/xwv Ittl Tiji' K(i/)8iiii', oTi /itWo/ici' (ii'toI' TinTtii'iivv tv <rr]/i(iio, 
 KuL fjL€Tii Taura cATrt'trw/icr €n" ai'Ttti' ' (w fiy cprjfxtttByj u T07ro5 
 ovTO^ €19 Tor airavTa ^/^oi'or, Ac'yet o 0€os TtjiV ovvdfxiwv ' car 0€ 
 /XT/ TTKTTtva^rjTi QUTui /ir/Sc (i(TaKov<rrjT€ TOV Krji)vyfj.aTO^ avTOV, 
 
 1(T€(tBi (n!.)(apfjLn. Tois WvitTiv). And fiom the sayings of 
 Jei'omiah they liavo cut out the following : " I (was) like a 
 lamb that is brought to the slaugliter : tlioy devised a 
 device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on 
 His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the 
 living ; and His name shall be no more remembered." 
 And since this passage is still written in some copies (of 
 the scriptures) in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only 
 a short time since llicy were cut out), and since from these 
 words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about 
 the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death. He 
 Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the 
 slaughter, as Avas predicted by Isaiah, and is here repre- 
 sented as a harmless lamb ; but bting in ditticulty about 
 them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, 
 from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been 
 cut out : " The Lord God remembered His dead people of 
 Israel who lay in the graves ; and He descended to preach 
 to them his own salvation " ('E/ivr/o-^?; 8c kw/ho? o 0cos am 
 
 'I(T/)ai/\ Tuir rcK/juJr uuToG Tuir KeKui/irjfiii'uiv cis yrjv )(ii'ifiaTO';, 
 Kiii KaT€^i) 7r/>o5 avTuv'i drayycAnrair^di ui'tih? to (rojTjy/jtor 
 
 a'vTov) ; and from the niuety-lifth I'sahu they have taken 
 away this short saying of the words of ])avid, " from the 
 wood." For where the passage said, " Tell ye among the 
 nations the Lord hath reigned from the wood " (KtjruTc cV 
 Tois Wviuiv 'O KVjno<; cy8a(n'Acv<7cr utto toC ^I'Aou), they have 
 
 left, " Tell ye among the nations the Lord hath reigned " 
 
 (EiTTttTC iv Tois t^rco-ir • • 'O Kuptos cy8ao-iAcv(rcr).' 
 
 The first passage, said to have been removed from 
 Jeremiah,- is Jeremiah xi. 19, and is found in all tho 
 
208 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 manuscripts. It is quoted sufficiently accurately from 
 the LXX, with the exception of the omission of the 
 word uKaKov, harmless, qualifying the word lamb. 
 With the other passages the case is different ; the 
 passages supposed to have been excised from Esdras 
 and Jeremiah are not contained in any MSS. whatever, 
 and the words supposed to have been excised from 
 the psalm out of the great multitude of MSS. of. the 
 LXX are to be found in two only, where their presence 
 is of little weight, the Verona Psalter and Cod. 15G,' 
 and as the Jews could not have brought it to pass 
 that these passages should be excised from the copies 
 in use among the Christians, we cannot suppose that 
 such passages ever in fact formed part of the texts of 
 Esdras, Jeremiah, or the Psalms. Justin, however, 
 was not alone in citing these passages as from Esdras, 
 Jeremiah, and the Psalms. The same passage is cited 
 from Esdras by Lactantius, ' Instit. Div.' c. 18, in the 
 following words : — ' Apud Esdram ita scriptum est : Et 
 dixit Esdras ad populum : Hoc pascha salvator noster 
 est et refugium nostrum. Cogitate et ascendat in cor 
 vestrum quoniam habemus humiliare eum in signo 
 {or ligno) ; et post haec sperabimus in eum, ne dese- 
 ratur hie locus in aeternum tempus, dicit dominus 
 Deus virtutum. Si non credideritis ei neque exau- 
 dieritis adnuntiationem ejus, eritis derisio in gentibus.' 
 As Otto remarks, this passage is cited by Lactantius 
 * non sine aliqua discrepantia.' The imperative ' cogi- 
 tate' is substituted for 'Eav hiavorjOrjTe, and the asser- 
 tion ' sperabimus ' for the hypothesis 'E^f . . . kX-iri- 
 ffiofieu, the clause ' ne deseratur, etc' is made to 
 depend on ' sperabimus,' and ' dominus ' is inserted 
 ■ Hatch, Essays in Biblical Oreek, p. 189. 
 
 MESSIANIC I'UOI'IIEI'IES 
 
 200 
 
 before ' Deus,' which has nothing to correspond to it 
 in the Greek of Justin. The first difference is some- 
 what emphasised by the fact that 'Eau Scavov0>,TB 
 introduces one branch of an alternative, and the 
 following words, 'Eau 8^ m ^I'Treiiavre, introduce 
 another ; and in the second case 'Edv is naturally 
 translated by ' si,' and the subjunctive is not tui-ned 
 into an imperative, which leads us to suppose that 
 had Lactantius been translating from Justin, and had 
 'E^.. before him in the first place, he would have 
 translated it in the same way. , , w 
 
 Of themselves no groat weight can be attacliuil to 
 these discrepancies, but the fact that Lactantius cites 
 the passage as an existing passage from Esdras with- 
 out calling attention to its having been excised from 
 the book, is a strong argument that he got it froni 
 some source \vhere its excision was not mentioned, and 
 therefore not from Justin, and these discrepancies add 
 weicht to that argument. Besides this, Lactantius 
 cites the passage in Latin. Immediately before, he 
 cites three passages from the Sibyl in Greek It would, 
 therefore, appear probable that if he took this passage 
 from Justin, he would cite it in Greek also. 
 
 It should be noticed, however, that Lactantius 
 cites passages from the Old Testament in Latin, and 
 it may l)e, therefore, that he dealt with the supposed 
 passage from Esdras as with oiher passages from the 
 Old Testament ; but the probable reason of his citmg 
 the Old Testament in Latin is that he cites it from a 
 Latin version, so that if the same reason applied to 
 the supposed passage from Esdras, we must supP«se 
 that his version contained it, and therefore that he 
 did not cite it from Justin ; but a little further on ho 
 
210 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 cites another passage as from the Old Testament, which 
 is not there. In the words addressed hy the Lord 
 to Solomon in 2 Chronicles vii., the answer to the 
 question ' Why hath the Lord done thus unto this 
 land and to this house ? ' is made to run : ' Because 
 they left the Lord their God, and persecuted their 
 king most beloved by God and crucified him in great 
 humility, on account of these things God hath brought 
 upon them these evils (et persecuti sunt regem suum 
 dilectissimum Deo et cruciaverunt ilium in humilitate 
 magna, propter haec importavit illis Deus mala haec). 
 It is altogether unknown where these words come from. 
 It follows, therefore, that Lactantius had before him 
 some book then extant in Latin, containing Messianic 
 prophecies, some of which were fictitious, or at all 
 events in which disconnected passages had got run 
 together. "We may therefore well suppose that the 
 reputed passage from Esdras came from this source. 
 We therefore trace up this passage as probably coming 
 from some book containing other prophecies of the 
 
 like nature. 
 
 The second passage, stated by Justin to have been 
 excised from Jeremiah, is worthy of more note. It is 
 cited or alluded to by Irenaeua in no less than five 
 different places. In the first place (lib. iii. c. xx. 4) 
 ho cites it as from Isaiah. In the second place (lib. 
 iv. c. xxi. 1) he cites it as from Jeremiah. In the 
 third place (lib. iv. c. xxxiii. 1) be sets it out among 
 other prophecies fulfilled in the first advent of Christ. 
 In the fourth place (lib. iv. c. xxxiii. 12) he sets it out 
 among things spoken by other prophets ; and in the 
 fifth place (lib. v. cap. xxxi. 1) he sets it out aa spoken 
 
 MESSIANIC I'ltOl'JIKClES 
 
 211 
 
 by the prophet. In none of these passages is the text 
 of Irenaeus extant in the Greek. 
 The first plnce is as follows : — 
 
 ' Esaias ait : Et coinmemoratus est Dominus sanctus 
 Israel mortuoruin suoruin, qui dormievant in terra sepulli- 
 oiiio ; et descendit ad eos evaiigclizare sahiteiu quae est ab 
 CO, ut salvaret cos.' 
 
 The second place is as follows : — 
 
 ' Sicut Hiereniias ait : Hecoiuniemoratus est Dominus 
 sanctus Israel mortuoiuin suorum, qui praedoniiierunt in 
 terra dcfossionis, et descendit ad eos, uti evangelizaret eis 
 salutare suum, ad salvanduni eos.' 
 
 In the third place Irenaeus says that the Jews are 
 not willing to understand that all the prophets an- 
 nounced the two advents of Christ : — 
 
 ' The one, indeed, in which ho became a man, subject 
 to stripes, and knowing what it is to bear iniirmity, and 
 sat upon the foal of an ass, and was a stone rejected by 
 the builders, and was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and 
 by stretching forth liis liands destroyed Amalok ; while ho 
 gathered from the ends of the earth into his Father's fold 
 the children who were scattered abroad, and remembered 
 his own dead ones who had formerly fallen asleep, and 
 came down to them tliat he might deliver them (ct rccom- 
 mciiioratHS moituorum snoram qui aiilc ilormicrant, ct 
 (h'.icciiilcits (id cos, uti, eriicnU cos et salrarct cos), but tho 
 second in wliich ho will come on the clouds,' Ac. 
 
 The fourth place is as follows : — 
 
 'Alii (i.e. pi'ophetaii) diccntos : Ivomumoratus est Domi- 
 nus sanctus mortuorum suorum, qui pracdormierunt in 
 terra linii et descendit ad eos, uti erigeret, ad salvandum 
 illos ; caussam reddidcrunt, propter quam passus est liaoc 
 omnia.' 
 
212 
 
 THfi ORACLES Oh' PAfUS 
 
 In the fifth place Irenaeus is arguing against some 
 heretics who denied the resurrection of the body, and 
 maintained that immediately on their death they 
 should pass above the heavens. He proceeds as fol- 
 lows : — 
 
 'How can they be wondered at if again they know 
 nothing as to the place of the resurrection ? For they do 
 not choose to imderstand that if these things are as they 
 say, the Lord himself, in whom they profess to believe, 
 did not rise again upon the third day ; but, immediately 
 upon bis expiring on the cross, undoubtedly departed on 
 high, leaving his body to the earth. But the case was 
 that for three days he dwelt in the place where the dead 
 were, as the prophet says concerning hiin : 
 
 ' Fropheta ait de eo : Commemoratus est Dominus 
 sanctorum mortuorum suorum, eorum qui ante dorniierunt 
 in terra sepelitionis, et descendit ad eos, extrahere eos ot 
 salvare eos.' 
 
 Many of the differences to be found in these five 
 citations probably arise from the Latin translator of 
 Irenaeus having given different translations in different 
 places of the same Greek words. Thus, ' commemo- 
 ratus est,' ' recommemoratus est,' and ' rememoratus 
 est,' are no doubt all different renderings of J/ii'v'o'^'7- So 
 •' sepultionis,' 'defossionis,' 'Hmi,' and ' sepelitionis ' are 
 probably all different renderings of xf^/^^'^os. So ' evan- 
 gelizare salutem quae est ah eo ' and ' uti cvangelizaret 
 eis salutare suum ' are two different renderings of dvay- 
 yekicraa-Oai aiiTols to amrripiov aiirov, but ' uti erueret 
 eos,' ' uti erigeret,' and ' extrahere eos ' appear to 
 point to a different reading. Whether the differences 
 between * dormierant ' and ' praedormierunt ' or ' ante 
 dormierunt ' point to any difference in reading may 
 be doubted. 
 
 I will now pass on to two points in which a differ- 
 
 MESSIANIC rEOPHECIES 
 
 213 
 
 ence of reading can clearly be seen through the Latin 
 version ; where .Tustin has Kvpios 6 0eor utto 'laparfK, 
 Irenaeus has in two places ' Dominus sanctus Israel,' in 
 a third ' Dominus sanctus,' and in a fourth ' Dominus 
 sanctorum' (mortuorum, &c.). In the remaining place 
 the form of the allusion, for it is not a direct quota- 
 tion, required the supi)resHion of tiie nominative. We 
 see, therefore, that tlie word u'^i.os was certainly part 
 of the text as known to Irenaeus, though there is room 
 for dispute as to whether, as most i)robable, he had it 
 in the nominative qualifying Kvpios, or whether he had 
 it in the genitive agreeing with vncpdv, or whether he 
 had it both ways. It is equally clear that the words 
 o %sos (iTTo were not part of the text as known to 
 Irenaeus. 
 
 Another distinction between the text of Irenaeus 
 and that of Justin is that Irenaeus continues the quo- 
 tation further, and in this all the places in Irenaeus 
 agree. Thus the words ' ut salvaret eos,' ' ad salvan- 
 dum eos,' ' et salvaret eos,' ' ad salvandum illos,' ' et 
 salvare eos ' have nothing to answer to them in Justin. 
 These two points of distinction show that Irenaeus did 
 not obtain the quotation from Justin, but this conclu- 
 sion is very much strengthened by the fact that Irenaeus 
 does not once suggest that the passage has been sup- 
 pressed, or indicate any doubt tliat it was extant in 
 the Old Testament, which he would hardly have failed 
 to do had Justin been the source of his information. 
 This apocryphal quotation appears to have had no small 
 influence among the primitive Christians. On it ap- 
 pears to have been founded the dogma of the Descent 
 of Christ into Hell, anciently called the Harrowing of 
 Hell, which we still read in the Apostles' Creed, and 
 which formed the basis of the apocryphal ' Gospel of 
 
214 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Nicodemus.' The note of Feuardentius to the last 
 quotation shows that this dogma in its expanded form 
 was adopted hy the Catholic Church.' 
 
 ' He teaches plainly that which the Catholic Church 
 has firmly believed and universally handed down about the 
 descent of Christ to hell, namely that his soul separated 
 from his body, not by a certain operation only, but by its 
 proper presence (as we say in the schools), penetrated the 
 lower parts of the earth and arrived at the place where the 
 spirits of the saints were held, and remained with them up 
 to the. moment of the resurrection, whence it led forth 
 together with itself as many as were fitted and suitable for 
 the kingdom of God. That this dogma has ahvays been 
 reckoned among those articles of faith about which it is 
 wicked to doubt can easily be collected from the Scriptures 
 of the Old and New Testaments and the books of all the 
 Fathers.' 
 
 There is an allusion to a similar incident in one 
 only of the canonical hooks — the iirst cpisllc of I'etcr. 
 There we read (iii. 18), 'Because Christ also suffered 
 for sins once . . . being put to death in the flesh, 
 hut quickened in the spirit, in which also he went 
 and preached unto the spirits in prison which afore- 
 time were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God 
 waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a pre- 
 paring ; ' and again (iv. G), ' For unto this end was 
 the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might 
 be judged according to men in the flesh, hut live 
 according to God in the spirit.' 
 
 It will he noticed that there are points of differ- 
 ence as well as points of agreement between these 
 
 ' Stieren's Irenacits, ii. lOflS. F. Franciscus Feuardentius, oidinis 
 F. Minorum in s. facnltate Parisiensi Doctor theologus, publislied 
 his second editipn of Irtnacus ai>. 1590, ibid. i. 2'J. 
 
 MESSIANIC rnOPHKCIES 
 
 215 
 
 passages and the passage quoted by Justin and 
 Lnaeus. In particular, the former passage in 
 1 Peter brings out the point that Christ vis, ed the 
 dead in the spirit at the time when his body was 
 dead. This point, which is emphasised by Irenaeus, 
 is hardly to be found in the passage which he cites m 
 support of it. Yet Irenaeus does not strengthen his 
 position hy citing 1 Peter, though he ^^as acquainted 
 with that book. The reason probably is that the 
 authority Irenaeus was following, from which he go 
 the supposed quotation by Jeremiah or Isaiah, did 
 not cite 1 Peter, and would therefore date from a ime 
 anterior to 1 Peter, or at which 1 Peter was no old 
 enough to have h^d much influence in the Church. 
 
 Another point of difference consists in the specific 
 veference in 1 Peter of Christ's visit to the persons 
 who were disobedient in the days of Noah ; a thi d 
 „.,int of difference consists hi the absence m 1 Potei 
 S any express reference to the dead samts In fact 
 in his point there is a marked contrast between the 
 passage quoted by Justin and Irenaeus and 1 Peter, 
 fn the supposed quotation the ohjec o the visit s 
 he instruction of the dead saints, which is said to 
 lave been attained. In 1 Peter the object of the visit 
 is rather that the dead may be judged upon the same 
 basis as the living, having had the same oi'l-ytuni les 
 These differences lead to the conclusion that 
 1 Peter does not allude to the supposed passage from 
 Jeremiah or Isaiah, and that that passage is not 
 founded on 1 Peter. But though tins is so. there 
 an be no doubt that the writer of 1 Peter alludes to 
 some account with which he supposes his readers will 
 be familiiu-. 
 
216 
 
 THE Oracles oii papias 
 
 This dogma of the harrowing of Hell was one 
 which obtained in the Middle Ages extensive accept- 
 ance among the people. 
 
 Thus m the 'Miller's Tale,' when Nicholas asks 
 the carpenter to swear secresy, he answers — 
 
 Say what thou wolt I schal it never telle 
 To child ne wyf by him tliat barwed belle. 
 
 And it must be noticed, as appears from the name 
 ' the harrowing of Hell,' the dogma which obtained 
 circulation was founded upon the apocryphal passage 
 cited from Isaiah or Jeremiah, and not from the first 
 epistle of Peter. 
 
 It must be noticed that a comparison of the cita- 
 tions in Irenaeus and Lactantius with those in Justin 
 Martyr justifies the inference, not merely that they 
 were not derived directly from Justin Martyr, but 
 that they were not so derived indirectly — that is to 
 say that they were not transmitted to Irenaeus and 
 Lactantius through any writer who took them from 
 Justin Martyr. This appears from two reasons, one 
 of which is common to Irenaeus and Lactantius, and 
 the other applicable to Irenaeus only. 
 
 The reason common to both is this, that both 
 Irenaeus and Lactantius cite the passages as if tboro 
 was no doubt that they were to be found in the books 
 from which they purport to be taken. Now it is 
 scarcely possible that any one deriving his knowledge 
 of the passages from Justin could venture to cite 
 them in such a way. He would know, if he did so, 
 that he might appear to his reader to be himself 
 inventing the propliecies. If, tliereforo, he cited them 
 
 JIESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 217 
 
 at all, he would repeat Justin's charge against the 
 Jews of mutilating the Scriptures. 
 
 The. reason applicable to Irenaeus only is that he 
 continues the quotation further than Justin; his 
 authority, therefore, cannot have taken from Justm 
 what was not there. We see, therefore, that the 
 common source of these apocryphal prophecies must 
 have been a work existing before the time of Justm. 
 
 The Psalm from which Justin says the words diro 
 Tov ^vKov have been excised by the Jews, is found 
 in the Old Testament in two places— once in the 
 Psalter and once in 1 Chronicles xvi. ; and the two 
 recensions of it differ considerably. Justin cites the 
 Psalm at length tvvice-once in ' 1 Apology ' 41, where 
 the quotation agrees very nearly with the Chronicles, 
 and once in ' Trypho ' 78, where the quotation, as we 
 have it, agrees with the Psalter. In Justin's citation 
 in the ' Apology,' the words uirh tov ^v\ov, which he 
 complains have been excised, are to be found, but in 
 ' Trypho ' the MS. of Justin does not contain them. 
 The omission of these words in ' Trypho ' is the more 
 remarkable as the citation follows immediately the 
 passage we have cited above in which Justin accuses 
 the Jews of having excised them. 
 
 The quotation in the ' Apology,' though following 
 generally the language of the CbronicleH, has soine 
 curious differences. For instance, instead of 'The 
 gods of the nations are idols' (e'iBwXa), according to 
 the Chronicles, or 'The gods of the nations are 
 demons ' {Baifiovia), according to the Psalter, he has 
 • The gods of the nations are images (or idols) of 
 demons ' {elSwXa Baifioi'i<op), and instead of 'strength 
 and rejoicing arc in his place ' {iv tottw avrov), he has 
 
218 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 • strength and rejoicing are in the place of his sanc- 
 tuary ' {iv TOTTft) dyuia-fiaTos avrov), which would seem 
 to he conflated with the reading of the Psalter, 
 ' Holiness, and majesty arc in his sanctuary' (iv rai 
 uyiuafiaTi aiirov). Instead of 'Give to the Lord ye 
 families of the nations (at iraTpiaX tS>v eOv&v), give to 
 the Lord glory and strength,' it has 'Give to the 
 Lord the father of the seons (or ages) (rd, varpl tSjv 
 aititvwv) glory.' Instead of ' Take gifts and offer them 
 before his face ' {Kd^ere Satpa kuI ivsyKare Kara 
 irpocrmirov aiiTov), it has ' Take a thankoffering and 
 enter before his face ' (Xd^sre x^P^^ '^"^ elaeXOeTS 
 Kara TTpoauttrov ainov). The quotation concludes 
 with the words, ' Let them rejoice among the nations, 
 the Lord reigned from the wood ' {ev(j>pai>6i}rio<Tai' 
 iv Tois sdveaiv, o Kvpios i^aaiXevaev dtro tov ^vXov), 
 instead of, as in the Chronicles, ' Let the heaven 
 rejoice, and let the earth be glad, and let them say 
 among the nations The Lord is reigning ' {ev(f)pav0TjTu 
 6 ovpavbi Koi dyaWtdadco ij yrj xai eiTrdrtiaav iv rois 
 edveaiv Kvpios pa<n\eva>v). 
 
 Besides the words diro tov ^vXov, which it is clear 
 Justin considered part of the text, be repeats the 
 reading eiSwXa haifioviwv in ' Trypho,' c. 55, but in 
 three short citations which come after the citation of 
 the whole Psalm in ' Trypho ' the words are as in the 
 Psalter. So in 'Trypho,' c. 73, he quotes the words 
 eiiraTS iv edve<riv, which are left out in the ' Apology,' 
 but in that place he refers lo the Psalm by its number 
 in the Psalter, which he evidently follows. The 
 reading eiSo)\a Sai/iovimv is found in two other places 
 — in Irenaeus iii. G, and Clement of Alexandria, 
 ' Protrept.' c. 4. The reading rm Trarpl t<ov alcovmv 
 
 MKSSIANIC riiOl'lIKOIKS 
 
 219 
 
 is partially confirmed by codices B and S, which, 
 instead of al iraTpial tmv i0va>v, read iraTpi twv 
 i0va)V.' ■ 
 
 Inference to the passage supposed to have been 
 oxcisod from tlio I'suhn is iigain to lie found in other 
 authorities. Thus Tertullian (' Adv. Jud.') says, ' Come 
 now if you have read in the power of the ])ropliet in 
 the Psalms, the Lord reigned from the wood {Ihimi- 
 nus regnant a liciiio), I look to see what you under- 
 stand, lest by chance you think some woodcutter 
 king to be mciiiit, and not Christ who reigned from 
 there, death being overcome by his suffering on the 
 cioss.' Tertullian hero can scarcely be copying 
 Justin, else he \w)uld not talk in this way about 
 persons reading in the Psalms what he would have 
 learnt from Justin they would not find there, but 
 other Latin fathers besides Tertullian cited these 
 words as from the Psalms, and they even found their 
 way into the old Latin version ; indeed, it has been 
 suggested that it is from this use of the words among 
 Latin authors that they found their way into the two 
 solitary Greek MSS. in which they occur, those MSS. 
 being accompanied by a Latin version. In the case 
 of the Basic MS., cod. 15G, great probability is 
 i^ivcn lo tills inrcriuuH' by tlui iKMoniMCO of tlio 
 goveriinient of I'nn't, shown in tlui I'onu in which tlio 
 words occur — viz., avo tco ^v\co, which can be best 
 accounted for by the supposition that the words are a 
 literal translation of a liiino? It would appear, then, 
 that this extensive use of the words among Latin 
 authors, backed up by these two Grreco-Latin MSS., 
 
 ' Hatch, Kanaijs in Jliblical (Inih; \). Wl. 
 ' Ibid. J). 189. 
 
220 
 
 TILE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 ought not to lead to the inference that they ever 
 formed part of the LXX text. Besides the enormous 
 preponderance of authority against them, there is the 
 fact that, except to a person on the look out for 
 Messianic prophecies which could by any means be 
 twisted into applicability to Jesus of Nazareth, they 
 do not appear to make any sense in the context. 
 
 To come to the conclusions we ought to draw. It 
 seems, in the first place, we ought to conclude that 
 Justin's differences from the LXX are not due to 
 vagaries of his own, but that he followed some 
 authority. The only other inference would be that 
 all the other places in which the same differences 
 are found are derived ultimately from Justin. Now 
 Justin must have had some ground for his accusation 
 against the Jews, and in whatever place he got the 
 words airb rov ^vXov, he might have got all the 
 other differences. It is not credible that these words 
 were ever part of the LXX. We may therefore sup- 
 pose that Justin's authority was some sort of citation. 
 If we suppose it to have been a catena of extracts, 
 the insertion of these words can be most easily 
 explained, for they are the last words in Justin's cita- 
 tion, and therefore might not improbably have really' 
 formed part of the next following citation in the 
 catena. The catena which we have had reason to 
 suppose Justin em23loyed, was one originally made in 
 Hebrew, translated into Greek, and afterwards col- 
 lated with the LXX. It may not be possible to show 
 evidence of this process in the citation we are dealing 
 with, but such a process might, readily enough, pro- 
 duce its peculiarities. It would appear that the 
 
 MESSIANIC I'ltOl'UfiClES 
 
 221 
 
 Psalter as well as the Chronicles must have been 
 collated in producing the text cited by Justm. 
 ■ No uitcrence can be drawn from the form of the 
 „uotation in ' Trypho.' The omission of the words utto 
 rov ^6\ov appears to show that it has been assimilated 
 to the LXX by the hand of some copyist. 
 
 I will now pass on to consider what inference ought 
 to be drawn from the foregoing facts with reference to 
 our present inquiry. 
 
 The first is certainly this, that there was some 
 secondary authority upon Messianic prophecy which 
 was largely and blindly followed in the primitive 
 Church, and that without referring the alleged pro- 
 phecies to their context. ^, . ,u- 
 The second point which we may infer is that this 
 authority was of such a nature that blunders of all 
 sorts were made by using it, such as referring passages 
 to the wrong authorities and causing them to be cor- 
 rupted We see further that Justin, in using this 
 authority directly or indirectly, endeavoured to refer 
 the passages to their context in the LXX, and when 
 he could not find them accounted for his inability 
 to identify them by supposing the copies of that ver- 
 sion to have been mutilated by the Jews. But, not- 
 withstanding, later writers appear to have continued 
 to cite the passages as if there were no doubt of then- 
 authenticity. . J i- , ,1 
 
 These facts would be well accounted for by the 
 extensive circulation of a catena of Messianic prophecies 
 extracted from the Old Testament as well as from 
 some apocryphal book or books which were accepted 
 by the writer. 
 
 jL 
 
222 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 If we suppose this catena was originally written in 
 Hebrew or Aramaic, and extracts were made in it 
 from some book or books which were never translated 
 into Greek, we can well understand how the source of 
 some of these extracts should be unascertainable. 
 
 We have therefore here further evidence of the 
 existence of such a work in the primitive Church, and 
 even if this latter evidence is not so definite as to the 
 exact character of the work as that we have had occa- 
 sion previously to consider, of the existence of some work 
 upon Messianic prophecy having wide circulation and 
 authority in the primitive Church, it appears to be 
 absolutely conclusive. On no other theory can we 
 account for different writers, one after the other, citing 
 and building their faith upon the same non-existent 
 prophecies. 
 
 Note. — In the foregoing remarks I have not con- 
 sidered a theory which has been very prevalent in 
 Germany though not in England. Critics who interpret 
 \6yia KvpiaKci to mean ' the discourses of the Lord ' 
 often by an analysis of the synoptic gospels separate a 
 part which they suppose to be derived from such a 
 work. It is not to the purpose I have in hand to 
 examine into the correctness of this analysis. It may 
 well be that portions of the synoptic gospels are so 
 separable, and can be shown to have come from kucIi 
 a work, but the work can hardly be that attributed to 
 Matthew by Papias, for that work was written in 
 Hebrew, while, as bus been shown, the Old Testauient 
 citations in the discourses of Jesus invariably come 
 from the LXX, and the discourses themselves 
 dovetail into the citations in such a way as to show 
 
 MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 223 
 
 that the original writer of them must have used the 
 LXX Admitting, therefore, that the crxt.cism wh.ch 
 discovers this book of discourses is ;=""«<^^' *^^ ^^^^ 
 cannot have been that attributed by lapias to 
 
 Matthew. 
 
ArPENDIC]J^]S 
 
 Arn^NDTX I 
 
 IIKMAIIKS UroN Tllli TUANSLATION 01' TlIK I'UAGMENT OK TArlAK 
 UIOLATINO TO MAUK 
 
 TiiEiiK arc throe iioints in wliicli my rendering of tliis passage 
 is likely to be callert,in (juestion. 
 
 (1) ' Witliont arrangement ' for ov r(!|fi. 
 
 (2) ' Did not act wrongly ' for nvHiv ij^ii^jrf. 
 
 (U) ' llclated ' for efivrfixiiufvafy and Anfiivrjiiovivfrfv. 
 
 (1) Many critics translate ov ni^n ' not in chionolorjical order.' 
 
 Tims Bleek says {Intrndiictiun to Ihe New Tesln>iicnt,\o\. i. 
 § IH), 'iw Tii^fi, when used in reference to an historical treatise, 
 can only mean "not m the chronological order wherein the 
 iiiilividiial had done them." ' 
 
 It is begging the ijiieslion to assume that I'apias was speak- 
 ing of an hisiorical treatise. JJiit, passing this by, even of an 
 historical treatise the remark is inaccurate ; otherwise Gibbon 
 for instance, when he pursues the method explained in his forty- 
 ciglith chapter, would be described as writing nv iiifji. 
 
 The things said and done by (."hrist might be arranged upon 
 many dilTorent plans, e.g. according to the iirophecies of which 
 they were supposed to be tlic fullihnent, or the moral duties they 
 enforced. 
 
 I'lUt this is, aftiu- all, rather beside the iiuoslion. The word 
 rii Jif , when applied to a discourse or treatise, means arrangement 
 generally, as when Aristotle, in the third book of his ' lllietoric,' 
 says, Xutirox S( n-f/d ni^tus fiVtiv (' it remains to spcalc about 
 arrangement ')• 'f'he denial of riJ^if , therefore, to a treatise denies 
 not merely chronological, but any sort of orderly orrangement. 
 
 (I 
 
226 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 How great a Btuniblingblock, however, this phrase (ou /kV toi 
 Tii|fi) is in the way of any one who would apply the words of 
 rapias to ourEecond canonical gospel, may be seen by the cITorls 
 made to avoid it by a forced renderinj;. Thus in Clark's ' Ante- 
 Nicene Library ' it is rendered ' not, however, in exact order.' 
 
 (2) The rendering I have here adopted is substantially that 
 made use of in the first instance by the author of' Siipornatiiral 
 Keligion ' following certain German authoriticK, niid afterwiirds 
 (iomewhat modified in conKeipienco of the acrimonious altaoKs of 
 Dr. Lightfcot. Tlie verb (i/iii/)T-(li'fii' may mean either to make a 
 mistake, or to Bin, or do what is morally blameworthy. Tlic 
 (juestion is, what meaning has it in this passage ? 1 think the 
 latter, i.e. I think Fnpias means that Mark was not morally 
 blameworthy for writing without unangoniont. i'apias has 
 already said that what Mark relatcdhe wrote accurately (iiK^)i/tJaic). 
 The rendering of Dr. Lightfcot would make a mere useless repe- 
 tition of this statement. 
 
 Again aan oiSfv flfininf Mii/jKos is a coiiseiiueuce of whai 
 went before, viz. of the explanation why Mark wrote without 
 arrangement. It is a natural conseijucnce from that uxiiliination 
 that Mark ought not to be blaniod for doing the best he could 
 under the circumstances, but it would not be u natural conse- 
 quence to say that he made no mistake. In other words, the 
 antecedent stating the imperfection of Iiis means of information, 
 gives a reason why Mark might be excused for making mistakes, 
 not for his not making any. 
 
 (3) Mark could not properly be said to have remembered 
 the things said or done by Christ. What he might remember 
 were the words of I'eter. Moreover I'apias goes on to say that 
 Rfark did not pass by any of the thiiigH which lie htdnl. I'liiiijiH 
 therefuro menus that Murk committed to writing uvc^.^ lliiiig that 
 I'eter told him. To say that he wrote merely as many things 
 as ho remembered would imply tliat he had forgotten some. I 
 therefore adopt the rendering 'related.' 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 227 
 
 appendi.n: II 
 
 PLACES IN WHICH Xiiyicil' OCCUKS IN TlIK LXX 
 
 Nuuibei's xxiv. 4, 1,'). 
 
 I'tialiii.s xi. (xii.). (i. 
 ,, \\\\. (x\ iii.). :s . 
 „ xviii. (xix.), 1-1. 
 „ civ. (cv.), H). 
 „ cvi. (cvii.), n. 
 „ cwii. (cxix.), ;iH. .'•)0, r.H, 07, 7(), HJ, 10;!, i;i;i, ho, 
 
 MS, lr>H, l(i-.i, Ki'.l, 170. 
 „ cvh ii. IT). 
 Isaiah xxviii. lif. 
 ,, XXX. '27 twice. 
 Kirclu'v gives several rcfcicncus wliich I was imable to verify, 
 probably owing to u.sing the cmnnion or Vatican text instead of 
 llio Aldine used by Kirchur. lie also refers to several places 
 under the head Arjyn,!/ wliere the conniioii text reads Xuythiv, 
 meaning a part of the high priest's vestments. 
 
 APPENDIX III 
 
 I'UILO THE AUTHOR OK THE ' 1)E VITA lONTEMl'LATlVA ' 
 
 Jt is, perliaps, due to the learned authi>rities who liavc dis- 
 piilcd the geiiuiiirncss of the ' De Vila ('oiili'inplaliva ' that 1 
 tihoiild slate my irasons I'lir ililhH'ing fium IheJii. 
 
 Though always reputed u, work of PhiUi's, from the time of 
 Eusebius who makes the earliest extant mention of it downwards, 
 it docs not contain any direct statement as to who was its 
 author, but it begins with a reference to the author having made 
 mention in a previous treatise of the Essenes. We find sucli a 
 treatise among the works ascribed to Philo in the ' Quod Omnis 
 Probus Liber.' 
 
 This treatise again docs not contain any statement as to its 
 author, but it is addressed to one Theodotus, and makes reference 
 
 u 2 
 
'■^ 
 
 228 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 to a former treatise apparently addressed to the same person on 
 the converse topic : ' Our former treatise, O Theodotiis, was on 
 every slave bein;,' bad ' (nfpi rnO jriivra SoiXov f'l/ai <f>ai\nv). No 
 such treatise is now extant, but we learn from Eusebius that 
 he had in his hands a book ascribed to Philo under tlie title Trj,)! 
 ToC BovX.ov thai wiivTn (fxwXov, which was no doubt the book 
 referred to. 
 
 Tutting aside for tlie present the possibility of the forgery of 
 the ' De Vita Contemplativa,' the question is whether these three 
 books were rightly ascribed to Philo, and the first book addressed 
 to Theodotus, which would be the most likely of the tliree to 
 contain any evidence of authorship, being lost, it is evident that 
 we are in a very mifavourable position to review the judgment 
 of Eusebius and others, who had that book in their hands, that 
 Philo was the author of all three. 
 
 Proceeding however as best we may by the criticism of the 
 two books which remain, the first point to consider is what 
 internal evidence they contain of their date. Now in the book 
 'Quod Omnis Probus Liber,' cap. 12, we find the followinfj 
 passage : 'Ko-rt fit kiu 17 niiXmo-TiVi; kgI 7.vi)ia KuXmnyiOitis iwK 
 ("yoras >)x n<iKviii'6i>ii)nnTiiTov tdpnvs rwv 'liivhaiuiv riint lUiyij /ijlna 
 if'/<(T(ii. Af'yiiiTiii Tii/f f rrii/)' tivTais oi/i)/j<i 'luramoi n-MJflrir iVf^j TtTfiii- 
 Ktir)(Oi.">vsKm' (fit'iv Hn^iiv. . . . iw (ioii KiiTiiflviiVTn- Tills sditonicnt 
 as to tlie largo part of llio very numerous luttion of tlio .lews 
 living in Palestine, could hardly have been made after the dis- 
 persion of the Jews by Titus, nor could the Esscnes have been 
 specially singled out as not sacrificing animals, after the destruc- 
 tion of the Temple had brought it to pass that all the Jews had 
 ceased to sacrifice at all. 
 
 Again, a great part of the ' De Vita Contejnplaliva ' is taken up 
 by a description and denunciation of tlio extraordinary and scanda- 
 lous luxury of tlie Italian banquets. Now we learn from Tacitus 
 that this luxury came to an end when Vespasian invited the 
 provincial families to Heme (' Ann.' lib. iii. caji. 55). Juvenal, 
 who wrote under or after the Flavian dynasty, makes the niggard, 
 linoss of entertainments a frequent theme for his satire, thougli 
 lie sometimes contrasts by woy of emphasis tiie c-xponBC a rich 
 glutton would be at for his own eating. 
 
 These indications of time support one another, and as we 
 cannot suppose. that had the war in Judaea been actually going 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 229 
 
 on, or only recently ceased, it would have escaped the notice of 
 tlie writer, iiulicatc some time brfoio tlio coiiimencpnienl of that 
 war as tlie latest date to «liicli either book can lie as.'^igiied. 
 
 Further, the writer of the books is a man uoU read in Greek 
 literature, wlio is a Jew and not a Christian, and tlie books con- 
 tain no allusion to the Messiah, or to any distinctly Christian 
 doctrine. In pai ticiiliir, tlicro is no allusion to luiy of (lie ques- 
 tions which originated in tlie teachiiigof Paul, e.g. to the lawful- 
 ness of Jews eating with Gentiles, or the necessity for circum- 
 cision. 
 
 Now when it is remembered that the writer is a Ilellenizer 
 who would evidently persuade his countrymen to fol'ow his 
 - example in the zealous study of Greek literature, and to reconcile 
 its teaching witli that of tlieir own sacred books by allegorical 
 interpretations, it is certain that if the movement wliicli 
 originated in the teaching of Paul had taken place at the lime 
 he wrote, he woulS have felt much interested in it. 
 
 What view he niiglit have taken of that movement we may 
 not be able to say : whether he would have supported it, or have 
 felt called on to defend himself from the charge, whicli would 
 certainly have been made against him as a Ilellenizer, of sup- 
 porting it ; but we may be certain that he would not have been 
 able to [lass by that luovciiiont ill sil(Mii'e. 'I'Iid aliseiice, ihcri'- 
 foic,iii Kiich a book as tlio ' De Vita C'oiilcnqilativa ' wliirli deals 
 especially with manners, of any reference to the Pauline move- 
 ment, is strong evidence that the book was written before that 
 niovenient originated, which will bring it to the age of Philo. 
 
 The notice of Egypt and Alexandria would lead further to the 
 inference that that was the country of tlie author. Diit if it bo 
 conceded that the books arc of the age of Philo, I do not suppose 
 any one will care to dispute that their asciiiitioii to him is correct. 
 The writer gives a particular description of the mode of life 
 of persons whom he calls Therapeutae, and Eusebius declares 
 that iheic can- be no doubt tliat the practices so described are the 
 same as those which prevailed among Christians in his day. I 
 do not dispute the accuracy of this identification, but it must bo 
 remembered that the doctrines held by the Therapeutae are not 
 described with any exactness, though enough is said to show that 
 they were not Christians, hut Jews. There appears, therefore, 
 no dilliculty in supposing that the societies of Therapeutae, as 
 
230 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 described in tlie ' Tie Vita Oontemplativa,' existed in the time of 
 Philo, being then composed of Jews ; tliat they afterwards adopted 
 the teaching of Tanl and so became Christians, but that they 
 continued their peculiar organisation and way of life, whicli thus 
 foimd its way into the Christian Church. 
 
 I will now return to the question of the probability of the 
 ' De Vita Contemplativa ' being a forgery. Supposing the book to 
 be genuine, it shows thata great mass of Christian customs whicli 
 were currently supposed to have been instituted by the apostles 
 were really m\ich older, and must havo come from some other 
 source. 
 
 If the book be a forgery, it must have been the object of the 
 forger to establish this conclusion. This is an object whicli I 
 cannot attribute to any one in the first three centuries. 
 
 APPENDIX IV 
 
 VARIOUS QUOTATIONS AND UENDKEINQS OF ISAIAH xlii. 1-4 
 
 Isaiah xlii. 1-4, as (juoted Jlatthew xii. 18-21 : — 
 
 'iSou, o nais ^ou, of yp€TitT(ty a «y(i7r»;roff /lou, us ov (vboKTjafif 
 If yj^vx^) ^ov. QtjfToi Til Tvvfv^n fnw eV nurof, Kiii Kj)ifTiv nns tOvdriv 
 ttntiyyf\il. Qvk tptfrti ov&( Kinwytiirft^ ov!i( uKtwirft Tiv <V Tan' 
 7r\ttT(uus Tijv ffxiivfjv aitrov. Kd'Aa/iot' (TVvrfTpi}xy.ivov ov Knrcfi^ct, 
 
 Km \lvOV TV(j)t1flCV0V ov IT^€(Tfl, f(i)C UV fV/3(iA?/ (Is flKOS TfJV KjyLfTLV. 
 
 K(U red uvopari ai/Tov (Ovq f\7riov(riv.^ 
 
 The same passage, as quoted Justin, ' Dial.' c. cxxiii. : — 
 *htKo)lS (I ntiis fJLoVy (fi'rtXr;>//()/x(U iivTuit' 'l<r/mr/X (k\«ktus /ioi', 
 
 Of]trti) Tit TTVfVfui fltW (TT* dUTOI', Kill Kj)ltrtV Tins fdvftTiV i^oitTd, UVK 
 
 tititrfL ovTf Kpti^fi, nvTf aKuvaeTai Tis cV Tins 7rX(iT(i(iif Ti)t^ (^iiivijv 
 aiiTov* KaXap-ov avvTeTptp-pfi/nv ov KiiTfii^et Kat \ivov Tvff}op(i^o ' tiv 
 fii) fTlietT€tf iiXXfi fiff fWi'jdfiiiv f^iit(Tfi, Kpiinv (ii/fiXr/^ft, Ktn nv pif 
 6finv(Td!](T(Tm (<i>s ttv 6fi <Vi Tffs yrjs Kpitriv Koi «'jri tw ovo'/ihti uvtov 
 fKniovfTiv fBfq. 
 
 ' The pnssape from Matthew is quoted nccoiding to Gricsbnch. 
 Westcott and Hort omit the fis in the phrase ds tv fvS6Kj}tr(i', and 
 Xiegelles has, instead of this phrase, iv ^ riMKiiny. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 281 
 
 The saiiio passage, as qnotrd .Iiistin, ' Dial.' c. cxxxy.: 
 •l,,<i>,i ,; TTuls pov, ,'n,r.\i,foi.m a^ToC,- K<n ■l,r,,,.,,X «_ «X«r»f 
 ,„v, ^,,.MrS.-|er,u air!,. /, f^VI M-u. A.fi...,. W, n.U'pu pov .n 
 
 ,r,T.u U- n <h^'l '-""■ ""'^"l^"" -'Spavap.^'o. ov cv^p.^u Km 
 
 X;.«. rvcfcoM-o"- ol <r3/cr», ?«. ,/v .t.o. Hoiau, .^.<rj. avuM^^u, .m ... 
 
 6pav.eCr.Tiu, .-a.r ,% fl.V .Vi rfj. y^. Kp.V..- Ka\ .m T0> u.op.r. avTov 
 
 iXirmva-iii cOvrj. tvv 
 
 The same passage, according to the LXX :— , 
 
 •I,..i3 .; TT.U pnv, ■!^.X,',foM'« "iroi- •l<rpai^ " «^^_";"»- j'"^^' 
 
 'n„..T..\s".6....vik<n<r.. Oi K.Kpu^.T.u, ov8. ...,,aa ovH, UKov.e.,-^ 
 L.U et.. /, 4>'o,'!, .urnu. K.iXnM''- T.6X".rfi.V«. o. avyi^lru k,u 
 X.Vo. K..nnC<>p.uo. ul aliaru, .iXXa .Is <1X^5»«. .'loiac. .,mr... A.,.- 
 Up^u, K,u oi OpavaeiiiT^Tiu ?a,f .1. er, .Vi r.> y-jt K/..<r.., Km .tt. 
 T,i iWmiiTi uiroi i'ei^i} e\Tn»i<Tiv. ,, ^ ,. „„,i 
 
 ' The Alexandrine codex reads Kpa^.Tm for ««p<.|.ra., ami 
 „.„e^X,.,.M-- H r.eXmr.h,,., and the fragments of Ongen s 
 ■Ilexapla' disclose two other various readmgs, u- r,per.ac. loi 
 ^,„„rcS^^m, m<T,\v, and .V T^ vopif for in\ ra. "™^""-'- 
 
 The same pHSsa.-o according to tlie revised English version . 
 •Behold my servant whom I uphold, my chosen in whom my 
 soul delighteth. I have put my spirit upon him, he shal bring 
 forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry nor lift up 
 „orcaus:his voice to bo heard in the street A bruised re 
 .hall he not break and the smoking llax s laU he no quench, e 
 shall biin<. forth judgment in truth. He shall not tail i.or be dis- 
 comli^ed^tillhe ha;e set judgment in the earth, and the isles 
 
 shall wait for liis law.' rl,n>,-nn • 
 
 Tlu. sa.no passage according to the version of Mr. Clieyne . 
 
 .J'.ela.ld i,ns..rvaMtuhom 1 uphold, M.ino elect n, whom my 
 
 soul is well pleased. 1 have put m.v spirit upon lum he shall 
 
 crns the law to go forth to the nations. He sliall not cry nor 
 
 Lnour, nor .ause his voice to he heard in the stree . A crushed 
 
 7 era. .ed) reed he shall not break and a dnnly bnrnmg wick 
 
 s all no quench, truthfully (more /./. ' accoixlmg to the 
 
 lid of truth ') shall he cause the law to go fortj He shaU 
 
 not burn dimly, neither shall his sp.nt be crushed (Ut he shall 
 
 71 be dim nor be cracked') till he shall have set the law m the 
 
 earth, and for his teaching the counlncs wait. 
 
'«l 
 
 232 
 
 Tllli; ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 According to Tlioodotion, as appears from the extant fragments 
 of Origen'B ' Hexapla,' the passage began, "iSou <> n-nit /touiim-tXi)- 
 yl/eTiuavTov KOI (Wikti'is finv uv <]v3i'>Ki^(Tfi' ') ^v)(i'i itnv, aiul it appears 
 by the same aiitliority thatbotliTheodotion andSynimachushad 
 \ivuv afiaviii'tv instead of XiVoi/ xdjri'ifdfiei'Di'. Tlieodotion's ren;ler- 
 ing shows traces of the inflnenco of the rendering of Rfatthew, 
 or more probably of tlie source from wliicli it was deri\ ed, but 
 lie cannot have followed that source at all closely as is shown in 
 the rendering Xivuv nfMuvpiiv instead of \ivnv rmfxititvov in which 
 Jfatthew and Jnstin agree. After writing the above, I oanu^ 
 upon a careful study of the same passages in Dr. Hatch's ' lOssays 
 in liiblical Greek' (p. 199), to which I would refer those who wish 
 to pursue the matter further. 
 
 APPENDIX V 
 
 THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS I'AMPHILUS, 
 HOOK III. ClIArTEU XXXIX 
 
 Of tlie writiiKjs of Ptipins. 
 
 Writings of Papias, five in number, are in circulation, wliicli 
 have been entitled ' of an exposition of Dominical Oracles ' 
 (Aoyi'ojx KvpiaKwv f^r]yr)<Tfu)s). Of these Irenaeus also makes 
 mention as alone written by him, saying somewhat as follows : — 
 
 ' But these things Papias also, a man of primitive times who 
 had been the hearer of John and the companion of Polycarp, 
 testides in writing in tlie fourth of his books. For there arc 
 live books composed by him.' 
 
 So far Irenaeus ; but Papias liimself in the introduction 
 to hia discourses shows himself to have been by no means a 
 pupil and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but tells us by the 
 words which he says that ho received the things pertaining to 
 the faith from those who were well known to them :— 
 
 ' But I will not hesitate to arrange in order for yon with the 
 interpretations, whatever things at any time I well learned from 
 the elders and well remembered, having thoroughly establislicd 
 the truth concerning them. For I did not, as most men, take 
 
 Al'PKNUICES 
 
 233 
 
 pleasure in those who say most, but in those who teach what is 
 trno nor in those who relate the comniandmonts of another 
 n.an', bnt in those wlu. relate the commandments given by the 
 Lord to the taith and coming from the trnth itselt. But if any^ 
 where any one came who had been a follower ot the elders, I 
 used to search alter the words of the elders. W hat Andrew or 
 what I'etersaid? (..V...), or what Philip or what Ihon.as .^ or 
 .lames? or what ,Iohn? or Matthew'? or any other of the 
 disciples of the Lord, an,l the llm.gs which Anst.on and John 
 the ..ld..r, the disciples of the Lord, say (A.>„..ru.). lor I did no 
 apprehend that things out of books prohted me so much as what 
 was said by the living and abiding voice.' \Vliere also . is 
 worthy to be noticed that he twice mentions the name of Job i, 
 and the man of that name first mentioned he associates wih 
 Peter James, and Matthew, and the rest ol the apostles, clearly 
 meaning the evangelist, but the other John he puts in a separate 
 clause, ^ud classes with others outside the number of the apost es^ 
 placing Aristiou before him, and he clearly names hi.u the 
 elder ' So that through tliese tilings also is shown to be true 
 the account of those who have said that there were two in Asia 
 who bore the same nan.e, and that there were two sepulchres m 
 ].;plu.sus and that each is still to this day called John s .. 
 which things it is necessary to pay attention. Lor it is .key 
 that the second, if one would not admit the hrst, l-eheld e 
 revelation which is in circulation under the name of Join 
 Liias also of whom we are now speaking, acknowledges tha 
 LCk he' words of the apostles from those who had followed 
 t leitbut says that he was himself . hearer of Aris t.on and 
 John the elder. At least lie frequently mentions them by name 
 fmcr^iaL's their traditions in his writings. And let not these 
 thin"s be said by us to no purpose. 
 
 It seems woith while, in addition to the bclore-ciuoted words 
 of Papias, to toucli upon other sayings of Ins in which he 
 relates one e.lraordinary thing (.-..-iS-f ■) after another as having 
 come to him from tniditioii. . , , ■ , , 
 
 That Philip the apostle stayed at Ilierapohs witli his daugh- 
 
 ters has been shown above, but that Papias, being conte.npoiar.v 
 
 t them, relates that he had received a wonderful statement 
 
 f mn he daughters of Philip, u-ust be now shown. He nar- 
 
 ate tl- resunection of a corpse having taken place in his time, 
 
234 
 
 TJIE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 niul again nnotlier extraordinary tiling whicli happened aboiit 
 Justus (vlio was surnanied liarsabas, as to his drinking a noxious 
 drug and through the grace of God enduring no liarni. And 
 that this Justus after tlie ascension of the Saviour, the holy 
 apostles botli appointed with Matthias, and prayed over for the 
 hit of filling up their number instead of the traitor Judas, the 
 book of the Acts somewliat thus narrates : — 
 
 ' And tliey appointed two, Josepli called Barsabas who was 
 Burnanied Justus and Matthias, and they prayed and said — ' 
 
 Tlie same man has reported other things also as having conio 
 to him from unwritten tradition, both certain strange parables of 
 the Saviour and teacliings of his and some other things ratlier 
 fabulous. Among which also he says tliat there will be, after 
 the resurrection from tlio dead, a certain tiiousand years wlien 
 tlio kingdom of Christ is corporally sot up upon this earth. 
 Which I believe he has imagined, having misconceived tlio 
 apostolic narratives, not liaving understood the things said by 
 them mystically in signs. 
 
 l'"or he appears a man of exceedingly small understanding, to 
 judge from his books, and yet lie has become the cause of the like 
 opinion with himself in very nniny who came after him of the 
 ecclesiastical writers who have put forward the antiijuity of the 
 man, as, for instance, Irenaeus, and whoever else has declared 
 that he thinks tiie same. And in his own book he hands down 
 other statements of Aristion before described, of the words of the 
 Lord, and traditions of John the elder. To whieli referring those 
 eager to learn, we will bo content to set forth a tradition in 
 addition to those words of his before set out, wliich was set out 
 about Mark who wrote the gospel, in these words. 
 
 'And the older said this. Mark liaving bcconio the inter- 
 preter of Peter, as many things as ho related either said or done 
 by Christ, wrote correctly but not in order, for he neither heard 
 the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, us I said, followed 
 Peter who used to make his teaching according to the occasion, 
 but not as making an orderly compilation of dominical oracles 
 [or discourses] so that Mark erred in no respect in thus writing 
 some things as he related them. For of one thing he took care, 
 not to pass by any of those things which he heard or to falsifv 
 anything in them.' 
 
 APPENDICES i!o5 
 
 These things then have been narrated by I'apias about Jfark, 
 Imt about Matthew these things have been lold. 
 
 Matthew compiled the oracles in the lleluew language, but 
 each interpreted them as he was able. 
 
 The same nun has used testimonies from the first epistle of 
 John and of Peter. And he has set forth also another nar- 
 rative about a woman falsely accused to the Lord of many 
 sins, which the gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And 
 let these things be observed by us cuisorily in addition to the 
 things explained. 
 
 There can, I think, be no doubt that ' falsely accused ' is in 
 the absence of cause to the contrary the jiropcr rendering of the 
 Ovcok !iiii,i)>illhl<r<it, hn[ certain writers have a strong desire to 
 see in this passage an allusion to the story of the wuniaii taken 
 in adultery to l)e )i)und in the common text of the fourth evan- 
 gelist, and inHueuccd by this desire they translate the word 
 "accused ' simply without the ' falsely.' Had the story mentioned 
 by Papias been the well-known story ciiutainod in the fourth 
 giispel, it is not likely that Eusebins would have referred it to the 
 gospel according to the Hebrews. Theuse of the word8iii/SXv6fi(r';f 
 shows that the story mentioned by Papias must have been of a 
 dilferent cast, perhaps modelled on that of Susanna. 
 
 Even il Smli\<idtitrj]i without any controlling context could be 
 properly translated by the word 'accused ' simply, it would be a 
 very hazardous, conjecture that it was the well-known story of 
 the woman taken in adultery which was alluded to, but Mr. 
 Harmer has, on the faith of this coiijcctiU(^ piinled the story in 
 the list of IVagnienls ol I'apias, and, what is more, by iirintiug it 
 in larger lyiie has indicated that the MSS. of the gospel which 
 coiitaiii this story ought to be supposed to tell it in the words of 
 Papia,s. This is very far-fetched. Even if it is the story men- 
 tioned by i'apias, the language of the fourth gospcd would 
 more probably be founded on that of the gospel according to 
 the Hebrews. 
 
 Drs. Westcott and Hort give the rendering 'maliciously 
 accused,' hoping that this, without doing violence to the Greek, 
 might bo made apidicable to thn story in the roiirlh gospel, but the 
 word ' maliciously ' is no more applicable than the word ' falsely." 
 
236 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 The object of the accusers was not to injure the woman but to 
 lay a trap for Jesus. 
 
 To the other learned writers who have contended that this 
 passage contains an allusion to the woman taken in adultery 
 must be aidded the late Dr. Hatch. He does so very obliquely 
 by taking it for granted that the passage is an allusion to the 
 woman taken in adultery, and citmg it as an instance of a jiost- 
 classical use of the word SmSiiXXfir/ as applicable to a true accu- 
 sation. As he devotes an article to the ecclesiastical use of tlio 
 words Si<ifloXot and SuiiydXXm, we may presume that he produces 
 all the evidence tliat his great learning enabled him to lay hands 
 on. We see then that he has only one case to bring forward of a 
 post-classical use of Ski^iiXXm in Luke xvi. 1. ' There was a 
 certain rich man whicli had a steward, and the same was accused 
 {SifUXijdri) unto him that he was wasting his goods.' Dr. Hatch 
 says that this accusation was presumably true, and hence that 
 the meaning of slander would bo inappropriate, but this is not so. 
 There is nothing in tlie context to require that the original accu- 
 sation was true ; the steward was afterwards called unjust on 
 accoimt of what he did after he knew he was to be dismissed, 
 not on account of what he had done before. 
 
 It must be farther noticed that if the difficulty as to the 
 meaning of 8iii/3iiXXf iv is surmounted, there remains the further 
 dilliculty that the woman in the fourth gospel is accused of one, 
 not of many sins. 
 
 APPENDIX VI 
 
 DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS 
 
 I HAVE assumed in the text the common date of the crucilixiou 
 of Jesus, that is a.v. 33. This date is not by any means esta- 
 blished beyond controversy, but o very simple consideration 
 determines a posterior limit for it which will prevent any (pies- 
 tion with regard to it materially prejudicing my argument. The 
 crucifixion cannot have been later than the last passover which 
 occurred while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea, and the 
 facts stated by Joseph\is enable us to fix this date in such a way 
 that it cannot be put later than a.p. 30, 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 237 
 
 Upon this I think everybody is agreed, though Koim contends 
 that the last passover of Pontius Pilate should be put one year 
 earlier, that is in A. n. 3r>. 
 
 The common dale of the crucifixion is that adopted l.y 
 Eusebius who based his detcrniiMation upon the statement in tho 
 third chapter of Luke, ' Now in the liftcenth year of the reign ol 
 Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea ... in 
 tho time of high piii'^t (,n\ .l,),v"/)<'''f) Annas and (^liaphas, the 
 word of God came unto John llic son of Zachanas ' (l''.usebms, 
 ' H. E.' lib. i. c. x.l. There are several remarks to make upon 
 this passage before considering how it is treated by Eusebius. 
 Tlie first is that it relates to tlie teaching of John, and only bears 
 upon the period of tlic teacliing of Jesus in that it is stated m 
 all the gospels that Jesus began to teach during the teachmg of 
 John. The second remark is that, as applied to the teachmg ot 
 John, the passage appears to present an inconsistency. Tho 
 first part appears |,o lix a point of tune for the commencement 
 of that teaching, while the last part appears to i.uhcate an ex- 
 tended period durin- «hich that teaching look place, and this 
 dilliculty does not vanish wlicn the matter is looked into more 
 closely, for we find from Josephus (' Anti.piities,' xviii. cap. ii. 1) 
 that Annas was appointed high priest by (Juirinius at the conclu- 
 sion of the census which was made in the thirty-seventh year alter 
 the battle of Actiuni, i.e. A.u. 6, and removed by Valerius Gratus 
 some time in the first nine years of Tiberius, i.e. A.i.. 14 to A.n. 
 23 and that after an interval of between two and three years, 
 du'rin-- which three different persons (Isinacl, Elea/.er, and Shiion) 
 were "successively appointed and removed from being high 
 priests, the same procurator appointed Caiaphas high priest who 
 continued to hold the office all the rest of the time Gratus was 
 procurator, and all the time his successor Pontius Pilate was pro- 
 curator alter which he was removed by Vilellius, accoidii.g to 
 most authorities in A.n. 37, but according to Keim in A.i.. 3(;. 
 AVe thus see that Annas and Caiaphas were successively high 
 priests for a period of thirty years or upwards, including the 
 interval of from two to three years during which Isinael, Eleazer, 
 and Shiion held the ollice. It further appears from Josephus 
 that Gratus was appointed procurator not long after the acces- 
 sion of Tiberius, and held the office for eleven years. Tho ap- 
 pointment of Caiaphas tlierelore cannot be put later than the 
 
238 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 eleventh or by bare possibility the beginninj; of the twelfth year 
 of Tiberius. These coiiRideratioiis sliow IhiU the statcmoiit of 
 Ijiiko ia iucunsistont willi itsulf. If .lohn boRan to toacli in the 
 fifteenth year of Tiberius, he did not begin until at least six years 
 after Annas had ceased to bo high priest ; and if John taiiglit 
 wliile Annas was high priest, he must have been teaching for at 
 least six years before the fifteenth year of Tiberius. 
 
 The passage in huke being tluis diflioilt, tlic interpretation 
 put upon it by Eiisebiua is still nioro difficult to follow. lie 
 appears to ha\e taken it as applying directly to the teaching of 
 Jesus, and to mean that his teaching comprised the interval 
 between the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. Tliis 
 interval, from the passage in Josephus I have referred to wliich 
 Eusebins quotes, lie makes o\it to liavo been somctliing less tlian 
 four years. How this can he does not appear. Josephus says 
 that Ismael was deprived not long after (h«t' hv tthXv) his 
 appointment, and that Eloazer and Simon each held office a 
 year, from which it would seem to follow that the tliree to- 
 gether nnist have been in office from two to three years. Of 
 course by taking in part of the terms of ofiicc of Annas aiul 
 Caiaphas it is easy to make four years or any time you please 
 up to thirty years. But it is impossible in this way to get any 
 determinate term. The only way I can at all follow the reason- 
 ing of Eusebins is by supposing that he means tliat he forms tlie 
 conclusion upon the construction of the gospels tliat Jesus 
 taught for something less tlian foiu' years, and intends to show 
 that this is consistent with his having ta\ight under Amias and 
 Caiaphas and for tlie interval between thein, but this is not 
 wliat Eusebius ajipcars to say. However this may be, if four 
 years for the duration of the ministry of Jesus are added to t)io 
 liftoenth year of Tilierius wo g(^t the niiiolconth yoai- of 'I'dx^rius 
 or A.n. UiJ as thu year of his dealli, Tlie grounds of lliis doler- 
 mination arc altogether untrustworthy, but though this is so the 
 date itself is probably not very far wrong. 
 
 As a posterior limit to the date can be determined from our 
 knowledge concerning the date of tlie removal of I'ilate, so an 
 anterior limit is fixed by the date of his appointment which 
 Josephus tells us was ten years earlier. This would make the 
 earliest possible date the jmssover of a.d. 26. The considerations 
 available for determining the date within these limits are these. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 289 
 
 All the gospels are agreed that Jesus was not crucified until after 
 the o^c^.•ulillM of .lolin the I'.aplist, au event which is mentioned 
 l,y Josephus iiiid of wlii'''' I'"' '''^''' '■"■" '"' »|ipi'>^iiiiatoly doter- 
 niiued. Josephus tells us that John was cxwuled by the orders 
 of Herod, who feared lie might raise a rebellion, and that the 
 Jews IhoMght a defeat sulfered by an army of Herod's in a 
 war a-ainst Aiclas, King of Arabia Petrea, was a .judgment of 
 God in conse.iucncc. It is a probable inlercncc that the defeat 
 was not lung after the execution of John, and moreover, Josephus 
 tells us that John was executed at MacheniK which just before 
 the outbreak of the war lie saxs was tributary to Arelas. We 
 must therefore suppose that Herod had acpiired the fortress 
 durin- the hostilities, and lliat tlu^refore John was not put to 
 deatiruutil after the oull.ivaU of tlie war. We tlius get the 
 execution of John fixed as having taken place after the outbreak 
 of the war and before Iho defeat of Herod's army. Josephus 
 be-ins his account of the war by slating that about tins lime or 
 luUiis interval (.'/rourw) Aretas, tlio King of Arabia Petrea, and 
 Herod had a .i.ianel. In the preceding seclioii he had men- 
 tioned thai Philip, Herod's brother, died in the twentieth year of 
 Tiberius (August P.), a.u. 'M to August PJ, A.i.. M). The war 
 therefore must have begun about this date. Josephus also tells 
 us that after the defeat Herod wrote and complained to Tiberuis 
 who ordered Vitellius, the President of Syria, to make war on 
 Arelas, and that Vitellius in conse(]ucnce collected an army 
 which he was leading against Aretas when he was iiitcmipted 
 by the news of the death of 'J'il.erius. As Tiberius died on March 
 lb, A.D. 37, it follows thai the defeat of Herod's army could not 
 have been' later than .some time in a.d. Ull. We thus lix the 
 execution of John as faking plaee some time between the years 
 \.i.. :>;! anil A.i>. ;'.Ci. As ue iiave aln-idv shown llial tlu) jiass- 
 ove'r of A.I.. ;i(i is llie lalisl possible dale fur Llio erucilixion of. 
 Jesus, we are lliiis enabled to lix the passover of A.n. 33 as the 
 earliest possible date, it appears improbable that the crucifixion 
 of Jesus took place so late as A.n. 3(i, for in that event it would 
 have been but a few moiilha before the removal of Pilate, and it 
 seems probable that his removal would have formed part of the 
 traditions recorded in the gospels and would most likely have 
 been looked upon bv the primiti\e Christians as a judgment 
 upon him. As this is not so, it would appear improbable that 
 
240 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 ! 
 
 the crucifixion was later than tiie passover of a.d. 35. Josephus 
 mentions that the cause of the war between Herod and Aretaa 
 was the slight put by Ilerod upon his wife, the daughter of 
 Aretas, in putting her away in order to marry llerodias, and ho 
 also says that Herod engaged to many Hcrodias when he was 
 setting out on a visit to Rome on sonio business, tlie nature of 
 which he docs not disclose. This intrigue was not discovered 
 by Herod's wife until he returned from Konio, when she lied to 
 her father and the war broke out. Now Keini witli considerable 
 probability conjectures that the business wliich took Herod to 
 Home, was to try and obtain from Tiberius the tetrarcliy 
 rendered vacant by the death of his brother Philip. If that is 
 so, the duration of the journey of Ilerod to Itomo, of liia stay 
 there and of his return, nmst be interposed between the death of 
 Philip which cannot have been earlier than the latter part of 
 A.D. 33 and the outbreak of the war. This would probably throw 
 that event after the passover of a.d. 34, and so bring us to the 
 ])a3sover of a.d. 35 as the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. This 
 is a probable, but by no means a certahi, conclusion, which is 
 maintained by Keim. 
 
 Attempts have been made to determine the date of the 
 crucifixion by astronomical computations. It is assumed that 
 the tradition of the Church may bo relied on that it took i)laco 
 on a Friday, and on a Friday which was the day after the day 
 on which the passover was eaten. Now the passover was eaten 
 on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, and the problem 
 therefore is to determine on which of the possible years of the 
 crucifixion the fifteenth day of the month Nisan fell on a Friday. 
 The Jewish months are said to have commenced on the evening 
 on which the now moon was first visible, and the month Nisan 
 to be the month the moon of which came tu tlio full first after 
 the vernal e<juinox. Astronomers are able to calculate the day 
 of the week upon which the moon wliich came to the full first 
 after the vernal equinox in any year would, upon the supposition 
 that the sky was clear, be first visible in Jerusalem, and several 
 astronomers have made such calcidations, and a table of the 
 results may be found in Dr. Salmon's ' Introduction to tlie New 
 Testament ' (p. 274, 4th edition). Tliough no doubt as a matter 
 of conrputation this table may be absolutely relied on, there are 
 several sources of doubt in applying it to the determination of 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 241 
 
 the matter at issue. One is whether we have any warrant for 
 supposing tluit tlie .Tewisli pnests, who wore not rciiiMikiiblc for 
 being good astrdnonicrs, detcrniiiiod llu' \tMnnl ('(|uinox cor- 
 rectly. Aniilhcr doubt is iis ti) wlicllicr llio Iheory iif fixing the 
 connnenccuient of the month by actual observation of the moon 
 was adhered to. Keim ('Jesus of Xazaro,' vi. •Jl'.i) sa.vs it wiis. 
 but various autlioritics cited in the inticlo ' Chidnoiogv ' in tlio 
 ninth edition of the ' ]'"ni'.voloi)BO(lia lliitannica ' (p. 711) iippenr to 
 state that the Jews at the time of tlu! Chi istiim era made use of 
 a cycle. Now as a lunation does not consist of an exact number 
 of days, any cycle nmst proceed upon some system by which the 
 deficiency of one mniitli would be compensatnl by the excess of 
 another, and this could scarcely be so adjusted tliat every month 
 shiiiild begin on tlie piecisc^ day tlie new moon was Ih-st visible. 
 If on the other hand the beginning of the month was di:teriiiined 
 in each case by observation, it must have been often delayed by 
 the state of tlie weathc^'. 
 
 There are other dilleienccs as to what the Jewish customs 
 actually were. For instance, whether they reckoned the first 
 day of the month as beginning with the evening on which the 
 new moon appeared or at the preceding midnight, and as to 
 whether they ate the passoAcr on the evening which formed the 
 end, or the evening which formed the beginning, of the fourteenth 
 day of the month. 
 
 The better opinion would seem to be that the day began in 
 the evening, and that the passover was eaten on the evening 
 which formed the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the 
 fifteenth day of the month. Taking this to be so, if Jesus was 
 crucified on a Friday, the passover must have been eaten as we 
 should a.ay thi\ Thursday previous, which woiibl la^ the fourteenth 
 dav of the month. The iiiooii thci-efore must liave been tirst 
 visible, weather permitting, as we should say on a Thursday 
 evenin". Applying this to Dr. Salmon's table we see that in the 
 year a.d. 34 tl(ere were tw o moons, either of which might have 
 been tlie paschal moon ; one the new moon of March 1), the 
 other the new moon of April 7. The first might have been 
 visible on Wednesday, March 10, and the second on Thursday, 
 April 8, or perhaps not till Friday, April 'J. This latter moon 
 is the only moon in the table which would, weather permitting, 
 ha\ c become first \isible on a Thursday, and if it were necessary 
 
 R 
 
¥ 
 
 '2t': 
 
 THK OR.\(.n,ES OF PAl'IAS 
 
 tluit this condition should bo fullilleil, April 2;i, a.d. !M, would bo 
 lixod H8 tlio dnto of Iho enioilixion, but tlio state of tlio woatlicr 
 niij;lit oasilv loud to tliu moon not lioiiif; seen for a nifjlit or two. 
 'I'ho moon wliioh is marked on the table as tirst beooniin^; 
 visible on Wednesday, Mareh 10, would therefore do as well, and 
 so 1 think would the nuion wliieh is marked as beeoming visible 
 on Tuesday, Maivh IJ'J, a.i>. !I,"i. 
 
 When the moon is nuvrked as not becoming visible till after 
 Thursday, the ease is ditVerent ; the stt^te of the weather could not 
 lead to its being observed earlier. a.i.. ay, when the moon 
 would not be seen till Fritlay or Saturday, and A.n. JIG, when 
 tho nvoon eonld not bo seen till k>im,lav, would therefore be 
 evohuled. 
 
 Tho conclusions to be drawn from those astronomical con- 
 siderations, whatever they may be worth, would thereforo point 
 to A. I'. !U or A. p. Ji."! ivs the _\oiir of the crucitixion. 
 
 So far lis astronomical considerations go, the years a.p. -H 
 and \.o. Ill stand ii\ nearly the same position as tho year a.i>. !!,''>, 
 thoni^h on other grounds tliev are excluded. 
 
 Arri'NPIX VU 
 
 f:XTK-Xi. r KKOM OKOniiK 1IA.M1UT0H.'S ANO MTK KKOM THK 
 COOhX llAKOl-flANUS AJ TO THK MAUTYKlx'M OK JOHN 
 
 TuK entir«> passage fivm Geoi-ge Ilamartolus is quoted in the 
 following words by Mr. Ilarmer in the abridged edition of 
 Lightfoot's 'Apostolic Fathers ' ; — 
 
 M»rA $< AofUTianir <'3 uri'\<iar« N<fi<'i<if <Vi>f (f, us •iniitiiXfirii- 
 ittroi 'lamrnir .'n rrjf w/irue ilirtXivfr ■ i\«i"- eV 'E<f>t>r<^- fiinvi rort 
 
 «vnl» <v.i>>«X'i>' A''|^"^'>''"'' •■'"■'/Jiiunii. llurri.u- yuji 6 UiMwoXtiai 
 cVtVs'-n-c.v, iiiru'irr'/j- Toi'iMe. ^<i',./.if n'v. f'r r<j> i%<Tf><[) Xo^.p rir 
 KVpMKiur Xo-ytwr «^,i.r<;ti. on iTru 'liii^diwi' iiri//itf''r irXi/jiuxrm- I'rjXuc'i) 
 Uttik rvv «5«X</ioe ri;i' tvv XfiurTijJ irf^i (u'rii- irfioVfii^rir <;ui 1-7K 
 iutrrir OfioAoyin" irf^ii tih'toi' <c.ii iri-jtiir,iA,ri»- ttnatr ><i).i o Ki'fjioir 
 xfius >ivT<'Ci- AvrairA nttlr ru irtirij^noi' o tyii miu) ; <.ii i.iriii«i- 
 iriirntr Kjiufivitati k^u ^rvr^ffiirwv ■ Tu Tr.>ri/(jcoK ^ii>e. </»/ffiV, irifirfif. 
 
 ArrKNDICR.s 
 
 243 
 
 Ktu Ttt 0(iVrt(T;ta o fytu jStiTTTtan^at ^tijTTnj6r)(T(aBf. kiu fiVurwf, 
 (Ji^i'idroi' -yu^ Heoi' ^fvtTmT&m. oertj (V Ktu o TTnKi'^iiiffi'jS 'Qfiiyefiji 
 (V Tfi KaT,\ MtirOmitp i^t^t)t'(t(t RtnliftiiHiwyrttij wi oTt fif/i(i/(ri'/»f;itf v 
 l'0<ii'iv;y, (K Tu'^' <'^i(ii5i'»\(iji' Tall' ttTTno-TiiXoii' vninrrjfjinit'afifi'vs TiivTa 
 ^tf^:aOi)Ktnti. Kill ^<V 5t) Ktil o T7oXi'urr<i.'/j Ki'trt/iit'js- «V r_»; (KKXijai- 
 iUTTiKi] iiTTopii^t </>t;trt' Uw^ttiy ^(eV n/f II(t/>^i<ii' (iAj/y^'S '^^*'*''''?f ^^ 
 n)!* AfTt'di', iT^tos ot'i Ktu fiitirttitj^tis tTeXfvnjtrff tv ^V.t^ttrta. 
 
 It will be noticed that a foil stop is placed after Ktirri^MTtu, 
 thus making tho (piotalion of I'lipias contiiuie indeliiiitely down 
 to titrmtr$i\cTt(jd( or huther. Whether this is Jlr. Ilarnier's own 
 IMUK'tuation or that of Nolle, from whom ho takes the extract, and 
 a^Jiin if the punctuation be that of Nolte, whether it is found in 
 tho MS. or supplied bj- him, I do not know; but, however this 
 may be, I think it is clearly erroneous. Tho statement of Papias 
 is II parenthesis and ends with tiy;if>i3ii. Hemovingthia full stop 
 I render tho passage as follows : — • 
 
 ' After Domitian Nerva reigned one year and he recalled John 
 from the island and sot him free to dwell in Ephesus. Being then 
 the i>nly one surviving- out of tho twelve apostles, and having writ- 
 ten the gospel ascribed to him, he was thought worthy of martyr- 
 dom i^lin- I'apias, the bishop of Ilierapolis, who was an eye-witness 
 of him, says, in tho second book of tho Dominical Oracles, that 
 he was killed by the .Tews), having fulfilled certainly with his 
 biMther tlio prophecy of Christ about them, and their own com- 
 pact and agreement about it. For tho Lord having said to them, 
 '■ Are ye able to drink the eiip that I drink ? " and they having 
 o.i^orly assented and agreed, " My cup," he says, " ye shall drink, 
 and with the baplisnx that I am baptised with shall ye bo 
 baptised." .\nd it was as was to bo expected, for it is impossible 
 that God shoidd lie. Hut so also the very learned Origen, in his 
 conn neutarv upon Matthew, maintains stronfjly.havingsubscribed 
 that he had learned this from the sooccssoi's of the Apostles that 
 John was a martyr; and indeed Ensebins also, tho great scholar, 
 says in his ecclesiastical history that Thomas was allotted 
 Tarthiii but John .\sia, where, having spent his days, he camo 
 to an end at Ephesus." 
 
 The note from the codex Baroccianus is given by Mr. Harmer 
 in the same work in the loUowing words : — 
 
 HiiTTuif 'If/ioTTilXfwy fTTurKoiTtti iiKoi'OTi/ff r«0 ^foXo'yoi' 'iwuffnv 
 yfvttfifyt^i, lloXi'Kii^TTt'i' 5e /riupof, ir<»Te Xuyoi'9 KVpitiKtiii^ 'Ktiyioiv 
 
f 
 
 244 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 eypailffv, ev oit t'mtiiiiSiiriaiv liiroaTo'Xui/ TTOioii/jji'Dt /itra ntTpov Ka\ 
 laidvvTiv, 4>i\tmTov Km Bafiiiv mil MiiTftiim' (if jiiiflijTiif tou Kum'iiu 
 iii'tyfiHi/^ti' ' ApitTTiaivu Kill 'Im<ii/i.i;>/ (TffMtv uv Km n,>(ajivTfj)<>v 
 (KiWfatv. if Tii'iit iiUaBm, urt [ins. tout-ou] tou 'Iiuiiri/iiu fiVii' oi 
 ouo fn'iOToXni ni fiiKprn kh'i KadoXimi, (ii t^ oi'd/iiiTor 'Imiii'i/ou 
 <\)fl}»fifiim, bill TO Titvt iii>\muvs rifv nf>a>Tijf fi6i'r)v (yKftiveiv rivts 
 Si Km Ti'iv annKii\v\j/tv ravrov 7rA(m;fl«i'rtv cVu/iiinii'. kiii lIiiTridf Hi 
 "■'/" '"')" X'^'"""""'')/''^" (T^iiXXfTni, t'^ (III icii! c Ki/iiji'iiioj. ITdTriiit 
 c'v TU fiein-f'po) Xci-yo) Xe'yfi, oTi 'laiii'i'i/t 6 ^foXci-yor xai 'Iuicw|3o9 o 
 a8f\<l>6s avTuv vnu 'liivSaicov avript6t](rav. naTri'iis 6 fipq^fvns 
 liTTopTja-fV G)f 7Taf)a\(i(iwv iitto rtuv dvyaTepaiif 4»iXi7r7rni), on l>iiDir«/:fnf 
 
 O ICIII 'loCuTOS SoKl^n^o/Ifl^OV I'JTO roil' aTTIOTOJI' llW ()(idvTJi TTIIiJI/ f 1/ 
 
 uvofiari Tov Xpii/Tov dnaOfis SLf(j}v\d\dq. laTopel Bi Km tlWa 
 daCfiara Ktii /luXiora to icoTa Ti^t* p-ryrtpa Mafiu/iou Tqv (k veKpojv 
 uvatTTaaav ntpl twv vtto tov XpiaTov (k vtKpwtf dvn(TT(ivTtLH'^ oti 
 €cof 'ASpiavcv t^iui'. 
 
 I think Mr. Hnriiier or his authority is in error in putting a 
 full stop after eViiXtajc, and in siipposing the words that follow 
 to be in the oblique narration and consequently the words of 
 Papias. The construction is ir with the infinitive introducing a 
 consequence. The punctuation and construction adopted by 
 Mr. Harmer leads to the absurdity that Papias is made to have 
 speculated as to the authority of the two short epistles ascribed 
 to John, and to have considered that they were the work of the 
 John he was acquainted with, and not of the apostle, because the 
 primitive fathers only accepted the first epistle. Who ca)i 
 these primitive fathers have been from whose conduct Papias 
 drew this inference '? They cannot have been the elders from 
 whom he collected his traditions, or ho would have asked 
 them the question point blank and been able to narrate their 
 answer. The opinion is evidently that of a lunch lator writer 
 tlian Papias; probably Jeromo was the originator of it (see 
 passage referred to in the text).' The silence of liusebius in this 
 case is of weight. lie expressly mentions that Papias used the 
 first epistle of John. If Papias had noticed the two other epistles 
 he would also have mentioned it. 
 
 I add a translation of the entire passage : — ' Papias, bishop 
 of Hierapolis, who had been a hearer of John the Divine and a 
 
 ' Ante, p. 37. 
 
 APPENDICES 2-15 
 
 conq)anion of Polycarii, wrote five books of Dominical oracles, 
 in which, making an eninncration of the apostles, after Peter and 
 John, I'liilip and Thomas and Matthew, he recorded as disciples 
 of the Lord Aristion and another John whom he also called 
 elder, so that some tliink that the two short catholic epistles 
 which lire in circnlation under llic name of Jolni are the works 
 (if this .lolni, because llie ancients iieecpl the lirsl only. ]>nt some 
 erroneously considered tlic Apocalypse also tlie work of this John. 
 And Papias also is mistaken about the nnllennium, and, following 
 him, IrenaeuR. Pajiias in his second book says that John the 
 Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews. The 
 aforesaid I'aiiias has narrated as having received it from the 
 daui'htors of Philip that l!ar.sabas, who is also called Justus, 
 being tested by the unbelievers, drinking the poison of a vijicr in 
 the name of the Christ, was preserved harmless. But he 
 narrates also other wonders, and especially that concerning the 
 mother of Manaimus, who was raised from the dead. About 
 tliose raised from the dead by the Christ that they lived until 
 Hadrian. . . . 
 
 APPENDIX VIII 
 
 EXTRACTS FllOM ANASTASIUS OF SINAI 
 
 Anastasius Sinaita, Contempl. Anagog. in Ilcxacni. i. 
 Sko quoniam carum ipias subjecinnis dubitatiomun cxiluni 
 non invenimus, ct in cis plane perplexi snnnis, et oinnino 
 haesitamns, freti ore sancti spiritiis: P.anli, inijnam, lingua, quae 
 dicit (juod quaecMnijuc sunt in lege, prius scriptasnnt in fignrani 
 Cliristi ct ipsinsocclcsiao : acecpta. si veto diepii! oportet.occasiono 
 e\ I'apia viioclarissinio UieiaiinliLMMci. qui di\il in l'',iiislelliio Clc- 
 mcnte.et Piinlaono Alcxiinihinu sacenlute, el.Vnnnonio sapientis- 
 sinio, inlerpi-ctibns velerumet priinornni conventione, qui totuni 
 llexaenieroii intclloxerunt do ChrisUi ct lOeclesia, post vere scn- 
 ^ileniseenluhnn lileriinierealioneni, eitra uUani dubilationcm sen- 
 Kunispoculantes I'kxlesiae.pro ipiannivcrsnsestnostri certaminis 
 scopus, ad hoc opus desccndimus. (Migne, 'P. G.' Ixxxix. p. 860). 
 
 Anastasins Sinaita in ' Ilexaeineron ' vii.: — 
 
 Oi fiii' "I'r iI))YciiiiTf/)oi riTir ('KirXijiruTii/ f|i/yr;ra)r, Xtyiu hi/ ■I'iXmv o 
 rf)iXii(r»'/)o£ Kill loiii liffoirniXuii' ofii'i,\;/iiii'iii- itiii lliiiriiis <i miXes d 
 
246 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPUS 
 
 'loxivvov ToO tiiiyytXctTToC (jiniTi^Trjs 6 'ifpnTroXiV^t ICipi/i'iiio'c t( 
 o AouyfiouytUf Ka\ ^{(Hhtt'ivus o ^I'lftrvs Km tjitKt'uTtiijtns iiavTmitTui 
 (lego llciiTiiixut) T( o 'AXf^iifS/jfir Kdi KXt)fii)t o Sr^jw^iiirfiir khi 
 oi a/i</j' nurouf, irvfviniTiKoiS ra TTf^i TrapafieiVou (dfoypfjSrjaav (forte 
 fSfwfit^traf) (is Tr}v X/>i(rTou fKK^^qtTiuv afafpepo^fvoi. 'K^ wv fifrij/ 
 Kill o( .;rr/>i 7r<in"(i wiii'(ro(/)ot Suo Kannadi'iiciit I'jjijyii^iiii. 'An-iiiTfS 
 fUJTnt €^ atV(a>i' Tiuutvde ^>ii(ncoi'T€r eiwii Kut nffVfiiiTiKt'ii' rifu TTd^ii- 
 
 Primum, quod si Adam non erat interitui obnoxins quiindo 
 factiis est, perspicuum (juod non fuit particeps alinienti toirestris 
 ct in (piod cadit interitus. Quod si potcrat esse particeps 
 ciboruiii sensiliniii, est etiaui perspicuum ijuuil in cum cudit 
 iiiteritus (ipiidipiid enim intrat per os rursus cxceriutiu). Si 
 aulcm in eum cadebat iiiteritus, omniiio orat otiam nuirtiilis ; si 
 nuteni creatus est mortalia, non ulicpie facta est mors per inobedi- 
 cntiaiu : atquo hacc ([uidem est prima causa interprctum (Migno, 
 'V .G: Ixxxix. p. OUl). Lightfoot, ' A. F.,' abridged cd. p. 521. 
 
 APPENDIX IX 
 
 NOTICE OF FAPIAS BY JOHN MALALAS 
 
 't\nu T^f fKdeat'jis 'lojdi'ioi/ 'A>Tio;(e'(i)s tT/s jrffii Xi"""^" ""' Kritriais 
 Ki'tirfiuv novrideiaijs, u>s </)r)frir, (irro (iil3\uiv Mwaeuf, 'A<^>piicii>'i){i, 
 EufTffilov, Xlanniov Kill Ai8Cfii>v, kiu fVf'/icji'. 
 
 IljoiTiii fK yr^t i'vd)>a>nns TrAiw^flf n 'A^i'i^ (itti'i HfiiO dxf /"r/joi/ 
 iiKLKuis iroStav r fxtra Tt]s ttvTnv Kf(/)riX^i-, ic.r.X. — Cramer, ' Anecdota 
 Uraccae codd. manuscriptis bibliothecae rcgiae Parisieusis,' vol. 
 ii. p. 379. 
 
 APPENDIX X 
 
 EXTHACTS FKOM DIONVSIUS THE AKKOrAGlTH AND MAXIMUS 
 THE CONFESSOR 
 
 'AXXoi 6f, ovK iiiS' oTT'oc fVi TT/joo-tlXour ivvoi.ts dnOKKlBtVTtS, 
 4lj,i)Ka(riv otiodhri rov Ti]8f ^iov Trfv Toif oa'wis twr]yye\fLii")v (iyim- 
 Tiirriv Kci fiiiKi<fiia>TaTr]v Xvltf, rat Tixifjjiis mVfiiit liXXiuwTo) /:<ia> ruir 
 iV(iyy(X«ir fiflf/iiTcor a7r(i)fit^nv. 'AXX' o.'k <i7riijTfir(iriii Ti'r jrort 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 247 
 
 • > ■„ \u T.it TM,\,rh( 7rX.ii'>,.r(i9. -Dionysius 
 \,oon, .' , ' l)e iMTl. lli.nucb.- cap. vn. (Rr,g..e, 1 • (■• »■•_■'-'); 
 
 ;.^; X,:. ■.l.ii. OS... y-V " na.i.. .V ., xe..,.ro, ,.u.ou 
 
 „„,,-.;,,_Maxin,us Confessor, Scholunn on tl.e abo^c passage 
 
 (Mignc, 'P.O.' iv. 170). 
 
 Maxinn Scholia in Lib. deCaelesUlI.orarch a.-- 
 
 (Migne, 'P. G.' iv. 48). 
 
 APPENDIX XI 
 
 i.AiK oi' iiir. MAKTvm.oM OI- roiA.'Aiir 
 
 ,„..N.v,a.s describes Papias as ibe branT olMohn, b„t llu; eon,- 
 
 ■nnionof Polycarp. •l.o,i..v,u ^.iv .i.^.rr,;., ll.,X„<„jm„u5. .r,,,,... 
 
 !^ rwould s^n. to i.uply tbat in tbe opimon ol 1...... oV 
 
 ..arn and Pnpins were, if not n.e.i ol about tbe s „„e . gc, at M 
 
 t^rlen^of the san.e generation, and it -j;^- ^ ^ ;;jj.;;' 
 Polvcarp if ascertainable, some mdex to that of 1 ap.as. 
 
 renaeu '.'i ves several particulars about Polycarp, but no precise 
 dates th;i be was taught bv apostles ; that he had hved a.nong 
 
 .:;■ ilo had seen the Chnst; that he was appomtod b, 
 
248 
 
 THE onACLE.S OF PAPU.S 
 
 apootles, b.shop .n the chnrcl, in S.uyrna; that he lived to a 
 very Rroat a^e ; that he paid a visit to Home v e, \^llt„" 
 waB bishop, and was there at Easter; that he sntXoraLT 
 .nartyrdo. The three first of these'stare.i; ' ^^ ;SX 
 be deru-ed fro.u the state.nents of Tolycarp hi.useh; and .nu t b 
 taken w.th caut.on as ti.e statements of I „,an in gni ^ " hi 
 o>vn pos,fon and niore especially as the staten.enfs of an old 
 
 .0 Mven to he sense m winch ho n.a.v have usc.l the words 
 poBtle and b.shop. The forn.er word has come to be the d si 
 nafon of tlnrteen, or say fourteen znen. and as applied to ,";« 
 nicn .t.s not used nnivocally. Twelve naen, th'o u,h 1 er " 
 sou,e doub about the precise individuals, are said to have bee 
 appointed by Jesus to the oflice in his lifetime; one is said to 
 ?n !l f°';"-">' /looted by the remaining eleven apostles in 
 
 the place of Judas Iscariot, and I'anl laid claim to the oHice on 
 subjective grounds which the church has finally admitted, 
 besides Paul, Barnabas is sometimes styled an apostle, and it is 
 probable that others among the original preachers of Christianity 
 were so styled in their own time. Probably the apostles who 
 taught lolycarp and appointed hin, bishop, were John tlie 
 older and Arislu.n. Wo must also remember that the word 
 bishop, in early times, did not mean an odicer who exercised the 
 sole authority but one of a body of men. The appointment to 
 the ofhce of bishop in the days of Polycarp would, therefore, 
 amount to no more than ordination does among us. We see 
 therefore, that these statements merely involve that Polycarp' 
 attained the ago of three- or four-and-twcnty before the end ot 
 the hrst century. For him to have suircred martyrdom under 
 Marcus Aurehus, as stated by Eusebius, ho must have lived to 
 be eiglity.four or eighty-five years old. Dr. Lightfoot, after an 
 exhaustive examination of the authorities, places the accession 
 of Amcctus to tlic see of Kome at from A.n. loa to a.d. ir.r, ' 
 I'olycarp would, therefore, have been at least seventy-six or 
 seventy-seven, or more probably a year or two older, at the time 
 of Ins visit. These dates are all possible, though they make 
 rather extreme suppositions. Thus we ha^e to suppose that 
 Aristion, as wcU as John the elder, lived to extreme old age. 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, part i. vol. i. 3i3. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 249 
 
 that when very old lie and John the elder took jiart in the 
 ordination of Polj'cnrp at an age which must be considered young, 
 and that Polycarp, when seventy-six or njuvards, took a journey 
 from Smyrna to Uomo. It is not improbable that the age at 
 which Polycarp took this journey ought to be incjpased a year 
 or two. Dr. Jjightfoot, whose computation of the date of Anice- 
 tns has been taken, lu-ld tliat the martyrdom of Polycarp took 
 place in the February of A.n. 1.'').'). lie w.as, therefore, under 
 strong iuduct'MK'niH to plni'i' tlir act'cssion of Anici'tns at a. time 
 which would render lliis dale possible ; he has acconliiigly taken 
 the dinalion of the episuo[iate o( Eleuthcrus ' at liftecii years, in 
 accordance with the chronicle of Eusebius, which we have only 
 in versions, rather than at thirteen years, in accordance with the 
 ' Ecclesiastical History.' If tlic shorter period be adopted, 
 Anicotus would not succeed before A.u. l.'i.') at the earliest, and 
 as ihe visit of Polycarp to Home, in tlie time of Anicetus, is the 
 best attested fact we liave about him, his martyrdom at Smyrna 
 in Ecbruary l.'JG would become impossible. 
 
 Polycarp is stated by Eusebius (' II. E.' iv. 14, 15) to have 
 .•^ulTered martyrdtim during the reign of Marcus -Vurelius 
 (7 March Kil to 17 March IHt)). M. Waddington liaspro|iounded 
 jin cnrlicr dale, /v.n. irifi. The groundH upon which this dale is 
 Ibunded are as follows : there is extant a letter purporting to be 
 written by the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philoniclium 
 giving an account of the martyrdom of I'olycarp. It is stated 
 at the end of this lelti^r that Polycarp was martyred in the pro- 
 consulship of Statins (iuadratus. There are also extant certain 
 (iialions of one .\clius .\ristules, n rhetorician, written in praise 
 of Aescula|iins. li\' piecing together notices eonlained in these 
 orations M. Waddhigton '•' was able to determine that Statins 
 (,>uadralus was ))roconsnl of Asia hi the year a.d. If).'), or a year 
 or two before or after. 'I'liis determination has been accepted 
 by many critics, and 1 do not ]iropose to take any exception to 
 it, but its application to the determination of the date of the 
 martyrdom of Polycarp depeiuls upon the statement in the letter 
 pnrpcnting to come from the Church of Smyrna, th.-it Polycarp 
 
 ' J/iintolic Fathers, part i. vol. i. .'!2fi. 
 
 ' While correcting the proofs 1 rciid with rc^'ret ot the death of 
 this distinguished statesman and scholar. 
 
250 
 
 TIIF- OKACLEIS 01'" PAl'IAK 
 
 was martyred in the prooonsulshii) of Statins (Jiiailniliis. Tliis 
 letter purports to be written by eye-witnesses ; if, tlierclore, it is 
 Kjnuino, tliere can be no Rround to (jiiostion any statement of 
 that character contained in it. But the genuineness of the letter 
 has been questioned by many critics on dilferent grounds. 
 
 borne MyS. wliich contain tliis letter, contain also a life of 
 I'olycarp; this life is aclinowledged to be altogether unauthentic. 
 It is full of foolish miracles, of which the following is a specimen. 
 I'olycnrp being the slave of a lady, notwithstanding his youth 
 she gives him the charge of her property while she goes on a 
 journey ; while she is away he steals all the contents of her stores 
 and gives them to the poor. When his mistress returns, the other 
 servants, who are jealous of I'olycarp, hasten to tell her. I'olycarp, 
 thereupon, beseeches the Lord who inmiediatel^- i-ehlls the stores. 
 
 This life is anonymous, but the letter has annexed to it n sort 
 of postscript, which purports to bo written by one, I'ionius, and 
 it has been inferred, witli considerable probability, that the same 
 person was the author of the life. Dr. Lightfoot considered that 
 the life, as we now have it, is incomplete, and that in its com- 
 pleted state it embodied the letter. The (jueation at once pre- 
 sents itself whetlier the letter itself may not be the work of the 
 author of the life. If so, it may be presumed that, like tlie life, 
 it is altogether a (ictioii. In tliis aspect the date of the life 
 becomes material. Jt was certainly known and treated as 
 authentic by Macarius JMagncs,' about tlie end of the fourth 
 century, who cites incidents from it including the miracle we 
 have noticed. Kusebius was ac(iuainted with tlie letter, and 
 borrowed largely from it in his ' licclesiastical History,' but he 
 does not make any mitico of the life. An argument might per- 
 haps be based upon this, that the life was not then in existence, 
 but it appears that Eusobius quoted the letter from a book con- 
 taining accounts of martyrdoms, for he proceeds immediately 
 afterwards to quote accounts of other martyrdoms from the same 
 GOUrco. ('Ec t^ "^'^ft ^* TTf/Jt avTov yfjuff);! Kiii tiWa fminOpui trvvijuTo 
 Kara Ttfv avTfjV ^^vpvav TitTvpny^iva iino Tqv avri/v irff}i<tSin' Toii 
 \liovov TTJs ruv lIiiXi/nipTTou unprvfii'is litti' mv Kill Mijr/niSiD/iot ri/f 
 Kara MafjKiuivti TrXtiftjs ■n^ta^vTfpuiy n. r. X.) 
 
 ' Lightfoot, Apostolic Failtcrs, part ii. vol. ii. sec. ii., 1885, p. 
 1012; ibid. vol. i. p. 545. 
 
 Al'l'KNDlCKS 
 
 251 
 
 The martyrdom of tliis Metrodorus and of the others winch 
 follow are not related in the letter of the Smyriucans, but arc 
 now extant iii a separate doeumciit. The authority followed by 
 Kusebius would therefore ai>pcar to have been some treatise on 
 u.artNrdoiiis compiled from various sources, ami the writer ot 
 such a treatise, iiiuli.ig the letter of the Hmynueans m the hie 
 of I'olycarp, might not improbably extract it nearly verbatim 
 without noticing the rest v( the lite. 
 
 It would appear therefore tliat no inference can be drawn as 
 to the non-existence of the life from Kusebius not mentioning it. 
 Apart from the silence of Kusebius there is nothing but internal 
 evidence as to the date of the life, which consists ol nothing else 
 but the state of doctrinal controversy disclosed by it. The writer 
 intended to make use of the name of I'olycarp to support the 
 doctrines to which he was attached, and for this purpose put into 
 his mouth a tolerably complete creed ; when this creed is looked 
 at, it is seen to lie very precise in condemniug the Montamsts, 
 but to be altogether silent upon the Arian controversy. This 
 leads the assumption that the life was written at some time 
 when the church wits much troubled by the Montanist heresy, 
 but before the Arian controversy had arisen, that is to say, cer- 
 laiidv some time before the year A.n. ;!l'.l, luit pr.,bal.ly we may 
 say some time in the third century. Dr. Lightfoot has attempted 
 to fix a later dale for this life. His argument is as follows :— 
 
 ' But when did this false I'ionius live ? lie interests hunscll 
 in the (Junrtoaeciinan controversy, and ho represents St. I'anl 
 (§ 2) as teaching two things respecting the celebration ol Kaster : 
 (1) That it must be kept during the feast of unleavened bread 
 and not outside this season as is done by the heretics, especial y 
 the I'hrygians; 'and ('i) That it need not of necessity be held 
 „n tlie t'omteenth day. 'I'ho second point is a protest against 
 11,0 Quarlodecimans. As I'olycarp himself was well known to 
 have been ,. Quartodeciman, this statement could hardly have 
 been made tjll the earlier history of the Quartoaeciman contro- 
 versy had passed out of memory. The lirst injunction has refer- 
 once to certain Montanists and ..thers in the fourth and tilth 
 centuries who like the former disregarded the day ot the week 
 l,„t unlike them put aside the Jewish lunar reckoumg and 
 adopted the lioman Calendar instead, celebrating the passion on 
 a lixed day in Marc'a or April which they supposed to have boon 
 
252 
 
 THE OKACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 the actua .lay o the crucifixion, thouRla difforin,- a.non.- then. 
 8 ves nUhe,r calculations (Epiphan. ' llae. ■ 1. Lrso^on," ■ 
 
 vn. 18, Anon. 5enn n, Pasch.7 in Cln-ysost. Op. viii. '2, p mi- 
 
 a Sr dlte '" "'"'''''' """ "° »°"'=° '" ^'^ -'-'^ -'^^-'^ 
 
 'It may seen. stranRe perhaps that an author writin.' 
 alter the grea Chn«tolosical disputes of the fourth and succeed: 
 n.«centu„eshad hegun should not h.dicate his views o tl 
 .o.nts of dispute, but they had no reference to the subject before 
 Inn. and apparently he took no special interest in the.n • ' 
 
 No weight can bo given to the argument drawn fro... the 
 opposition shown by the writer of the life to the Quartodeci.nan 
 heresy. He shows a consciousness of the real opinions of Tolv- 
 carp, and that tiiey were well known, by putting the argun.ents 
 against .t into the mouth of Paul, not of Polycarp. In fact Paul 
 seems to be .nentioned for ..o other pur,,ose. It is in fact an 
 ingenious device to make a panegyric upon Polycarp the vehicle 
 for an attack upon a doctrine of which he was known to have 
 been a principal supporter. 
 
 The argument drawn from the Montanist variatio.i of the 
 doctrine is only valid upon the assumption that this doctrine 
 can be shown not to liave existed before the fourth century 
 Now the references given by Dr. Lightfoot do not at all bear this 
 out. It may be that this particular heresy is not .nentio..ed by 
 a.)y writer earher than lipiphanius who wrote in the latter half 
 of the fourth century. But this does not by any means show 
 that the doctrine itself is not a century older. There is nothin.' 
 Ill Epiphamus to suggest that tlie lieiesy ho is describing was 
 then new; on the contrary he describes it as a va.-iatinn of the 
 Qiiartodeciman heresy among the heresies of the second contu.y, 
 the next heresy ho mentions being that of the Alogi which he 
 expressly states to have sprung up after it.^ ]3ut n,i)mt fiom this 
 tlieie IS no reasonable ground upon which it can be u.-ge.l that 
 the doctrine did not arise until just before Epii)hai.iu8 described 
 It. The Montanists had then existed as a sect for two centuries, 
 
 ' A2iostulic Fathers, part ii. vol. ii. sec. ii. 1H8,'5, p. 1011 
 ,■ ' ^P'Phanius, Adv. llacr. lib. ii. torn, i.; Haer. Ii. Mignc, 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 253 
 
 and we know that their doctiincs-had become crystallised long 
 befdio his time. ICpiphauiiis twits then, with it. ' How,' he says, 
 ' is it that after Moiitiinus iind I'liscilla and IMaxiniilla you no 
 longer have prophets?' and again, icpcating the words of 
 Rlaxiniilhi, 'Afternic there will be no longer a prophetess.' ' It 
 woidd see... probable therefore that the practice of observing 
 ]''.astur according to n, fixed day of the calendar month was a 
 part of the original Montanist doclrinc. In the ' Pliilosoiilnimena' 
 tbook viii. chap, xii.), a work of tlie early pait of the third century, 
 the Montanists aie .said to introduce novillies of fasts and feasts 
 which would seen, to be an allusion to this practice. I do not 
 know any other such novelty attributed to them. It .nust bo 
 noticed that as the life wiis written before the end of the fourih 
 century, if not written before the Arian controversy began, it 
 must have boon wiittcn in the height of that controversy-. It is 
 inipi'obable that the writer would be so un.novcd by this contro- 
 \ersy, which convulsed the woild aionncl him, that no trace of 
 it can be sec i.i his book, while he t.-oubles hii.iself to forgo 
 argu.nents against the then obscure sect of the Monta.iists. It 
 is far ...ore probable that he wrote during the third ce.itury when 
 the Montanist move. .lent still troubled the (liurcli. 
 
 It ...nst be .loticed that the dale of the lite is oidy ...aterial 
 upon the supposition that Dr. Lightfoot and others aie right in 
 concluding that the author of the life is the same as the author 
 of the postscript to the letter which I will now iirocecd to quote 
 in the translation of Dr. Lightfoot. 
 
 ' This account Gains copied from the papers of Irenaeus, a 
 disciple of Polycarp. The same also lived with Irenaeus. 
 
 'And I Socrates wrote it down in Corinth from the copy of 
 Gains. Grace be with all .nen. 
 
 ' And I I'ionius again wrote it down from the afore-mentioned 
 ropy, having searched it out (for the blessed Polycarp showed 
 mo in a revelation as I will declare in the secpiel), gathering it 
 together wheie it was well-nigh worn by age, that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ may gather me also with His elect into His 
 heavenly kingdom : to whom be the glory with the Father and 
 the Holy Spirit for c^er and ever, Amen.' ^ 
 
 ' Adv. Ifaer. lib. ii. torn. i. ; Ilacr. xlvii. Migne, /'. CI. xii. 857. 
 ^ AlwstoUc Fathers, part ii. vol. ii. sec. ii. lOtiU. 
 
254 
 
 THE ORACLES 01^ PAPIAS 
 
 It is not, I think, possible to contend that this statement is 
 true. Dr. Lifihtfoot docs not do so." AVliat lie contends is that 
 it is as it purports to be— tlio work of a writer difTcrpnt from tlie 
 writer or writers of the letter to which it is appended, lint the 
 question arises. Why should anyone append such a nienioranduni 
 to a Renuino letter? If we suppose the letter to have been 
 forged by the same person wlio wrote the postscript, the object is 
 obvious— ho wished to remove an objection wliich ho felt would 
 bo raised to the reception of his forgery. People would say, 
 he thought, How was it we knew nothing about this letter 
 before ? How does it now appear for the first time ? And 
 if, as I)r. Lightfoot supposes, tlie letter was inserted bodily in a 
 life of Polycarp, the further question would be asked, How did 
 the author get hold of it ? The statenioits in the postscrij)! are 
 calculated to remove these difhcultios ; it is diiiicult to see for 
 what other purpose they can have been intended. It would bo 
 ridiculous to append such statements to a letter already in 
 circulation. Why, it would bo asked, should the ghost of 
 I'olycarp appear to Pionius to show him a worn aiul tailored 
 copy of a document which he could have got in good condition 
 from any bookseller, and (on Dr. Lightfoot's hypothesis as to 
 dates) have read Dearly verbatim in the ' Ecclesiastical History ' 
 of Eusebius ? It would appear, therefore, to f(dlow from tlie 
 mere consideration of the postscript that the letter is a forgery. 
 
 The letter itself contains much to strengthen this conclusion. 
 It contains many miracles. Thus, three days before his ajipre- 
 hension, Polycarp while praying fell into a trance and saw his 
 pillow burning with lire, and ho turned and said unto those that 
 wore with Inm, ' It nujst needs be that I sliall be burned alive.' - 
 Again, as ho entered tho stadium, a voice canu^ to liim from 
 heaven, ' Be strong, r<ilycarp, and play the man.' '' Tho aotunl 
 martyrdom is told in the following words : ' When ho (I'olyciup) 
 had offered up the Amen and finislicd his prayer, the firemen 
 lighted the fire. And a ?nighty flame flashing forth we to whom 
 it was given to see saw a mar\el, yea and we were preserve<l 
 that we might relate what happened to the rest. The fire, making 
 tho appearance of a vault like the sail of a vessel filled by the 
 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. 593. 
 « Letter, s. 5. ' Ibid. s. fl. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 255 
 
 wind nuide a w.all round about tho body of the martyr, and it 
 was there in the midst not like tlesn binning but like a loaf m 
 an oven or like g(dd or silver refined in a furnace. For v\e 
 p,.r.'(.iv..d such .tfr.igraul suwll as if it weie the wafted odour ol 
 fniuUi.iceiise or some oIIut procious spice. So at length I lo 
 lawless men, seeing that his body could not bo consmiiedby tho 
 fire ordered an e>icciili<.uer to go up to him and stab Inm with 
 
 „ d'a'-er. a"'l "''f" ''" ''"■'' "^""" ^''''' ''"'''" ''"""' '^"'''''' "■ '''"',' 
 and amiantily of blood so tluit it extinguished llir fire, and all 
 the multitude marvelled that there should be so great a dillerence 
 between tho unbelievers and the elect.' ' 
 
 The mention of the dove in this passage has been a great 
 stumblin.'-blook in all ages. Eusebius, or the authority ho 
 followed altogether omitted it. Moro or less iugemous emenda- 
 tions of the tircek text have been suggested by diircront wnteis 
 to avoid the dimculty. Thus, instead of 7rf/)ur7-f p/i K.ii, -a dove, 
 and ' lluchat conjectures Tr^,/. ,rT(,,v,,, ' about his breasts,' and Le 
 Moyne .'n ,\,,i<TT,^a, ' on the left,' and Wordsworth ^,/. <rrt,p,...., 
 
 • about the butt spike.' ' If I'cdycarp bad bo.n. dispatched with the 
 butt of a spear instead of with a dagger, |.</,a'i...... this conjecture 
 
 would have been very plausible, as it simply changes one Gredc 
 letter and omits another, but daggers have not butt spikes It 
 is against all such emendations which are not inadmissible as 
 making nonsense, that they do not account for the omission of 
 the nhrase by Eusebius. Dr. Lightfoot supposes the words 
 „,,.orrf ,,.-. Km to be an interpolation of the author of the postscript. 
 He remarks as follows : ' If then the spurious I'iouius be the 
 author of this postscript, he is responsible for the edition of the 
 SuiYi-naau epistle. Our Greek and Latin copies have the 
 Viouian postsciilit and therefore reprosont tho Pionian edition. 
 l.'„s,.biuM alone of all ■■xlant aulbnrities is prior to the lal.^o 
 Pio'ui.is au.l giv.s an inil..p.iul,M.t text. Now our spunous 
 Pionius was beluro all things a iniracbMnongor. Among otlw^r 
 miracles he relates that on the eve of Polycarp's appointment to 
 the ei.iscoi'iate a white dove was seen hovering about his head 
 and around it a circle of light. As a dove thus visited Polycarp 
 
 ' Letter, s. 
 
 15, 10; Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. ii. sec. ii. 
 
 10C3 
 
 -■;i«!. paitii. vol. ii. sec. ii. 97Cn. 
 
256 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 257 
 
 preparatory to his cojiaecration, so also a dovo is found loavins 
 hiiii, or at least leavins his body, when Iiis spirit ia wafted to 
 heaven. Bnt this miracle appears only in the I'ionian copies, 
 not in Eusehins ; moreover, by the abruptness of its appearance 
 an interpolation is suggested. Is it not the same dove which 
 appears on the two occasions, and was it not uncaged and let 
 tly by the same hand? We cannot resist the suspicion that 
 our spurious Pionius was responsible for both these appear- 
 ances.' ' 
 
 AVe have shown that there is no reason for the assumption 
 that Eusebius is prior to the false Pionius, and it appears a rash 
 conclusion that the mention of the dove is an interpolation. 
 Though the appearance of the dove is the incident in the letter 
 least capable of a subjective exidanation, the whole narrative is so 
 highly miraculous that there can be no reason to suggest the inter- 
 vention of a different hand, and besides the context requires some 
 notable miracle : ' we to whom it was gi\en to see saw a mar\'el, 
 yea and we were preserved that we might relate what happened 
 to the rest.' The argmnents of Dr. Lightfoot, therefore, go 
 to show that the letter proceeds from the author of the life. Of 
 this there is another indication. The life, as has been noticed, 
 shows an especial animosity to the Montanists, called, from the 
 place where the heresy originated, the Phrygians. In the letter 
 a story is told of a Phrygian who, having come forward of his 
 own free will, when he saw the wild beasts lost courage and 
 offered incense. Grammatically a native of Phrygia is all that 
 is meant. But the story, none the less, suggests on intention to 
 attack the Montanists. This is anotlior indication of the same 
 hand that wrote the life. 
 
 There is yet another considerable objection to the genuine- 
 ness of the letter. It states twice, once in llie body of the Icllcr 
 and once at the end, that Polycarp sull'cred on Groat Sabbatli, 
 (oiTor (rn/3^«Tou fifyiiXov, (rnfifiaTui /xiyuXiu). By Great Habbath 
 the early Christians who were orthodox meant the Saturday 
 between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But tliis letter, if 
 genuine, nmst have been written by the Church of Smyrna, and 
 the Church of Smyrna at and long after the martyrdom of 
 Polycarp was Quartodeciman, that is to say, they fixed Easter by 
 
 ' Apostolic Faihers, part ii. vol. i. 028. 
 
 the day of the montli witliout regard to tlie day of the week. 
 With them, tlierefore, such a day as Great Sabbath, as understood 
 by the orthodox, could not occur. We have therefore a very 
 strong argument that the letter is a forgery, the writer bemg 
 either ignorant tliat the Smyrnoeans were Quartodecimans, or, 
 what is more probable, intentionally misimputing to them 
 orthodox phraseology in order to make evidence against tlio 
 Quartodeciman heresy. This we see the writer of the life 
 would be likely to do, as he there puts fictitious teacliing into the 
 mouth of Paul for the same purpose. It would take very long 
 to set out all the attempts that have been made to explain away 
 this dilliculty. They appear to fall under three heads : First, 
 that the Quartodecimans used the phrase ' Great Sabbath ' in 
 some sense of their own, we can only guess at. As regards ex- 
 planations of this class, it nnist be conceded that we have not 
 BufKciently accurate knowledge of the (Quartodeciman usages 
 absolutely to exclude such a conjecture, but we know nothing to 
 give it the least probability. In the only sense, as far as we 
 know, in wliich the name was applied by Christians, it was 
 inapplicable to the Quartodeciman usages. 
 
 The second explanation, that of Dr. Lightfoot, is that a Jewish 
 festival was intended. To this it must be answered, that this 
 does not appear admissible on the language of the letter. The 
 fact is twice stated nakedly without any reference to the Jews. 
 The third explanation, a modern supporter of whicli is Lipsius, 
 is that the mention of Great Sabbath both in the postscript and 
 in the body of tlie letter is spurious. This would be indeed an 
 effectual answer if it could be sustained, but the reading is 
 sujiported by all the authorities, including Euseliius. It is how- 
 ever interesting to note of two such learned critics that Lipsius 
 is constrained to drill with Circat Sabbatli as Lightfoot with the 
 dove. Closely, connected with the statement that the martyr- 
 dom took place on Great Sabbath, is the statement of the daj- of 
 the montli on which it took place, which in the different Greek 
 MSS. and Latin version of the letter, and the Paschal Chronicle 
 founded on it, assumes no less than live dillerent forms which 
 may be restored as follows, by aid of the critical apparatus of 
 Dr. Lightfoot.' 
 
 ' Jjioi/uhc Fathers, part ii. vol. ii. ace. ii. imiJ, DHJ. 
 
258 
 
 THE OKACLES OF PA PI AS 
 
 According to the MS. known as Barocciamis described as 
 ' b,' it runs thus : — 
 
 Maprvpd Sf n ficiicn'/iiot \ln\vKap7rns ftrjvot f^ai'6riKnv SfUTf'/in 
 larnfiei/ov 7r/)6 firrii xaXifio)!' Mciudv aafi^aTif fnyii\<f oyjia oySii;; ■ 
 iTVf(\i](f>0ij VTTii 'Hpaioov cVi I'lpxupiios <fn\innov I'paWiavov, av8v- 
 nciTfvnvTos ^TptiTiov KnpaTn. 
 
 According to the Paris MS. described as ' p,' it runs thus : — 
 
 Maprvpfi 5f 6 paKtipiits HoXvKapiros prjvns Sdi'^tKoO SfVTtpa 
 ftarnpfvov npu fTTTa KoKavSoiV Mniti>i' fxatiliiiTCi ^fydXw w^i« uyhmf 
 tTVVf^rf(f>dq 5* UTTO HpojSou tVl ap)(ifpta}s ^t\iinrov TpuWuivoVy 
 dvBvnarfvoirros. 
 
 According to the Moscow MS. described as ' ni,' it is as 
 follows : — 
 
 'EpapTvptjatv 8f 6 pOKclpws IlnKvKapnos k<it!i pev'Aainvnvs piviis 
 SavdiKov fifUTf'pa, Kara 5e ^Poipainvs npo f-rna KixKnvbwv Mapriaiv 
 tra^iiaTto pry({k(0' u>pa ttfuTTj tf Koi uvi'f\rf(f>6ij vjro 'HpatHiiv iip\ifp- 
 apyovvTos pfv ^iXittttou tqv daf^tiiis Tpuiavov tifdunaTtvovTos 6e 
 KoSpdrou. 
 
 The Paschal Chronicle has the following notice, which is set 
 out so far as it appears to be based upon the letter : — 
 
 IloXXoi (tiapTvprjirev €i> nls rioXu/tapn-or . . . (ruXXiji/i^fir fVi "f^u- 
 nuTov ToTiou Ko8()(iTou iinu 'Hpiabov t!pr]viipx"v "'"i' oiniis Niitijroii 
 . . . Tfl irpo C Ka\av8a>i' '\npMo>v, rii piyiihif crn/i/iiiiTW <!)pa i;'.' 
 
 The old Latin version is as follows : — 
 
 Martyrium S. Polycarpi niense Aprilio vii Kal. Maias niajorc 
 sabbato hora octava ; captus est ab Herode, Pontifice Philippo 
 Trajano, Proconsule Statio Quadrato.' 
 
 There is one other passage bearing upon the (lucstion— the 
 heading of the letter in the codex Baroccianus :— 
 
 Maprvpiav rnv Ayiov nn^vKcipnov tirtcTKonov Ipvpv'js T^r 'Airiiir 
 Tipii iirra KoKuvhav ^cvpnvdptuyv.' 
 
 Tiie passage as restored by Dr. Lightfoot is as follows :— 
 
 MttpTVpfl Se 6 paKtipios nnhvKnpnns pqpus SiirrfiKor HfVTipa 
 iiTTupfvnv npo fTTTii KuXavl^av Mnpriaiv, (TiifiliaTW /ifyiiXo), a>(,a dyfidi; • 
 avvf'KnKfteq irro 'H,)<i8.iu fVt apxifpiois <t>i.'\innov TpuWii'i'iii, <'v6u- 
 iriiTfViiirriit Smrinu KoSpi'iTov. 
 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. 552, 553. 
 = BoUand, vlcto Snuc(or«m, January 20, ii. 002 seq.; Lnjlitloot, 
 Alioslolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. GOO; vol. ii. sec. ii. p. ',)81. 
 ' Ibid. p. 'J40. * Ibid. pp. 'J«3, 'Mi. 
 
 .VPPENDICES 
 
 259 
 
 The important point in restoring the passage for our present 
 purpose is the name of the Roman month, and of secondary 
 importance is tlic qupstion whether the day of the Greek or 
 ratlier Macedonian month was named. The name of the 
 Roman month is important because, all the authorities being 
 agreed as to the niimber of days before its Kalends on which tlio 
 martyrdom took place, upon Cixiiig tlio name of the Roman 
 month, the day of the year is lixed precisely. And the naming 
 of tlie Greek or Macedonian month cannot raise any dillicuity, 
 because in different cities different montlis went by tlie name of 
 Zanthicus." The Greek or Macedonian month would therefore 
 have to be interpreted according to some calendar which would 
 agree with the date as given by the Roman month. Though 
 the Greek month therefore could occasion no difficulty, the day 
 of the Greek month might occasion difiSculty, hence tlie import- 
 ance of determining whether it is or is not part of the text. We 
 are only directly concerned with the text down to cruPfHtTio 
 ^(yiiXw; the remaining words are important only as they may 
 bear upon the foregoing. It must be noticed that if either April 
 or May is taken as tlie Roman month, u possible date is given 
 for Great Sabbath jn tlie ordinary acceptance of the term, and 
 the argument that that is the meaning of tlio term, and con- 
 sequently that the letter is a forgery, is strengthened. If, how- 
 ever, March, or still more February, is taken as tlie name of the 
 Roman month, then an impossible date, according at all events 
 to orthodox usage, is given for Great Sabbath, and accordingly 
 tliere is occasion for the argument that Great Sabbath could not 
 have been intended in its ordinary sense. And the particular 
 ar^'ument against the genuineness of tlie letter founded upon 
 attributing sucli phraseology to the Quartodeciman Siiiyrnaans 
 is so far weakened. N\'o must not therefore be suijiriscd to (ind 
 that Dr. Lightfoot, who is a strenuous supporter of the genuine- 
 ness of the letter, is also a strenuous supporter of the reading 
 Mii()n'wi'. As Dr. Lightfoot was a critic of no mean learning 
 and ability, it is fortunate that we have the opportunity of test- 
 ing his restoratio:i of this passage by certain rules which he has 
 laid down himself. In his preface to his edition of the Smyr- 
 nii'an letter he says as follows : 'Tho principles which must 
 
 Lightfoot, Ajmslolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. 078 n. 
 
260 
 
 THE ORACLES OF I'APIAS 
 
 guide an editor in the construction of the text are ainiijle and 
 obvious ; a reading found in Eusebius and any one other authority 
 must as a rule be accepted ; when Eiisobiua fails ua, the coinci- 
 dence of the Latin version with any one Greek MS. should com- 
 monly be regarded as decisive. Of the Greek MSS. themBelves 
 the general order in point of authority is ni. b. p. v., but in 
 individual cases the peculiarities of the several MSS. may 
 require to be considered in estimating their relative values.' ' 
 Elsewhere Dr. Lightfoot gives his reason for preferring m. 
 over the other MSS. It is that its readings more generally 
 agree with Eusebius.' This shows that it is based upon an 
 ancient text, but being so based it may nevertheless have been 
 subject to licentious alteration, and this is in fact the case with 
 the Moscow MS. Speaking of the form the postscript takes in 
 that MS. Dr. Lightfoot says : ' The scribe of the Moscow MS. 
 has struck out the words Kiidu>s SijXoktm (v tm Kude^fjs, so as to 
 make the document complete in itself; at the same time he adds 
 a few sentences of his own relating to Poly carp.' ' It is obvioiis 
 therefore that the Moscow MS., notwithstanding its ancient 
 original, when it is imsupported by other documents, is an 
 authority to be accepted witli some ca\ition. 
 
 To apply these principles to the determination of the tc.\t, 
 wo find that we have in favour of the reading Miit'jiv the two 
 Greek MSS. b. and p. and the Latin version. Against it 
 there is in favour of the reading Mh^timi' the Moscow MS., 
 and of the reading 'AirpiXiwv the ' Paschal Chronicle,' while 
 the heading of b. would suggest the reading 'tivpovufilaiv. 
 There seems now no doubt at all that the weight of autliority 
 is in favour of Miuav. It has that agieement of the Latin version 
 with a Greek authority, in this case two Greek authorities! 
 which on a point upon which Eusebius is silent, in accordance 
 with Dr. Lightfoot's rule, should commonly bo decisive. In 
 favour of Mapriav there is only the Moscow MS. Now we 
 have noticed the tendency to licentious alteration exhibited 
 elsewhere in this MS. It ia exhibited in a noticeable degree 
 in this passage. In the few words we have (juoted, quite apart 
 from the change of Maruv into MapTimf, there are no less than 
 
 Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. ii. sec. ii. \>. 1)40. 
 Ibid. p. U40. ' Ibid. p. 1008. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 2G1 
 
 four alterations wliich are certainly of this character, by which 
 I mean alterations made intentionally and not proceeding 
 from any niirtintoiproliilion of the oxoiiiplar lioforo liim by the 
 scribe or editor or from carelessness on his part. Thus there 
 are the insertion of the three plirases Knra fiev 'Aa^iavovs, Kara 8e 
 'Votpaiovi, and tou d(rel3nvi, and the change of oyfiiJr/ into fvt'iTij. 
 Tiiere is also, though not so obviously of this character, the 
 cliange of Mn/jru^d into 'EfiafiTvprirrev. Dr. Lightfoot has shown 
 his opinion of these readings by rejecting all of them. It 
 appears therefore that in the Moscow MS. the passage under 
 conaideration lias been entirely rewritten. Tliis alone would 
 render any reading it contained very suspicious. The readings 
 'AnpiXiiov and 'tcvpovapiiaf, not being supported by any MS. or 
 version of the passage, scarcely enter into competition. We see 
 therefore that the weight of authority is strongly in favour of tlie 
 reading Maia>i>. It we look to tlie context we see tliat this rend- 
 ing gives a possible day for Great Sabbath, which Mnpricop does 
 not. As we know from Eusebius as well as all the other 
 authorities that the letter placed the martyrdom on Great 
 Sabbath, we have hero a strong confirmation of Mdrcop as tlie 
 proper reading. , 
 
 We will now come to the reason of tlie reading Mnpriiov. 
 This reading gives for the date of the martyrdom tlie twenty- 
 third of February, wliicli was one of the traditional days on which 
 it was celebrated.' The Vienna MS. has interpolated this date 
 into the body of the letter, and Dr. Lightfoot quotes tliis inter- 
 polation aa a confirmation of tlie reading Maitriiiiv in tlie pas- 
 sage we are considering which the Vienna MS. omits, lint tliis 
 does not seem the proper inference to draw. Tlie editor of the 
 Vioiiiia MS., in oniilling one section of the docunioiit and 
 milking an interpolation in another place, was clearly making an 
 intentional change. Why, it may be asked, did he do this ? Tlie 
 answer must be that it was his way of changing the date of tlie 
 martyrdom. The reading •Ptvpovnpiaiv in the heading of b. admits 
 of a similar e.\iiIanation. It gives the date of tlie martyrdom the 
 twenty-aixth of January. Now the twenty-sixth of January was 
 another traditional date for the martyrdom.' Dr. Lightfoot 
 
 Aposlolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. GOO, 001. 
 Ibid. 001. 
 
262 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 argues that MapTlwv was the original reading because it would 
 explain the readings Maruv and 'Att^jiXiui/, Matuyv as resulting from 
 the accidental omission of two letters, and 'ATrptXia,!, in order to 
 give a possible date for Great Sabbath. This argument as far as 
 it goes is good, but it is nearly as easy to make M.,pTl<ov out of 
 Mu:_-v as vice versd, and if you once got both readings MHru)!/ and 
 MapTtaii-, 'Anpt\wv might be taken by the writer of the ' Paschal 
 Chronicle ' as a mean between them. But it must be noticed 
 that vii. Kal. Maias or the 25th of April, though a possible, is a 
 very late date for Great Sabbath. The asth of April was .i 
 possible date for Easter as late as a.d. 387, when we learn from 
 St. Ambrose that Easter was kept on that day by the Churches 
 of Egypt.' It would, therefore, have been a possible date for 
 Great Sabbath a century or more earlier, but the ' I'asclial 
 Chronicle ' was about two centuries and a half later, in which 
 time by the Julian calendar the equinox would have come nearly 
 two days earlier. At that date, the 25th of April would probably 
 have been too late a date for Great Sabbath, and this considera- 
 tion might have induced the compiler of the chronicle to substi- 
 tute April for May. We must notice also that Dr. Lightfoot has 
 to argue that *fupounpi(ai» is a mistake for Mapricop. If this can 
 be so, 'AirpiKiii3v may be a mistake for Mata>v. 
 
 So far as we have gone the balance of probability seems 
 altogether in favour of the reading Mat(i>ii, and if we adopt the 
 reading of the Latin version Mense Aprilio,orM(;«' Sm/^Ktoi), tliero 
 is nothing more to say against it. According to the form of the 
 Macedonian calendar prevalent in Syria the months agreed witli 
 the Julian months, Zonthicus being equivalent to April,' and this 
 seems to have been the meaning put upon the passage by the 
 Latin translator; but according to the Greek ]\ISS. the reading 
 is nut merely p-rjuX SiinffiKuiJ but ii<jvus SuvfliKitv Hivripi^i, and upon 
 this an argument can be raised which all'ects the Iloman date. 
 There were calendars in force in proconsular Asia based on the 
 Julian calendar, but differing from it in the nanies and commence- 
 ments of the months, each month commencing eight days before 
 the month to which it most nearly corresponded in the Julian 
 calendar. According to these calendars the irp6 (wra KoXaiSaii', 
 or, as we should say, the sixth day before the Kalends, when it 
 
 ' Encyclojiaedia liritannica, 9tli edit. vol. vii. ' Easter.' 
 ' Apostolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. G78 n ', 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 2G3 
 
 had thirty days, would correspond with the third day of the 
 Greek month, but in certain of these calendars when the month 
 had thirty-one days it was reckoned as having two first days, so 
 that which was really th6 tliird was called the second, thus 
 making the month always end on tlie thirtietli day. In such cases 
 only irpo cnra KaXafSioi' corresponded with StvTfpa. If, therefore, 
 8<vTfpa is part of the text, the Greek month must be referred to 
 one of these calendars. Now, tlie only one of tlicse calendars 
 which is known to contain the month Zaiithicus, is a calendar 
 known as the Kphesian, and according to this calendar Zanthicus 
 connnences eight days before the first of March.' SnvdiKov 
 SfVTfpti will therefore correspond with npu inrii KiiKavbCiv Mupriuiv, 
 and thus, assuming Sivrcpa to be a part of the text, we get an 
 argument in favour of the reading Miipricoi'. On the other hand, 
 assuming Mhidv to be the true reading, we get an argument 
 for rejecting Sevrepa in favour of the reading of the Latin 
 version. There is no improbability that the Latin version alone 
 should preserve the original reading. The copyists of Latin ver- 
 sionsgenerally copied them mechanically, while the Greek mind, 
 being much more active, tended to introduce changes. 
 
 With a view of further sifting the matter it may be asked 
 according to what calendar the date ought to be interpreted. 
 If the letter is genuine, it must be answered, the calendar of 
 Smyrna; if the letter is not genuine, it is diflicult to say according 
 to what calendar. It might be the calendar of Smyrna or any 
 other that would be connnonly understood. Now, according to the 
 calendar of Smyrna the month which began eight days before the 
 Kalends of March was called not Zanthicus but Anthesterion. 
 Wo see, therefore, that, supposing the letter to bo genuine, we do 
 not hero get any conlirnuvtion of the reading MdpTiMx. We do 
 not know the name of Ihu nionlli which, accuiding to tlie calendar 
 of Smyrna, began eight da^s before the Kalends of iVIay.- 
 
 Our knowledge of the calendar described as the Ephesian is 
 derived from a MS. containing a number of calendars, which 
 also contains the commentary of Theon upon Ptolemy, and 
 which, therefore, must be after the days of Theodosius the Great.-' 
 
 ' Apostolic Fatliers, part ii. vol. i. C67. 
 ' Ibid. OGl ct si'q. 
 
 ' This is tlip only iiiilication of the diitc of the MS. I have seen, 
 but I suppose it is not nourly so ancient. 
 
264 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 The names of the months are Macedonian. When this calendar 
 came mto use in Ephesus is unknown. We have evidence that 
 It was not in use a.d. 104 ; an inscription of Ephesus of that 
 year making nfjo r{ KaXnvSuv Maprlav equivalent to ^^i-or 'Ardfrr- 
 T,/)i5rar 3'.' This inscription shows that the calendar in force 
 at Ephesus differed from the calendar in question in two points. 
 The month had the Ionian name Anthesterion instead of the 
 Macedonian name Zanthicus, and the days were counted regulariy 
 from the beginning instead of counting the second day of the 
 month as the first. There is also an inscription of Smyrna referred 
 to the age of the Antonines which would make npi nim-, Ka\afSi,v 
 Eiovviav, or, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, EiouAiux, equivalent to 
 'EKaro/i^aiCvos T€TiipTr,.' Nowagain,Hecatombeon isnot oneof the 
 names of the Macedonian months. There is, therefore, nothing 
 to suggest that the calendar in question had come into use at 
 Ephesus or Smyrna till long after the martyrdom of Polycarp 
 or the writing of the letter we are considering. If, therefore, 
 the reference to this calendar were part of the original text, it 
 would suggest a very late origin for the letter, but we have seen 
 it is probably not part of the original text but a subsequent 
 alteration. 
 
 The probable history of the text is this. The original reading 
 was that of the Latin version, Mrji-i Sni'OiKov npt, inTit KoKavbmv 
 Maiwi-; that this reading was rejected in favour of that of the 
 Moscow MS. by some editor who wished to insert the traditional 
 date of the martydom, and that the reading thus produced was 
 mixed with the original reading, as we get it in MSS. b. and p. 
 The great argument in favour of this conclusion is that un- 
 doubtedly the letter in its original form placed the martyrdom 
 on Great Sabbath. No reasonable meaning can be given to 
 G reat Sabbath except the obvious one— the Saturday before Easter 
 Sunday ; and the letter in its original form must have contained 
 a date consistent with this. 
 
 The writer of the letter was probably the person whom Dr 
 Lightfoot calls the false Pionius. He probably had before him, at 
 the time he wrote it, the traditional date of the martyrdom, which 
 he departed from to give way to his fancy of making the 
 
 ' Ajmsiolic Fathers, part ii. vol. i. COS. 
 ' IbUi. 6GG. 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 martyrdom take place on Great Sabbath, but the words npo enra 
 KoXnvbiov were probably suggested by it. In a letter 
 
 intciuled for general circulation ho did not give tlio day of a 
 Giook or Macedonian month, which would bo inlolligiblo in a 
 liiiiitod locality only, but stated that the martyrdom took place 
 in the month Zanthicus, which, in accordance with the most 
 generally known form of the Macedonian calendar, was equiva- 
 lent to April, in which sense we see it was taken by the Latin 
 translator. It must be noticed also that Josephua, in his 'Anti- 
 quities,' takes Zanthicus as the equivalent of the Jewish month 
 Nisan. 
 
 The letter shows a tendency to draw or make parallels 
 between the martyrdom of Polycarp and the crucifixion of Jesus. 
 In a genuine document it is not improbable that primitive 
 Christians would more or less strain the facts to bring out such 
 jiarallels. The existence of these parallels does not, therefore, 
 appear very much to aid the argument against the genuineness 
 of the letter. On the other hand, the letter has a verisimilitude 
 about many parts of it which has been used as an affirmative 
 argmnent of its genuineness. Most of the forgeries of the 
 primitive Christians are io contemptible from a literary point of 
 view, that it is not surprising that it should be rather taken as an 
 axiom that no literary skill ought to be expected from the writer 
 of a Christian document, but this inference is unfounded. It 
 would be strange if such skill were not found now and then. 
 Supposing the possibility of such skill, the presence of this 
 apparent verisimilitude is no argument of the genuineness of tho 
 document that exhibits it ; it shows merely the skill of the writer. 
 
 The writer of the Smyrna'an letter had probably witnessed 
 martyrdoms in the Decian persecution, and so was able to give a 
 graphic picture of one. It may bo asked why he did not do- 
 scribe the actual martyrdoms he had witnessed ? This would 
 not have answered his- purpose; he wished to establish doctrines 
 by putting them into the mouth of a famous man like Polycarp. 
 
 There are several ways in which the art of the writer of the 
 letter is disclosed. Thus he takes his formal introduction and 
 ending from tho epistle of Clement of Rome, thus securing the 
 ancient style.' Probably he guided himself in a similar way in 
 
 Apostolic Fatlicrs, part ii. vol. i. CIO, Cll. 
 
2G6 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 other matters. Tlius he may have taken the names of the pro- 
 consul and Asiarch from some inscription, nnd so secured the 
 names of actual men who held office tofjether. It must bo 
 noticed also that there are passages in the life whicli exhibit the 
 same verisimilitude as the letter, particularly the account of the 
 election and instalment of Tolycarp, and tliis is produced, tliero 
 can be little doubt, hi the same way by the writer basing his 
 narrative on similar scenes he had witnessed. 
 
 The proper conclusion, therefore, appears to be that the letter 
 of the Smyrnceans is a forgery, and, that being so, tlie arguments 
 of M. Waddington as to the date of the proconsulship of Statius 
 Quadratus do not affect the date of the martyrdom of Polycarp ; 
 the only evidence we have of the latter date being the statement 
 of EusebiuB that it took place under Marcus Aurelius, a statement 
 by no means certainly accurate, but of considerable probability. 
 
 All the evidence bearing upon the date of the martyrdom of 
 Polycarp was collected by Dr. Lightfoot, the late bishop of 
 Durham, in his ' Apostolic Fathers," and the facts in the foregoing 
 notice are all but entirely taken from that work (see especially 
 the articles on the Letter of the Smyrna;ans and the Date of tlio 
 Martyrdom, 'Apostolic Fathers,' part IL vol. i. pages 588 to end). 
 The article on the Early lloman Succession (' Apostolic Father.s,' 
 part I. vol i. page 201 ct scq.) has also a considerable bearing 
 \ipon the same topic. I must pay this tribute to the thorougliness 
 with which the facts are set out in these articles, that they have 
 enabled me to come to an entirely opposite conclusion to that 
 which they were intended to support. 
 
 Note.— In the foregoing remarks I iiave tliouglit it a sufficient 
 answer to Dr. Lightfoot's theory tliat Great ISabbath should be 
 taken to refer to a Jewish festival, that that view is not admis- 
 sible on the language of the letter ; in otlicr words, if members of 
 a religious sect write to members of the same sect, and refer to ii 
 religious festival absolutely without any (jualification, sncli 
 festival not being a public institution of the country, tliey must 
 be taken as referring to a festival of their own sect, and not of 
 another, and, as appears by the letter, bitterly hostile sect ; for if 
 they did otherwise, they would appear to adopt the festival us 
 their own. But if this obvious objection be passed by. Dr. Ligiit- 
 foot's theory does not, by any means, free the case from difficulties. 
 The only Jewish festival he can suggest is the feast of Purim 
 
 APPENDICES 
 
 2G7 
 
 which was celebrated at tlie full moon. Now it seems that 
 Saturday, tlie 23rd of February, a.d. 155, was four or five days 
 distant from tlie day of full moon. Mr. Turner has accordingly 
 suggested that the year of the martyrdom should be taken as 
 A.D. 150, and the letter to read the 8th before the Kalends of 
 March, by which device ho obtains as the date of the iiiartyrdoiii 
 the high Sabbath before Purim (see ' Studia liiblica et Ecclc- 
 siastiea,' vol. ii., Oxford, 18<,)0, page 120). "We see therefore 
 that Dr. Lightfoot's theory leiiuires the Jews to have been very 
 careless as to the phases of the moon, and Mr. Turner's a con- 
 jectural amendment of the text in one of the few points in which 
 all the authorities agree. 
 
INDEX 
 
 AiiiioTT, Kev. E. A., 1).U., as to 
 
 Justin Martyr's iguotations, 141) 
 
 el seq. 
 Acts ill tlic time of Pontius I'ilalc, 
 
 17!), I'.tS, 200 
 Adam, il!», 100 
 Africainis, 99 
 Ammonius, 98 
 Anastnsius of Sinai, notice of 
 
 I'apias by, 97, 98, 99, 245, 24r> 
 Andrew or Andreas, Uisliop of 
 
 Cacsarca, notices of I'apias 
 
 by, 31, 90, 100 . 
 
 Anicetus, 119, 248, 249 
 Apocalypse, cited by Papias, 31, 
 
 96, 127, 128 
 ApoUinarius, notice of Papias 
 
 by, 93 
 Apostle, meaning of name, 248 
 Apostolic constitutions, 36 
 Aquila, translator of 0. T., 157, 
 
 161 
 Aquinas, 74 n. 
 Aramaic, gospels bow fur fmm, 
 
 13:i el ill/. 
 Arcthas, Bisbop of Caesarea, 31 
 Aristion, 9-13, 233, 234, 248 
 
 lUllNAIIAH, 248 
 
 Baioccianus codex, notice of 
 Papias in, 22, 243-245 
 
 liarsabas, called Justus, 22, 244, 
 245 
 
 Bleek'B analysis of 0. T. quota- 
 tions in gospels, 129 ct scq. ; 
 
 similar phenomenon in Justin 
 Martyr, vii 
 
 Catkna of extracts used by 
 Justin, 193, 197, 199,204; used 
 by Matthew and Luke, 199 ; 
 used by fathers, 221 
 
 Cerinthus, 119 
 
 Clement of Alexandria as to 
 gospels written first, 2 ; says 
 that Mark wrote at Peter's re- 
 quest, 3)t. ; as to first epictlc of 
 John, 37 ; not typical of his 
 age, 70 ; contends that Chris- 
 tians are described as children, 
 102 et scq. See also 98 
 I Clement of Alexandria Paedago- 
 ! gus, bk. I. c. X., 101 cl scq. 
 
 Clement of Home, death of, 6 ; 
 MSS.,61 ; way of citing O. and 
 N. T., 63 ; use of Aii7io^ by, 58 
 ct scq. ; epistle of, 265 
 
 Clement of Home, first epistle, 
 «. 13, 5H, 60 ; u. 19, 58 ; c. 53, 
 .V.) ; c. 62, 59 
 
 Clement of Itome, second epistle, 
 use of Aii'yioi' in, 68 cl scq. 
 
 Clement of Home, second epistle, 
 date of, 70 ct scq. ; MSS., 72, 
 73 ; c. 13, 68 ; c. 17, 72 
 
 Credner, viii 
 
 Cyril, 96 
 
 Daviiisdn S., D.U., as to 0. T. 
 quotations in the gospels, 130 
 el seq. 
 
270 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAHAS 
 
 De Boor, 22 
 
 Dionysius the Areopagite, 100, 
 
 101, 104, 24G 
 Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, 
 
 36 
 
 Ei.EUTiiEnus, 119, 249 
 
 Epiphanius, 252, 253 
 
 Eusebius, as to date of Fapias, 1, 
 6-8 ; does not say Papias re- 
 ferred to canonical gospels, 3 ; 
 as to influence of Papias, 8 ; 
 remarks as to Papias, 232 ct 
 seq. ; as to Clement, 70. See 
 also 23, 99 
 
 Fecakdentids, 214 
 
 Gospel quotations, sources of, vi 
 
 Gospels, canonical, originally an- 
 onymous, 2 
 
 — sources of, partly Aramaic, 
 partly Greek, 133 el seq. 
 
 Great Sabbath, martyrdom of 
 Polycarp on, 2n('>, 26<i 
 
 Greek — gospels how far from ? 
 133 et seq. 
 
 Gregory, 96, 98 
 
 Haubian, 22-26, 244, 245 
 Hamartolus, George, notice of 
 
 Papias by, 22, 242 ct seq. 
 Hatch, E., D.D., 183, 232, 236 
 Herodes Atticus, 7 
 Hilgcnfeld supposes spurious 
 
 works of Papias, 16 
 Ilippolytus, 96 
 
 loNATiAN epistles, 77 
 
 Irenaeus, notices of Papias by, 8, 
 105 et seq. ; confounds John the 
 elder with the apostle, 13, 33 
 ct kcq. ; in advance of his age, 
 70, 80 ; considered O. T. the 
 words of Christ, 85, 86 ; as to 
 millennium, 105 c< seq.; elders 
 mentioned by, 115 ct seq. ; cites 
 
 non-existent prophecy as from 
 
 Jeremiah, 210 el sen. See also 
 
 96, 99 
 Irenaeus, against heresies : 
 
 bk. iii. 0. 3, s. 4, 118; bk. iv. 
 
 c. 2, B. 3, 85 ; bk. iv. c. 27, 120 
 
 et seq ; bk. iv. o. 28, 123 ; bk. iv. 
 
 c. 30, 123 ; bk. iv. c. 32, 124 ; bk. 
 
 V. c. 6, s. 1, 120, 124 ; bk. v. c. 
 
 32, 109 el seq. ; bk. v. c. 33, 
 
 105 et seq. ; bk. v. c. 36, 110 ; 
 
 bk. V. How far from Papias ? 
 
 108 et seq. 
 Isaac means a child, 103, 104 
 
 Jebome, notices of Papias by, 
 126, 127 
 
 Jesus lived to beyond forty or 
 fifty, 14 ; notices of by Papias, 
 90, 106 ct seq., 234 ; life inter- 
 esting to primitive Christians 
 only as fulfilment of prophecy, 
 83 et seq. ; date of crucifixion 
 of, 236 et seq. 
 
 John, Apostle, martyrdom of un- 
 known to Irenaeus, 19 j Euse- 
 bius, lilghtfoot, Salmon as to, 
 23, 24 ; said to be plunged in 
 boiling oil, 26, 27 ; died when? 
 28,29 
 
 — the disciple of the lord men- 
 tioned by Irenaeus, 33 ; in 
 Muratorian fragment, 35 
 
 — the elder, mention of by Papias, 
 9-12 ; alive when Papias wrote, 
 12 ; confounded by Irenaeus 
 with the apostle, 13; discussion 
 as to, 3:1 I't .tcf/. ; conuluxiuiis 
 to, 4!). See also 23il, 248 
 
 — first epistle of, cited by 
 Papias, 31, 235 ; second and 
 third epistles, authorship dis- 
 cussed, 36 et seq. 
 
 Josephus, use of ^6ytop by, 55 
 
 — Jewish war, bk. vi. c. v., 4, 
 56. See also 126 
 
 Judas, death of, 93-96 
 
 Justin Martyr, Gospel ijuotations 
 
 of, vi ; 0. T. quotations of, vii; 
 
 use of Aiiyioi' by, 64, 65 ; Hexae- 
 
 INDEX 
 
 271 
 
 meron attributed, 99 ; quota- 
 tions assimilated to LXX, 147, 
 183; agreement with I'rotevan- 
 gcliuin, 166, 167, 170 et seq.; 
 quoted 0. T. from written 
 sources not LXX, 2011 ; used 
 catena of extracts, 193, 197, 
 1!I9, 202 ; charges Jews with 
 mutilating LXX, 206 ct seq. 
 
 Justin Martyr, 1 Ap. c. 112, 6J, 
 185 ; c. 33, 14S, iriO-167 ; c. 34, 
 14H, 168; c. 35, 14H, 176, 178, 
 189 ; c. 41, 217 ; c. 47, 190 ; c. 
 48, 194 ; Dial. c. 16, 193 ; c. 18, 
 65 ; c. 43, 148, 151 ct seq. ; c. 53, 
 14S, 175; c. 55, 218; c. 66, 148, 
 151 ct seq.; c. 67, 148 ; c. 68, 
 14S ; c. 71, 148, 206 ; c. 73, 218 ; 
 c. 77, 169 ; c. 78, 148, 170 ctscq. ; 
 c. 81, 35; 0. 84, 148; c. 1'23, 
 148, 181; c. 135, 148, 181; De 
 lies., c. 4, 195 ; Coliortatio, c. 
 13, 161 
 
 Justus, Bishop of Jerusalem, 7 
 
 Keim, 237, 241 
 Kirclicr's concordance, 49 
 
 Lactantius cites prophecy as from 
 lOsdras, 208 el seq. 
 
 Lightfoot, J. B., 1).U., exploded 
 martyrdom of Papias, 6 ; as to 
 date of Papias, 12; contends 
 Papias was acquainted with the 
 fourth gospel, 17 ; rejects mar- 
 tyrdom of John, 23 ; as to epis- 
 tle of Polycarp, 68 ; as to elate 
 of 2 ClciiH'Mt 70; as to stylcnf 
 qiioliun N. 'I', ill Mio sdciniil 
 century, 77 ct scr;. ; rciuliiig in 
 2 Clement xvii. 73 ; Luke 
 prologue, 84 v. ; date of Ani- 
 cetiis, 249 ; date of Polycarp's 
 martyrdom, 248 ; authorship 
 of Life of Polycarp, 250 ct seq.; 
 reading in Smyrniean letter, 
 258 ct seq. 
 
 \uyia, meaning of, 5 ; discussed, 
 48 ; used by Papias in one 
 sense, 4 
 
 \6yia HvpiaKd, meaning Messianic 
 prophecies, applicable to Pa- 
 pias, 89, 91 ct seq. 
 
 \6yiof, meaning of in LXX, 49 
 
 — jilace.s in which found in 
 LXX, 227 
 
 — meaning of in Pliilo Judaeiis, 
 50 ct seq. ; in N. T., 54, 55 ; in 
 Josephus, 55 ct seq. ; in Clement 
 of Home. 58 ct seq.; in Justin 
 Martyr, 64,65; in Epistle of 
 Polycarp, 66 ct seq. ; in 2 Cle- 
 ment, 68 ct seq. 
 
 — development in meanings of, 
 75 
 
 — summary of authorities >as to, 
 76 
 
 — - Latin renderings of, 80, 81 
 
 — sense in which used by I'apios, 
 82 ct seq. ; diilerences as to, 
 not of nieaningbut intendment, 
 86; meaning inspired sayings 
 of the Lord, how applicable to 
 Papias, 86 et seq. ; meaning 
 inspired narrative about the 
 Lord, how applicable to Papias, 
 HC) cl seq. ; meaning history, 89 
 
 }S}yiwv or\6yuv, readings of Euse- 
 bius discussed, 45 
 
 Lyons and Vienna, letter of 
 churches of, 20 
 
 MAonius Maonks, 250 
 
 Malalas, John, use of Papias by, 
 99, 100, 246 
 
 Maiiaimus, mother of, 22, 25 
 
 I\Iiirolon. 16, 119 
 
 Mai'i'iis Aiirriiiis, 218, 266 
 
 Mark, book by noticed by Papias, 
 83 ; said by Papias not to liavo 
 acted wrongly, 225 ; said by 
 Papias to have written without 
 order, 225 ; remarks of Papias 
 as to discussed, 225 ; — and 
 Luke omitted 0. T. quotations 
 from Hebrew, 140 
 
 Martyr contrasted with confessor, 
 20 
 
 Matthew, work attributed to by 
 
272 
 
 THE ORACLES OF PAPIAS 
 
 Papias, a work on Messianic 
 
 prophecies, 1, 83 
 Matthew, book by, noticed by 
 
 Papias, 1, 83 
 Maximilla, 253 
 Maximus Confessor, Notice of 
 
 Papias by, 100, 105, 24G, 247 
 Melito, 85 
 
 Millennium, 105 et seq. 
 Messianic prophecies common to 
 
 Matthew and Justin Martyr, 
 
 138 et seq. 
 Messianic prophecies in Justin 
 
 Martyr not found in Matthew, 
 
 185 et seq. 
 
 — — not found in canonical 
 books, 200 cl seq. 
 
 — — secondary authority on, 
 used by fathers, 221 
 
 Methodius, 96 
 Montanists, 251 et seq. 
 Muratorian fragment as to epis- 
 tles of John, 38 et seq. 
 date of, 41 
 
 New Testajient, style pf quoting 
 in 2nd century, 77 
 
 passages from discussed : 
 
 Matthew i. 23, quotation in ; 
 
 whether from LXX, 131, 
 \oOctseq.\ ii. G, 132, lfi7 ; 
 ii. 18, 149; iv. 10, 1,W; 
 xi. 6,198; xii. 13-21, 141, 
 148, 181 ; XV. 1-9, 138 ; 
 xxii.24,132; xxvi. 04,136 
 
 Mark i. 2, 132 ; iii. 5-12, 141 
 
 Luke prologue, 84 n. 
 
 vii. 22, 198 
 
 — -■- Acta vii. 3H, .'^t ; viii. 
 
 85,84 ; xvii. 11, H4; xviii. 
 
 28, 84 ; xxvi. 22, 23, 84 
 
 Bomans iii. 2, 55 
 
 Hebrews v. 12, 55 
 
 lPeteri.9c<sfg.,84;iii.l8, 
 
 214; iv. C,214; iv. 11,55 
 Apocalypse xii. 9, cited by 
 
 Papias, 96 
 
 Old Testament, quotations from, 
 in Gospels, 129 ct seq. ; omitted 
 by Mark, 141 ; by Luke, 200 
 
 Old Testament, passages from, 
 discussed : 
 
 Exodus, xvi. 19, 63 
 
 Numbers, xvi. 28, 38, 54; 
 
 ixiv. 17, quoted by Justin 
 as from Isaiah, 04, 185 ct 
 neq. ; quoted by Irenaeus, 
 180 
 
 Deuteronomy, vi. 13, 138 
 
 1 Chronicles, xvi. 23-31, 
 
 217 
 
 Psalm xix. 14, 49 ; xxiv. 
 
 7, 8, quoted by Justin, 
 201 et seq. ; Ixix. 23, 90 ; 
 cix. 18, 96 ; cxix. 49 
 
 Isaiah, i. 7, quoted by Jus- 
 tin, 191 ; ix. 6, quoted by 
 Justin, 189; vii. 10-1(1, 
 quoted by Justin, 152 et 
 seq.; quoted by Tertul- 
 lian, 156 ; vii. 14, accord- 
 ing to Aquila Symmachua 
 and Theodotion, 157 ; 
 readings of LXX, 158 ; 
 quoted by Justin anil 
 Matthew, 148 ct seq., 159 
 ct seq. ; context of Justin's 
 quotation, 165 ct seq. ; 
 xxviii. 13, 14, 49; 
 XXXV. quoted by Justin, 
 195 ; xlii. 1-4, quoted by 
 Jui^tin and Matthew, 
 181 ; quotations and ren- 
 derings of, 230 ct seq. ; 
 Ixvi. 2, 60 
 
 Jeremiah, xxxi. 15, quoted 
 
 by Justin and tfnttlicw, 
 14H, 149; context of Jua- 
 tin'a (|notaliun, IIIH; I, .'I, 
 ijuolud by Juatin ua fruiii 
 laaiah, 191 
 
 Ezekiel, xlii. 15 to xliii. 3, 
 
 56 
 
 Daniel, vii. 13, quoted by 
 
 Justin as from Jeremiah, 
 202 
 Micah, V. 2, quoted by Jus- 
 tin and Matthew, 14H, 
 149 ; context of Justin's 
 quotation, 107 
 
 INDKX 
 
 2Td 
 
 Old Testament, Zecliariah, ix. 9, 
 quoted by Justin and 
 Matthew, 148, 149; quo- 
 ted by Justin, 1 Ap., 
 173 el seq. ; context of 
 quotation, 174 et seq. ; 
 quoted by Justin, Dial., 
 179 et seq.; according to 
 Hexapla, 181 
 
 Malachi, iii. 3, 140 
 
 Origen, as to Epistles of John, 37. 
 ■See also 243 
 
 Ovcrbeck, 10 
 
 Pai.ey thought Papias referred to 
 the first and second canonical 
 gospels, 2 
 
 Pantaenus, 98 
 
 Papias, wrote on Messianic pro- 
 ])hecies, v ; title of his book, 
 1, 82 ; reference to Matthew, 
 1,83; reference to Mark, 2, 83 ; 
 date of, 1, et seq., 31; state- 
 ments inapplicable to tirst and 
 second canonical gospels, 3, 4 ; 
 martyrdom of, exploded, ; 
 bishop of Hierapolis, 7 ; notice 
 of, by Irenaeus, 8, 105 ct 
 seq.\ influence of, 8; cita- 
 tion from, by Eusebius, 9 ; 
 not a hearer of the Apostles, 
 12 ; wrote after the deaths 
 of the Apostles, 12 ; wrote 
 in lifetime of John the Elder 
 and Arifltion, 11 cl seq. ; notice 
 of, in Vatican MS., 10; 'in 
 exotcricis,' moaning of, l(i- 
 IH; said to have written fomlh 
 gospel at dictation of John, 
 16-19 ; supposed spurious 
 books of, 10 ; notice of, in 
 catena, by B. Corder, 18 ; notice 
 of, in ' Codex Uaroccianus,' 22 ; 
 said John was killed by the 
 Jews, 22, 23 ; did not say that 
 those raised by Christ lived till 
 Hadrian, 25 ; anterior limit to 
 date of his work, 27 ct seq. ; 
 cites first epistle of Peter, 31 ; 
 
 cites Apocalyp.se, 31,93 ; use of 
 AoyioK by, 82 ct seq. ; disparaged 
 by Eusebius, 90 ; did not use 
 canonical gospels, 90 ; why his 
 books were lost, 90 ; summary 
 of conclusions, 91 ; why dis- 
 trusted books, 92 ; did not name 
 Paul, 93 ; notice of, by Apollina- 
 rius, 93 ; notice of by Oecume- 
 nius, 94; notice of, by Andreas, 
 96; use of, by Malalas, 100; 
 notices of, by Anastasius of 
 Sinai, 98, 99 ; notices of, 
 by Maximus Confessor, 100, 
 105 ; probability of his men- 
 tioning matter to be found in 
 thecanonical gospels,114, 115; 
 notice of, by Jerome, 126 ; 
 notice of, inteipolatcd in Euse- 
 bius, 127 
 Papylus mistaken for Papias, 6 
 Peshito-Syriac version, 41-43 
 Peter, tirst epistle of, cited by 
 
 Papias, 31, 235 
 Philip, daughters of, 11, 22, 233 
 Philip of Side, 22 
 Philo Judaeus, meaning of Aoyioi' 
 in, 50 et seq. ; author of De 
 Vita Contemplativa, 227 et seq. 
 See also 104 
 Philo Judaeus, Meeting for seek- 
 ing knowledge, c. '24, 61 ; 
 Fugitives, c. 11, 51 ; Life of 
 Moses, I. c. 15, 53 ; III. c. 
 21, 50 ; c. 23, 51 ; c. 35, 53 ; 
 c. 36, 53; c. 38, 54; De 
 Dccalogo title, 52; De spe- 
 cialibus IcgibuB sextuni, etc 
 title, c. 1, 2, 62 ; llnwarda and 
 punishmeiita, c. 1,61 ; Nobility, 
 c. 5, 50 ; Contemplative life, c. 
 3,52 
 Philosophumena, 253 
 I'ionms, reputed author of Life 
 
 of Polycarp, 250 
 Polycarp, Uishop of Smyrna, 7 ; 
 notice of, by Irenaeus, 118 ct 
 seq. ; visit to Pome, 118 ct seq. ; 
 taught by apostles, etc., 247 ; 
 date ol niartyidom, 247 ; 
 
274 
 
 THE ORACLES OF TAPIAS 
 
 miracles attributed to, 250 ; 
 
 death of, 254 
 Polycarp, epistle of, 78 ; date of, 
 
 68 ; use of Xiyuir in, 66 
 Polyoarp, epistle of, c. 7, 66 
 Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesns, 
 
 says John was a martyr, 19 ; 
 
 weight of his statement, 20 
 
 et seq. 
 Pothinos, 125 
 
 Primas, Bishop of Alexandria, 7 
 Protevangelium, 173 n. ; agree- 
 ment of Justin with, 166, 170 
 
 et seq. 
 
 QuADBATUS, apology of, 25, 26 
 QuadratuB Statins, 249, 258, 266 
 Quartodeciman oontroversy, 251 
 Quotations from 0. T. from the 
 Hebrew, omitted by Mark and 
 Luke, 140 et seq. ; from 0. T. in 
 gospels follow LXX where it 
 difiers.from the Hebrew, 138; 
 of Jxistln Martyr assimilated to 
 LXX, 147, 183 
 
 Rbadimo of Eusebius, Xoylai' and 
 X6yar, 4, 45 e( teq. ; of Clement 
 of Rome, 60 et seq. ; of II. Cle- 
 ment, 72, 73 ; of Smyrnosan 
 letter, 258 et seq. 
 
 Rebecca means patience, 103, 104 
 
 Redeemed will witness with 
 pleasure the Bufferings of the 
 lost, 74 
 
 Richter, 50 
 
 Ruanns, 81 
 
 Saoabis, a martyr, 19 
 
 Salmon, rejects martyrdom of 
 
 John, 23 ; as to date of Murato- 
 
 rian fragment, 41 ; as to O. T. 
 
 quotations in gospels, 133 n; 
 
 as to John the Elder, 16 n 
 Sanday, as to mixed quotations, 
 
 vi n. 
 Scillitan martyrs, acts of, 78 
 
 Septuagint, meaning of Kiywv in, 
 49 ; origin of, as told by early 
 Christians, 164 
 
 Smymicans, letter of, 249 ; post- 
 script to, 253 ; a forgery, 254 ; 
 miracles in, 254 ; readings in, 
 255 et seq., 257 et seq. 
 
 Soter, 119 
 
 Strauss, as to death of Judas, 06 
 
 Supernatural religion (book 
 called), T 
 
 Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, 7 ; 
 authorities as to his martyr- 
 dom, 7 
 
 Symmachus (translator of 0. T. 
 into Greek), 157, 161 
 
 Tebtullian, as to attempted mar- 
 tyrdom of John, 26, 27 ; mixed 
 citation from Isaiah, 156 ; cites 
 words ' a ligno ' as from Psalm, 
 219 
 
 Theodotion (translator of 0. T. 
 into Greek), 157, 161 
 
 Thraseas, a martyr, 19 
 
 Turner, C. H., date of Polycarp's 
 martyrdom, 267 
 
 VALENTINIAIflSU, 71 
 
 Valentinus, 71, 118 
 
 Vossian codex of Irenaeus, 186 
 
 Vulgate, Ezekiel xliii. 3, 57 
 
 Wadmnoton, as to date of 
 Symeon's martyrdom, 7 ; as to 
 date of Polycarp's martyrdom, 
 249 
 
 Westcott (Bishop), as to date of 
 Papias, 12 ; contends that 
 Fapias knew the fourth gospel, 
 17 ; as to 0. T. quotations in 
 gospels, 128 
 
 Woman taken in adultery, story 
 not from Papias, 235 
 
 Zamthicub, Macedonian month, 
 259 et seq. 
 
 apvttintmU i Co. Printeri, Kac-ttrtet Square, Lmdan.