YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE LIBRARY OF THE DIVINITY SCHOOL ttbe TUnivetsits of dbfcaoo FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER THE IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL: ITS EXTENT, • MEANING, AM) VALUE v rjyeiTo Kara rhv VaXXlav a.8eXv .... imXeyuiv • .... Kai roiavr-q p.ev iraiKiXia tS>v imTrjpovVTWv, oi vvv iff' VhlS'v ycyovvla, aXXa. Kal ttoXv tcporepov ivl rS>v ttdo ijpoi/ . ... Kai oiSkv eXarrov iraVrcs ovroi eipyvevo-dv re, kol elprjvevop.ev irpos dAA.77A.ovs .... Kai tov pMKapiov UoXyKaptrov 67ri8i?^r;o-avTOs iv 'Pwart lirl 'Kvui-qrov .... ti6v<; dp-qvevcrav .... ouTe yap b 'Avuojtos tov TJoXvKap- ¦kov Treia-ai. eBvvaro p.rj Tirjpeiv are p.eTa 'Wj/vou tov fj.a0vrov Kvpiov y/xS>v /cat XonrZv airoo-TaXtov, 01s o-vvSurpuj/ev, dei rer-qpinKOTa ¦ ovre p.ijv 6 TloXvKapwos tov 'AvUrjTov eVeicre rinpeiv The language warrants the following statements concerning the source and trustworthiness of the testimony. 1. The letter was written, on behalf of the Christians in Gaul, to Victor 24 [474 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 25 as the bishop of. the church in Rome. It was evidently a letter which was intended to be of a public nature, an "open letter," so that it was expected to be subject to criticism. It became public property and stood the test of criticism well enough to be regarded as valuable for preservation. 2. From the letter we learn that Polycarp was in Rome in the time of Anicetus (who was bishop of Rome about 154 to 156). One of the leading topics of conversation at that time was the observance of Easter. In this discussion Polycarp maintained his position, because he could say that his custom of observance rested on the custom of "John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles," with whom he had observed it. 3. In this letter Irenaeus asserted that, in spite of the difference between the Roman Christians and those of Asia as to the observance of Easter, there had been fellowship and peace between them at the time of which he was speaking, i. e., at a little past the middle of the second century. The Roman Christians in the time of Irenaeus were in a position to know whether such had been the situation in the time of Anicetus, only thirty or forty years before. The memory of some of the older ones could have bridged the time with substantial accuracy, and documents of one kind or another were almost certainly in existence bearing on a topic which was regarded as so important as that of Easter and the earlier relations between Asia and Rome. Irenaeus' appeal to Victor must have been well founded, and we are led to conclude that the situation at the middle of the second century was substantially that which Irenaeus described toward the close of the century. 4. Such a presentation of the question in dispute as Irenaeus made in this letter implies that he was independently and directly well informed as to the situation in Asia at the time of Anicetus. Otherwise he could not have written to Rome as he did. If 'he had gotten his information merely through Rome, Rome could have replied that his argument had no value for her, since she was already in possession of as much information as he was. At most his letter could only have been an appeal, and he would naturally have made such an appeal on the basis of reference to what he had received from Rome. But the letter contains no such reference. Rather it proceeds in an independent manner. The dispute had not arisen within the times in which he was living, he said, but long before; and the statement implies that he had known of the entire history of the dispute independently of his relations with Rome. He could easily have known this, of course, since close communication between the East and the West is well known to have been an ordinary event of the times.1 1 That his letter to Victor did not accomplish the purpose for which it was sent is 475 26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 5. The fact that the dispute had arisen long before the time of Irenaeus implies that it had been under discussion long enough to bring out all the facts in the case and make them well known. As a corollary, the statement of Irenaeus implies that an error of claim would easily have been recognized and set aside. There were plenty of well-recognized data, and Irenaeus naturally confined himself to them. 6. Putting all this material together, it is seen that the testimony of Irenaeus in this letter is not a single testimony from the last part of the second century. Instead, it is the generally accepted understanding of conditions by the Christians of the middle of the second century, both in Rome, in Asia, and in Gaul. 7. But this takes the testimony, at least as much of it as came from Polycarp, back to his lifetime and activity, and makes it substantially his testimony. We have in this letter a presentation of some of the affairs of Asia as Polycarp had been familiar with them during his long life in the midst of Asian events. 8. Inasmuch as Polycarp was a man some thirty years of age at the close of the first century, we are here given the testimony of a man who was fully conversant with events and opinions of that time, and the testimony which we are considering is seen to be the testimony of the close of the first century. The letter to Florinus (Eus. H. E . 5 . 20) may now be examined in a similar way. Florinus had renounced some views which Irenaeus regarded as essential to Christian teaching, and Irenaeus wrote in protest. The portions of the letter which bear on the worth of the testimony and its signifi cance for the fourth gospel are as follows : Tavra to. Soy/tara 01 irpb ?)/*u>v Trpeo-fSvTepoi, 01 Kai Toils aworrToXois crvp.u,evov ev&oKip.e'iv Trap' avT<3. MaAAov yap to. Tore o'uap.vnp.ovevm twv evayvos yivou.e- va>v .... wore p.e SvvacrOai eiVeiv Kai rbv tottov iv fUiTo$ tSeav Kal ras SiaXigeis as iiroieira jrpos to ttX^os, Kai t*)v p-era 'Iv empaKOTiav tov Kupiov, «ai As awep.vrjp.6veve tous Adyous avTwv • Kai Trepl tov Kvpiov Tiva rjv a Trap' ekcivcov oK-qKoei, Kai irepi t&v 8wd/xev avToirrwv rijs £a>i}s rov Xoyov TrapciAricpAs 6 IIoA,uKap7ros, d7r>7yy£\A,£ iravra o-vp,va rats ypa<^ais. The TrdvTa, as a reading of the letter shows, were the details of the stories which Polycarp used to relate concerning whom Jesus loved" was Paul {The Expositor, October, 1907) is highly ingenious, but not convincing. His discussion probably merely carries appreciation of the actual symbolism of the New Testament to an absurdity. The omission of John's name from the letters of Ignatius is most easily explained by a residence of John in Asia and his natural death there. If John lived in Asia and died there a natural death, Ignatius could not have introduced his name into the letters as he introduced the names of Paul and Peter, for he wrote of both as martyrs (Rom. 4:3; Eph. 12:2). Aside from Paul and Peter, he named only living Christians. Peter and Paul were not named in any one of the remaining five of his letters. This might appear to indicate that, if we did not have his letters to the Romans and to the Ephe- sians, we should be justified in concluding that he did not know Peter and Paul had been in Rome; but the mere statement of such a conclusion shows how untrustworthy it would be. Even great men are not mentioned on all occasions and in every letter. Ignatius' did not mention John because the nature of the letters he was writing was not such as to lead to such a mention. In a similar way Polycarp's mention of Paul in his letter to the Philippians without a mention of John is readily accounted for. In one case (9.1, 2), he, like Ignatius, spoke of Paul as a martyr. In the other two references (3:2 and n . 2, 3) Paul's letter to the Philippians was the occasion of the mention. If, then, John lived in Asia for a time, died a natural death, and did not write a letter to the Philippians, Polycarp could not have mentioned John as he mentioned Paul. We can hardly assume that a letter from Polycarp to the Philippians must have mentioned John in any case. The lack of mention in the letter we have is accounted for if we assume that John did not die a martyr and did not write to the Philippians. Papias' statement preserved by Eusebius (H. E. 3 .39.3, 4) probably corroborates the theory that there was only one celebrated John in Asilrand-lbhat this John was the son of Zebedee. This often-discussed statement includes the name John twice, but in each case it is applied to a presbyter. Eusebius, in his unfortunate guess con cerning the authorship of the Apocalypse, had to interpret Papias' language to mean that Papias knew two Johns and located both of these in Asia. Papias certainly did not say this, and his language does not require such an interpretation. In the fact that the name John is each time given to a presbyter, together with the form of the verbs, is to be found the key to the language. The significant words are as follows: E2 Se ttov Kal TapriKoXovdriKtbs tis tois irp«r|3vTepoK e\6oi, rods tvv 5rp«r|3vT<*pwK &v- iKpivov \ftovs ¦ rl 'Avdpias .... elvev . . . . 1) rl 'laavvqi . .... S. re 'Apurrluv Kal 6 irpeo-pirepos 'Iwrfwijs . . . \eyov<). These two men were put in a different class, through a change in the form of the last part of the statement, because they were still alive at the time referred to. Aristion seems not to have been thought of as a presbyter; at any rate, he was not called one. But, in the case of John, the significantly restrictive 6 Trpeo-^iirepos was used, apparently referring back to the fact that John had already been called a presbyter and intending to indicate directly that this John was the same one who had been mentioned in the first group and could now be mentioned again because he belonged also in the same class as Aristion. The course of events, accordingly, was somewhat as follows: Papias, in his early life, used to inquire what the personal disciples of Jesus, while several of them were still alive, used to say. He inquired also what those still alive in his own time were saying. John, in view of the advanced age to which he attained, belonged to both classes. Papias, when he wrote in later life, preserved this distinction and repeated the descriptive phrase applied to John to show that it was the same man who was mentioned twice. His testimony is a testimony to one John, then, rather than to two. Where this one lived, either in the earlier period or the later, however, he did not sav for he did not locate any of the persons whom he named. Apparentlv the I" t ' a' without reference to location. Probably it was made for other ™=™, 1 , . , . T ,,, . j- x t . reasons alone, namely, their relation to Jesus, as the language indicates. It is left to us therefo 1 V John by means of evidence which we have from other sources than Paoias ' TV naturally lead us to say that, if Papias spoke of only one John and knew of V who had come to advanced age, the John whom he thus knew will almost • the son of Zebedee, whom the testimony of Polycarp locates in Asia at tV„> «„ , -. „ . , . le tlCQe of which Papias was speaking. 482 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 33 was in the accounts which he had of New Testament times — that he was appealing to history rather than to prophecy. 2. The writings referred to were the well-known New Testament writ ings as a whole. This, too, appears possible, for, in the days of Irenaeus, the New Testament had come to be referred to in that manner.1 Such a reference, however, seems in no degree probable, for the New Testament as a whole does not describe the life and teachings of Jesus. If Irenaeus intended to refer to the New Testament at all, he could hardly have had in mind more of it than the gospels. We may pass, therefore, to consider the possibility of such a reference, namely, 3. Irenaeus referred to the well-known gospels of his own day. This may be resolved into three possibilities: a. The four gospels existed in the time of Polycarp as they did in the time of Irenaeus. Irenaeus knew this and carelessly referred to them at the time of Polycarp by the title which they did not receive till a generation or two later. This theory has the serious difficulty that it must explain how the fourth gospel could have existed in the days of Polycarp and yet have no satisfactory attestation before about the year 170. Various explana tions of this phenomenon have been attempted, but, up to the present time, no satisfactory solution of the difficulty seems to have been offered. b) Irenaeus thought the four gospels existed in the time of Polycarp and carelessly described them by the title of his own time. He was right as to the existence of the synoptic gospels, but he was wrong concerning the fourth gospel, which, if it existed at all in Polycarp's day, did not exist in its present form. This theory differs from the preceding in that (1) it charges Irenaeus with a mistake concerning the date of the publication of the fourth gospel as well as concerning the title which he gave the gospels as they were known in Polycarp's day; (2) it assumes that the fourth gospel was not published till after the time of Polycarp, and so it does not need to explain the late attestation; (3) it has to explain how a "Johannine" gospel could have been published so late. Hitherto, attempts to explain how a "Johannine" gospel could have only such late attestation have either failed to give a satisfactory account of all the data involved, especially, per- 1 Not so in the days of Polycarp. There is no instance in the works of the Apostolic Fathers which have come down to us where the gospels, or any part of the New Testa ment, or all of it together, is referred to as "the writings." The nearest approach to such an expression is in II Clem. * .4. where, after passages from the Old Testament had been quoted, the writer continued: erepa de ypatpT) \iyei, with a quotation of part of Matt. 9: 13. Indeed, this is the only place in the Fathers where the gospel is referred to as 7P<"M- 483 34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES haps, the practical absence of quotations by Justin from the fourth gospel,1 or have largely discredited the idea that the fourth gospel was any very direct production of the son of Zebedee. c) Irenaeus knew that the first three gospels were current in Polycarp's time as in his own; he knew also that the fourth gospel was a later work. In referring to the situation in the time of Polycarp, he merely employed the usage of his own time, not taking the trouble to state all the facts as he knew them. This theory relieves Irenaeus from responsibility for giving an early date to the publication of the fourth gospel, but it makes him respon sible for error in carrying the title of the gospels in his own time back to the time of Polycarp. It, like the preceding, must give an explanation of the late appearance of a "Johannine" gospel. Altogether, we cannot say certainly that the reference of Irenaeus was not to the well-known gospels of his own day. If the four gospels were in existence in the days of Polycarp, it would have been no very serious error, perhaps, for him to use the language which we are here considering. But, if we say that he merely employed the language of his own time, we become involved in one of two serious difficulties: either, (i) we must explain how the fourth gospel could have been current in the days of Polycarp, but failed to get any satisfactory attestation till considerably later, or, (2) we must show how a "Johannine" gospel could appear after Polycarp's time. In view of the recognized seriousness of these difficulties, especially the diffi culty of securing any common ground between the two positions, it is worth while to consider a further possibility, namely, 4. Irenaeus referred to Johannine writings current and well-known in the days of Polycarp dealing with the work and teachings of Jesus, writings from which the fourth gospel was later compiled. There is no doubt that this is a real possibility. To be sure, we do not know that such Johannine writings existed; if we did, some of the most serious aspects of the Johan nine problem would be removed. The expression which Irenaeus here used, however, may indicate that there were such writings. At any rate, the expression suggests a possibility; we may take it and see what it is worth. The following points are worthy of notice : o) If there were such Johannine writings current and well known in the days of Polycarp, then the expression which Irenaeus used was a natural one with which to refer to them; his language is as natural for such writings in the time of Polycarp as the same language had come to be for a reference to the New Testament in his own day. 1 Such references by Justin as that in Apology i. 61, for example, are sufficiently explained if Justin had Johannine material but not the fourth gospel. 484 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 35 6) This hypothesis relieves Irenaeus of the charge of carelessness and inaccuracy in making reference to the writings which he here had in mind. This is a comparatively unimportant matter, to be sure, but still it is worth taking into account. We have no occasion to discredit the man more than is necessary. The presumption ought to be that he is correct, until he is shown to be wrong, and a theory which justifies him in his usage is prefer able, if it meets other conditions equally well. c) This hypothesis is in accord with what appears to be the more obvious meaning of Irenaeus' language, for he seems to say that Polycarp used to speak in harmony with writings then in existence which were then known as "the" writings; if anyone reads the language without any pre possessions as to what writings are referred to, he will probably reach this conclusion. d) If we look at the context, that appears to indicate that Irenaeus had in mind Johannine writings, but not a single gospel nor a gospel together with our Johannine epistles. The preceding context tells of the oral accounts which Polycarp used to give concerning Jesus as Polycarp had received them from John. The contents of these oral accounts are indi cated by only two specific terms. These are ai oWd^fis and rj SiSao-KaAia. Perhaps no other two terms alone could have been employed which would so well describe the special characteristics of the contents of the fourth gospel as distinguished from the contents of the synoptic accounts. The point is not decisive, to be sure, but it offers an interesting suggestion. It suggests that John used to speak especially of Jesus' miracles and teaching, that Polycarp used to repeat those accounts, and that the terms which Irenaeus selected to describe those accounts — because these terms best find their contents in our fourth gospel at the same time that Irenaeus spoke of "the writings" instead of "the gospel" — are testimony from the time of Polycarp to the contents of the fourth gospel as material which came from the son of Zebedee at the same time that Irenaeus' selection of "the writ ings, " as a term to describe the written form of that material, is a testimony to Johannine writings as embodying that material. By supposing that there were Johannine accounts of Jesus' work and teaching — but not our fourth gospel — current in the time of Polycarp, we explain the language of Ire naeus' letters, both as to his selection of the term "the writings" and the context which indicates the contents of that term. e) If we suppose that, in the time of Polycarp, there were Johannine writings, rather than a Johannine gospel, we gain an effective key to the problem of the long-recognized "displacements" in our fourth gospel. This recognition of displacements implies that, at some time, and in one 485 36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES form or another, our gospel existed in the shape of "booklets," as Professor Burton has happily named them. These booklets were produced, we may assume, no doubt, with no thought that they would ever form a single work; if the author, or authors, of them had intended a single work, he, or they, would not have made booklets. Such booklets very naturally included similar material, or even the same material, presented from different points of view, or even from apparently different situations. Their compilation into a whole— after the usual method of writing history of the time— would then result iii just such apparent dislocations and inconsistencies as the critical reader may now find in the fourth gospel.1 But if we suppose that the gospel was composed as a single work, even from sources, these apparent dislocations and inconsistencies can hardly be explained as anything less than carelessness or ignorance. The supposition, accordingly, that the Johannine story of the life and teachings of Jesus in the time of Polycarp, at least as far as it was written at that time, was in the form of separate booklets, enables us most easily and most satisfactorily to account for an important element of the internal evidence of the fourth gospel. The course of events leading up to its compilation, then, will have been somewhat as follows: John did not write a gospel as a single work. If he himself wrote of Jesus at all, his writings were only in the form of short disconnected accounts. Perhaps it is more probable that the writing was done by one of his disciples with his approval. Such accounts, short sermons as it were, dealing with different aspects of Jesus' life and teachings but incidentally overlapping one another, received recognition at once, but were not thought of as a gospel. They remained in use, in Asia Minor, at least, during the time of Polycarp, and were the Johannine writings in accord with which Polycarp used to speak of the miracles and teachings of Jesus. Polycarp recognized the writings, but he was not dependent upon them for he had received the same accounts from John himself and could relate them independently. Some time after this, perhaps about the middle of the second century, such Johannine writings then current as would best serve the purpose were compiled into a gospel, and the compilation resulted in the internal characteristics which have led scholars to recognize either dis placements or booklets in our fourth gospel. /) If the Johannine writings in the time of Polycarp were merely book lets, we can readily understand Justin's failure to quote from the f th gospel — there was no such gospel until about the time he wrote Tf r> knew of Johannine booklets, he did not honor them as he did thf = ne synoptic 1 E. g., those found by Bacon as described in The American Journal ol Th Vol. IV, under the title " Tatian's Rearrangement of the Fourth Gospel " 486 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 37 "memoirs." The increase in his use of Johannine material in the Dialogue as compared with that in the Apology (or the Apologies, if we call them two) is doubtless due largely to the increase in value for him of the Johan nine material during the several years between the composition of the two works. g) This view is not necessarily out of harmony with what Irenaeus him self wrote of the authorship of the gospel. His definite statement is as follows (3.I.1): E?r£iTa laiavvos 6 p.a8r]Tr]s tov Kupiou, o Kai em to crri^os airov dvajr£o-ci)V, Kal avTos iie8a>Ke to eiayyeXiov, iv *E$£cr ttjs 'Ao-ias 3iaTpi|8 KareKero), while John simply i^ehtoKe to eiayyeXiov. Was this Irenaeus' way of saying that John did not prepare a complete gospel but merely left gospel material ? That may hardly be asserted, but it is certainly a possibility, and it is truly suggestive. Ire naeus' language is capable of that meaning, and such a meaning put upon it allows a theory of the origin of the gospel which will explain its late attestation, its Johannine character, and Irenaeus' substantial accuracy — three data which the evidence as a whole has required us to reconcile, if such a reconcilation may be fairly secured. Two objections will doubtless be offered against this interpretation of Irenaeus' language. It will be said that I have freely charged him (p. 24) with a mistake concerning the authorship of the third gospel, while I now attempt to explain away the ordinarily accepted meaning of his accom panying statement concerning the fourth gospel. But the two cases are not at all parallel. Irenaeus' mistake concerning the third gospel has been recognized on grounds independent of Irenaeus, who was much farther removed from the writing of the third gospel than from the writing of the fourth, and is much more likely not to have had accurate information con cerning the third. Moreover, in the case of the fourth gospel, difficulties concerning it which are recognized by scholars on grounds independent of Irenaeus are best explained by accepting his statement concerning it as an 487 38 HISTORICAL AND - LINGUISTIC STUDIES accurate one, the correct interpretation of which I have just indicated. It is entirely possible, therefore, that Irenaeus' concise statement concerning the fourth gospel is the outcome of direct knowledge of its origin. Consid erations to be advanced later, as well as those already advanced, support this view of the questions at issue. The other objection will be that Irenaeus often quoted the fourth gospel as the actual language of John, which he ought not to have done if he knew that John himself did not write the gospel or even booklets from which it was Compiled. The natural reply is that, on the theory of the origin of the gospel which I have proposed, John was sufficiently responsible for the language of the gospel for Irenaeus to have felt entire freedom in quoting it as John's, at least for such purposes as he had in mind. This discussion of rats ypaipate may now be summed up as a whole. The term was recognized in the time of Irenaeus as a title for the gospels, and lie may have applied it to the gospels in the time of Polycarp, assuming, correctly or incorrectly, that they did so exist. To say that he did this, however, involves us in serious difficulty concerning the fourth gospel, a difficulty which hitherto has not been satisfactorily met, namely, to explain either (1) how our fourth gospel could have existed in the days of Polycarp as it existed in the days of Irenaeus without getting any attestation till about the year 170, or (2) how a Johannine gospel could have appeared only after Polycarp's time, in which case its late attestation would be explained by its late appearance. In short, to interpret Irenaeus' refer ence to "the writings" as a reference to the gospels is linguistically possible, but such an interpretation leaves us in historical diffi culties. The expression is equally explicable linguistically, however as a refer ence to Johannine writings current in Polycarp's day; if there were such writings, the expression is the natural one for Irenaeus to have used to de scribe them. By assuming that there were such writings, therefore we are able to avoid the historical difficulties at the same time that we show due regard to linguistic usage. Especially, we find an explanation for the serious difficulty offered by the external evidence, namely, an explanation of a Johannine gospel with only late second-century attestation. At the same time, we find also a key to the problem of the internal evidence offered by the so-called displacements, a key which is at once simpler and far less arbitrary than any other, and one by means of which we avoid depreciating the work of either author or editor of the gospel. No single item of th evidence warrants the conclusion which has been reached but th H combination, on this theory, of all the elements of the evidence in su h 488 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 39 manner as to seem to solve the problem which has been before us offers a strong probability that the conclusion is correct.1 This testimony from Polycarp warrants a still further statement con cerning the Johannine writings as they were known in Asia in Polycarp's time. As the testimony led above (p. 30) to the conclusion that Polycarp and those who received their information from him knew of only one John of prominence in Asia at the close of the first century, so here 'it implies that Polycarp and the rest knew of only one author for the Johannine writ ings. The only Johannine writer of whom they knew was the son of Zebedee. The opinion that the Johannine writings came from him was a uniform one. The very absence of discussion of the question is doubtless one reason why we do not have any more data bearing on the question. If there had been a difference of view concerning the authorship of the Johan nine writings, such, e. g., as there was concerning the observance of Easter, it is natural to suppose that we should have inherited some accounts of the differences, as we have in the case of the differences about Easter. The testimony of the second century knows no such difference of views, and the recognition of this fact is highly important.2 1 It may seem that, in this interpretation of reus ypaoiTrjO-avTes, oi Trapeo~u>Kav croi. ETSov yap ere .... iv rn koto] Acria 7rapa T<5 IIoAuKapiru) .... hiapvop,ovevu> .... tt]V ueto, Taiavvov o-vvavao-T potprjv (is ||IIoAi)Ka7rposJ airqyyeXXe A comparison of this language with that of 2.22.5c (see p. 45) will show at once the similarities between the two narratives. Attention may be called to some of the more important of these similarities: The presby ters are mentioned in tbe letter just as they were in the other passage; here, as there, they are men who had seen the apostles and associated with them;1 the teaching which these presbyters handed down was, in both cases that which they had received from John; the common place of activity wasAsia. The obvious conclusion from the discovery of such close similarities = For determining who the apostles here referred to were, the reader should recall here, as elsewhere, the discussion of Irenaeus' use of the word "apostle" early in this essay (pp. 20-23). 496 IRENAEUS TESTIMONY TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL 47 between the two passages is, that the presbyters in the one case are of the same class as the presbyters in the other, and that the teaching on the basis of which Irenaeus made his appeal to Florinus is out of the same treasury as that on the basis of which he made appeal to those who should read the Heresies. If in the Heresies narrative Irenaeus employed a written source, then quite certainly the source which he used in the letter to Florinus was written. But if the former was oral, the latter likewise was doubtless oral.1 The similarities between the two passages appear all the more striking when it is noted that the letter to Florinus was probably written some years after the passage in the Heresies and, naturally, without any thought that the two would ever be compared. The conclusion thus reached involves a similar conclusion for the refer ences of 5.5.1c; 5.30.1a; 5.33.36; 5.36. ic, and 5.36.26, since these references have already (p. 46) been assigned to the same class as 2 . 22 . 5c. The seven references together will be found to be alike, either written or oral, as far as the evidence already considered can indicate. But there is an interesting difference between the language of the letter to Florinus and the language of 2 . 22 . 5c. In 2 . 22 . 5c the verb which Ire naeus used to describe the presbyter source is in the present tense (paprv- poBo-iv), while in the letter to Florinus the verb is in the past tense (TrapeSw- Kav). This difference appears the more significant when one observes that the verbs of 5 . 5 . ic; 5.30.1a; 5.33-36; 5-36-IC, and 5.36.26, are all presents. The difference is made more suggestive when we recognize that the verbs of 4.27.1a; 4.27.1c; 4.27.2c; 4.28.16; 4.30.10; 4. 31. 10, and 4.32 . ia are all in the past tense. The past tense appears natural for a reference to oral testimony of men who were no longer living, apparently, at the time when Irenaeus wrote, but to use the present tense for such a reference seems to require explanation. The need of explanation appears to be increased when we take into account that the presbyter of 4.27.1a; 4.27.1c; 4.27.2c, and perhaps the presbyters of 4.28.16 to 4.32.1a, were one generation farther from the apostles than Polycarp;2 for, though 1 Harnack has led astray the readers of his interpretation of the letter to Florinus by making significant Irenaeus' choice of v airov jiifiXuiv. The Kai, which is strengthened by ' It may still be asked why Irenaeus used the past tense so regularly in some instances (4.27. 10, etc.) and the present with equal regularity in other cases (2 . 22 . 5c, etc.). I offer the following explanation: If these citations are considered from the point of view of the composition of his work, they occur at four points. The passage in 2.22.5c stands by itself, the only one of the references which occurs in the second book. The seven references of 4 . 27 . 10, etc., are evidently from one, or practically one, sitting of the writer. That of 5.5.1c, like 2.22.5c, occurs apart by itself . The last four references of the fifth book have a contiguity similar to the contiguity of the seven in the fourth book. At the first, third, and fourth of these .points Irenaeus thought, and expressed himself, through 'historical, or progressive, presents. In the second, he thought, and expressed himself, through a past tense. Probably everyone who has observed himself or other writers has recognized these tense "moods." The phenom enon may be observed in printed books. It will doubtless be found in this essay, though I have consciously sought to avoid it. 499 50 HISTOBICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES the in in composition, shows that Irenaeus had material from Papias in addition to that which he derived from the presbyters. The iyypdjxos shows that the material from Papias was written and implies that the mate rial from the presbyters was oral. If Irenaeus had not desired to emphasize the written form of the material from Papias as over against the oral from the presbyters, his meaning was complete without the iyypd 40 4- p. 26 42 5 33- 4 49, 53 3. n. 4c 20 4- 4- 2b 42 5 36. 1 42, 44 3. 11. 4-9 42 4- 4- 3» 17 5 36. 2a 54 INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS Matt. 1:18 21 John 8:56, 57 54 John 19:26, 27 20 28: 19 55 chap. 10 13 20:2, 3, 4, 8 20 Luke 1:35 21 I3--25 13 chap. 21 13 John 1 : 18 r3 14:2 54 21:7,20,23,24 20 3:18-218:44 !3r3 14:6 *9 18: 15, 16 20 64 [514 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 02454 0149 1,