Eusebius makes the following statement at the end of his section on Papias: ‘The same (writer) has made use of testimonies from the former Ep. of Jn and from that of Peter likewise. He has, moreover, also set forth another narrative, con- cerning ‘a woman charged before the Lord with many sins, which the Gospel acc. to the Hebrews contains.’ Use of the First Ep. of Jn indirectly affords evidence, as we have already had occasion to remark, of the existence and circulation of the Gospel according to John. It must not be assumed, indeed, on the ground of this notice, that Papias attributed these works to the apostle; but we may at least feel sure that he said nothing plainly inconsistent with this view of their authorship: if he had done so, Eusebius could not have failed to mention it, more especially as he was not in sympathy with some of this writer’s opinions.
Something more as to Papias’ use of the Johan- nine writings may, it would seem, be learned from Ireneus. The latter, in language that recalls Papias’ prologue preserved in Eusebius, re- peatedly adduces the testimony of ‘the elders’ who had seen and heard John, the disciple of the Lord, or again, in another place, ‘who were dis- ciples of apostles’; and when we examine the passages in which he refers to them and quotes their sayings, we find that their character is just such as we might expect it to be if they were
NEW TESTAMENT CANON
derived from Papias’ Exegeses, in view, on the one hand, of its aim as described by the author him- self, and of his chiliastic predilections [adv. Her. y. 5.1; 30. 1; 33.4]. In one of these places (vy. 33. 4) Ireneeus, after alluding to the elders, proceeds to quote from Papias’ book by name. Now, among the passages which may with probability be regarded as extracts, more or less exact, from Papias, there is one in which a saying of the Lord, recorded in Jn 14%, and not in any other Gospel, is quoted and commented on (adv. Her. v. 36. 1); there is another relating to the number of the Beast in the Apocalypse (ib. 30. 1).
To conclude: the evidence as to Papias, though it is much more scanty than we should like, and though it is in part obscure, tends to show that he derived the ‘Oracles of the Lord,’ which he made his starting-point, from our Gospels and not from any other source, and that he knew at least the Gospels ace. to Mt, Mk, and Jn.
The so-called Second Ep. of Clement.—This work is of considerable interest in connexion with the history of the Canon, more especially as to the use of Apocryphal Gospels and the position accorded to them in relation to our Gospels. Its date is consequently important. Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. extr. Can. p. xxxvili 1.) and Harnack (Patres Apostolici, pp. xci, xcii) took the view that it was the Epistle sent by Soter to Corinth, ¢. A.D. 170 (Euseb. HE iv. 23). But since the recovery of this work in an unmutilated form, through Bryennios’ discovery in 1875, it has become evident that it is not a Letter at all but a Homily, and its identifica- tion with the communication of Soter ought no longer to be regarded as tenable (see Lightfoot, Clem. Rom. ii. p. 194 ff.; Harnack, however, still adheres to the identification, Chronol. i. pp. 440-450). The character of the work in general, it may be added, is favourable to an earlier date. It may most reasonably be taken as illustrating the state of things in respect to the recognition of the New ‘Testament Scriptures, c. A.D. 140, or perhaps somewhat before this.
We will next briefly notice the recently recovered Apology of Aristides, an example of a class of Christian writings which has even given a name in Church history to an age—that occupying the middle portion of the 2nd cent. This one appears to have been addressed not as Eusebius says (HE iv. 3) to Hadrian, but to Antoninus Pius (Emp. 138-161); but it probably belongs to the earlier rather than the latter part of his reign (comp. J. R. Harris, Texts and Studies, i. p. 8, and Harnack, Chronol. i. pp. 271-273). The special character of compositions of this kind, like that of others, and even more than that of some others, must be remembered in order that the effect of the evidence supplied by them in regard to the Canon may be fairly judged of. The argument and purpose of the greater part of the Apology of Aristides did not afford opportunities for quoting from Christian documents. It contains, however, one passage which illustrates in an interesting manner a time of transition when memories of the oral delivery of . the Gospel were linked with a growing dependence upon a written form of it. (See tr. of Syriac in Texts and Studies, 1. i. p. 36).
We pass to the writings of a far greater ‘apolo- gist,’ Justin Martyr, and we may confine our attention to the three extant works bearing his name, which are by common consent admitted to be genuine—his First and Second Apologies and Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Recent investi- gations, beginning with those of Volkmar, Theol. Jahrb. von Baur τι. Zeller, 1855, and of Hort, Journ. of Philol., 1857, have served to show that the First Apology should be placed a little later than it commonly used to be, and that the Second