We know fronr the lists given by Eusebius, and allusions in other autliors, that our extant ante- Nicene Fathers represent a very small fraction of the literature of the Church before his time. We may judge from this fact how unlikely it would be that much of the writings of heretics would sur- vive. Such literature did not belong to a body with a continuous organized life, as is the Chris- tian Churcli, a life continuous in doctrine as well as by personal links. The doctrine of the Chris- tian Church, being a living tiling, grows and develops from one generation to another ; but tlie new always has to reconcile itself with the old ; they are connected. And .so even uninspired Clrristian writings would continue to be preserved and respected long after they had ceased to be Ijenerally read. Whereas lieresy, as it was called, IS essentially transitory ; its literature, even when not merely the expression of the thoughts of an individual, reflects the conception of only one generation. Tliose who inherit it have no reason tor retaining interest in it after it has ceased to represent jirecisely tlieir thoughts. On the whole, it seems to the jiresent writer that these papyri Sayings of Jesus must be regarded as not an ex- pression of the main line of Church thouglit of any century. They are, of course, profoundly interest- ing, as casting light on tlie religious conceptions of some, we cannot tell liow many, in the 2nd cent., but they do not exhibit tlie general mind of the Church.
11. In any discussion as to the language in which the Jirst Gospel narrative was composed, it is im- possible to leave out of account the evidence pre- served in the fragments of Papias that are cited in Eusebius, HE iii. 39.
It is not intended here to give a resuni6 of the controversy that has raged over these few lines ; but merely to state what seems to the present ivriter their most probable sense and value. Tlie title of Papias' booli was Ao7iui' KvpLaKuiv 'EJ1J777- <ris. Besides Eusebius, Irenaeus seems to be the only writer, of those whose works have come down to us, who exhibits a first-hand acquaint- ance with tlie book of Papias. The other writers who allude to him evidently knew no more aljout him than what they found in Eusebius or Iren;cus. The nature of the work may be guessed from what Papias himself states in one of the fragments : ' I shall not hesitate also to put down for you, along with my interpretations, whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders.' The book, then, had a twofold character : inter- pretations, and also oral traditions. It is these latter to which Eusebius refers when he says tliat tlie book contained ' certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things ' ; and from tlie fact that Eusebius quotes from Papias two statements fdiicprniiig the Gospels of Matthew and Mark ics|H-iti\i-ly, it is at least probable that the »»^ qir.i,,in,iis dealt with our Gospels. Eusebius i\i\K-r, ik.i concciil his contempt for Papias' literary capacity: lie appears to have been of very limited understanding (atpkhpo. (TfUKpbs rbv vovv), as one can see from his discourses.' This adverse verdict is certainly l>orne out by the puerile extracts preserved by Ireniinis ; and it does not seem reasonable to attribute Eusebius' hostile criticism to his want of sympathy with Papi.as' millenarian opinions. Eusebius speaks in un- qualified praise of Irena-us, who shared those opinions.
We may now discuss the term \6yia KvpiaKd, as it occurs in the title of Papias' book. Tlie word
X67ia may certainly be rendered ' oracular utter- ances,' as Professor Stanton points out {The Gos- pels as Historical Documents, p. 53) ; but \6yia KvpiaKd is not naturally rendered ' oracular utter- ances of the Lord,' in the sense uttered by the Lord, — which would be \6yia Kvplov, — but oracular utterances relating to the Lord, just as KvpinKdv aeiTTi'oi' does not mean the supper eaten by, or given by, the Lord, but the supper ordained as an in- stitution by Him. KvpiaKds has the same force in the phrase ij KvpiaKij ij^^pa.
As regards \67ta, it would, of course, be absurd to question the possibility that Papias was familiar with the word in the sense ' oracular utterances ' ; but it is more likely that his use of \671a was inten- tionally analogous to that found in the NT (Ac 7**, Ko 3^, He 5'=, 1 P 4"), where the term, variously qualified, is used of the Scriptures of the 1 OT. X(57io KiipiaKd, then, would mean Holy Scriptures connected with the Lord, i.e. the Gospels. This g harmonizes with what we have other- ferred as to the nature of the book written by Papias. It dealt primarily with interpreta- tions of the Gospels, and secondarily with oral traditions, of which he was evidently a very un- critical collector.
Papias distinctly tells us, as Eusebius points out, that among his informants \vere persons old enough to have had personal intercourse with the Apostles. He distinguishes two classes of authori- ties : ( 1 ) Persons who could tell him what Andrew, Peter, etc., said {(tirev), 'and (2) what Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, sa;/ ' (X^yomii'). Eusebius, who had read the book, states that the language of Papias implies that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. We are certainly entitled to infer that they were his elder contemporaries ; vei-y much elder, if they really were ' disciples of the Lord ' in the strict sense of the plrrase. See, further, art. Arlstion.