' The order of the list * of elders given by Papias is, as Pro- fessor Stanton remarks {op. cit. p. 168), * a somewhat strange one.' He gives the true explanation as to why John and Matthew are mentioned last, i.e. ' For the very reason that they had embodied their testimony in writing, they were less im- portant than the rest for the particular purpose of which he is speaking here — the illustration of the written "oracles" by matter orally handed down.' It may be added that the omission in this list of Mark and Luke w.is most probably due to the consideration that these E\ an^^-Iists could not be sup- posed to be .able, from personal knowledge, to add anything to what they had embodied in their Gospels. One cannot help noting that the other names, ' Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James,' are those of the Apostles who are introduced in the Gospels as making observations, and that the first three names occur in that order in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel. vye do not know which James Papias meant. Moreover, while Eusebius expressly states that Papias * mentions Aristion and the presbyter John frequently by name, and gives their tradi- tions in his writings,* he does' not quote from Papias any tradition whatever based on the authority of an Apostle. We are forced to the conclusion that in point of fact Papias had
noil' i.> t. .1 , ;mmI lliatwhen 'he questioned those who had
be'ii I 'lilers in regard to their words,' he learnt
noUiii, . I Ml 111 interest. It is impossible to imagine tlKil 11 I I, : uiid in the book of Papias any statement
wbah w I ii-, iiiiiii [III Apiistle, he would not have preserved it in his Ilixlfiri/.
Of the two celebrated remarks cited from Papias about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew respec- tively, the first is given expressly as the statement of the presbyter John, and it is natural to suppose that the second came from the same source. Papias was credulous and unintelligent; but he does not seem to have made any statement on Iiis oM-n authority ; so that it would be unreasonable to discount the statements of the presbyter John because of the stupidity of the iieisoii «ho re- corded them. On the other li;iiiil. i( is inncison- able to assume that the nearness ui I he |iii--liyiev John to the times of the .Vi.i'-i I'- i .i ■juiir.iiili-e that his assertions as to the eiiin|iiisition i.t ihe
670
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
Gosjiels are altogetlier to be depended on. Me need liave no hesitation in rejecting any, or all, of them, if more convincing arguments oblige us to do so ; but tlie demonstrated falsity of one state- ment would not of necessit}' throw discredit on tlie otliers.
Thus, that Mark was ' the interpreter of Peter ' is so probable a tradition that it has met with general acceptance ; it is, moreover, an assertion as to which it is quite impossible now to produce any rebutting evidence. But the assertion that Mark did not compose his narrative ' in order ' is, at the iireseiit da.y, as generally rejected by those who li;iM' I Miefully studied the Synoptic Problem. Dr. SaliiMiii, ill particular, has pointed out that if we ilo^iic ti) follow tlie growth of our Lord's reputa- tion as a teacher and healer, and the corresponding development of hostility against Him, we must consult the Gospel according to St. Mark in pre- ference to the others.
Passing on to the statement of the presbyter John about St. Matthew, and judging it in' the liglit of all the evidence at present available, we seem to find the same mi.xture in it of truth and error. The testimony of St. Jerome does not leave us room to question that there was an orthodox Hebrew Gospel which, as extant in his time, con- tained matters not found in any of tlie four canoni- cal Gospels. Tliis work had such a very limited circulation that it is impossible for us now to affirm with any confidence as to wlietlier its pecu- liar features were in the original, or weie later interpolations ; but we have no rebutting evidence that m its original form it was not the work of St. Matthew. On the other hand, nothing is more certain than tliat the Greek First Gospel, which lias always been known in the Churcli as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, is not in its present form, whioli there is no reason to tliink was ever difteient -a traii^laticm Iron] one Hebrew original. How ilim ,ii.. \\c i,. explain ■ Everyone interpreted tlivn I, •.'. \\:\\ihi-\\'^ Ili-lpvew x"67ia, 'as he was able ' '. 1 'i. Salmons solution seems to give the most likely explanation of this ambiguous pluase. .John the presbyter meant that the Greek St. Matthew was a translation of the Hebrew St. Mattlipw. aTi.l not l,y the author himself. The a-MTtion i^ ,ii tin' -anie kind as that about St. Maik. tli.tt 111' A\.\ not write 'in order'; and both >iatoniont- \m-io siiLi.^ested by an extreme theory of biblical insj)iration, a tlieoiy which was very generally held until quite recent times — the abso- lute inerrancy of Holy Scripture in every detail.
One lias sometimes heard discrepancies between ditterent liistorical statements in the OT explained by the assertion that the errors which cause the discrepancies were not in the original, as it left the liand of the Divinely inspired writer, but were due to the slips of uninspired copyists ; and thus it is thought possible to reconcile belief in the inerrancy of the W ord of God with the actual state of the case. Tlie statements of the presbyter John about the Gospels of Mark and Matthew are best ex- plained by supposing that he held .some such theory of inspiration.