' This objection is urged by Keim, Harnack, Holtzmann, and other modern critics in their discussion of the authorship ot John's Gospel.
JOHX THE APOSTLE
JOHN THE APOSTLE
' But I shall not hesiUte also to put down for you along with my interpretations whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders and carefully remembered, guarantee- ing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that speak the truth ; not in those that relate strange connnandments, but in those that deliver the commandments given by the Lord to faith and springing from the truth itself. If, then, an.vone came who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders — what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion and the presb.ner John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice' (Eus. HE iii. 39).
A just interpretation of these words must allow for a distinction between the Apostle John and the Presbyter John, but the inference based on the tense of the verb in the sentence, 'What things Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, sa>/,' — that Papias was actually a hearer of the Presbyter, —is very questionable. Much dis- cussion has been given to the import of this latter part of Papias' preface. A thoroughly satisfactory understanding is, however, that which makes these words we have just quoted refer not to the spoken witness, but to the written testimony of Aristion and the Presbyter John.* In his search for en- lightenment Pajpias inquired after the unwTitten sayings of all referred to e.\:cept Aristion and John the Presbyter. In their ease his inquiry was con- cerning their written sayings about which there might be some doubt. ' The books,' bearing possibly^ such titles as ' Narratives of Aristion,' or 'Traditions of the Presbyter John,' needed con- firmation by competent witnesses. Papias had not the same confidence in them as in oral reports. Points which confirm this understanding are (1) the hesitation of Eusebius about his own inference that Papias was an actual hearer of John the Presbyter [' at least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in writing' (HE iii. 39)] ; ('2) the suggested antitheses in the phrases 'his own Avriting' and 'unwritten tradi- tion,' which are fovmd in the accounts of the sources of Papias later on in the same section (H£ iii. 39 : ' The same author has coiiimunirated also other things that came to liim as from unwritten tradition ' ; ' but he also commits to his own writ- ing other narratives of the sayings of the Lord of the aforesaid Aristion and traditions of the Pres- byter John '). ' His own Avriting ' suggests some- body else's ^^Titing ; the ' unwritten tradition ' suggests written tradition. If this interpretation of the words of Papias be true, then it atfords no evidence that Papias was a hearer of the Presbyter John. Indeed, it does not requiro n- tn t]nnk that he was living at the time the worl- ..i 1' n,;.!, were written, or that he was even c\ ■i m lili. u~ ,a all. The only support we have fur tin- l;iA Mi|iiii»ition is Dionysius of Alexandria, who in the interests of the authorship of the Apocalypse by some other John than the Apostle cites the tradition that ' there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bear- ing the name of John.'
VVe come back now to Irenoeus. The statement which he makes regarding the relationship of Pajjias to the Apostle John and to Polycarp is not derived from the preface of Papias (see above), and if there is no possible confusion in the two Jolms, we need only ask wliat value the positive state- ment of Ireuieus really has. Recall for a moment his reference to Polycarp. If these words are true, and there is no reason to doubt them, then it was no mere passing acquaintance which Irenasus had with Polycarp. He had carefully observed him, and attentively listened to his discourses. Can it be possible that he understood him, whenever he
spoke of John, to be referring to John the Pres- byter, and was Polycarp himself talking of his intercourse with John the Presbyter ? Such confu- sion as this on the part of men so intimately related is quite improbable. Certainly it is equally improb- able that, at the early time of Polycarp, John the Presbyter should have become such a figure in Ephesus that Polycarp could speak of him exactly as if he were Jolm the Apostle. There is there- fore no svifBcient reason for doubting the testimony of Irena?vis.
(6) In turning to the witness of Polycrates, it is well to note that he was Bishop of Ephesus, had seven relatives who were bishops, and was at the time of his letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, an old enough man to have been living at the time of Polycarp. He was therefore in a position to know fuUy whereof he wrote. This fact of the continuity of experiences as lying behind these several testi- monies needs repeated emphasis. In his letter to Victor (see Eus. HE v. 24) he is WTiting upon the Quartodeciman question, and citing his autnorities for the observance of the 'fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel.' Among these he places 'John, who was both a witness and a teacner who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus.'