An additional conflnnati. quotes verbatim from tho I' portion of his work. H( i earth at the millennium. .. vines with ten thousand a from ' the Elders who s.iv\ .\fter quoting the passage, \
po^.t
til. -' : .' ill Aini'i.;,' I[.rn;ick contends that the words
'.tK .! J ^ .. ,.,_'■ 'certainly ought not to be
jM. : :;:! I ,. IS giving a contirmation from
iii.li. .;. 111. i.iia.). -,,11. . 11,111 which he takes them. (This positi.in Is stoutly opp.:>se<t iiy Sclimiedel, op, cit. ii. 2549, where see a statement of the whole controversy and its issues).
If Papias quotes 14= we have here an important clue to an early date for the Gospel. The Elders of Papias belonged to the eariy Christian com- munity.
(b) There are indications in the Preface of Papias that the Gospel permeates his thought, and that the references would be apparent to his readers. He speaks of 'those who teach the truth' (t-ois Ta.\r]Bfi SiBdffKovinv), and he also applies the term ' the Truth ' to Christ. It is also not without signi- ficance that St. Andrew and St. Peter and St. Philip are named in the exact order in which the names occur in the first chapter of St. John, while St. Philip and St. Thomas are prominent only in the Fourth Gospel.
(c) Eusebius {HE iii. 39) says that ' Papias has used testiriionies from the former Epistle of John and from that of Peter similarly.' If 1 John and the Gospel are by the same author, we have here additional confirmation that Papias knew and used the Fourth Gospel. This item of evidence, how- ever, can have weight only in connexion with the rest of the evidence. Formerly the fact that Euse- bius, wliile mentioning his use of the Epistle, is silent as to any use of the Gospel by Papias, was relied upon as a strong argument for the non- existence of the Gospel before 160-170 {e.g. in Supernatural Religion). After Lightfoot's com- plete answer to this position {Essai/s on Super- natural Religion, ii.), it is not now possible to deny a much earlier date for the Gospel. Modern opponents of the traditional view now rely on the argument from the silence of Eusebius, as proving that Papias nowhere appeals to the Gospel as of Apostolic authority (e.g. Bacon). It is therefore necessary to examine anything in Papias which seems to indicate that he regarded the Gospel as the work of St. John the Apostle.
(iii.) The. evidence of Papias as to the authorship of the, (kisiieL~~{a) Eusebms, in the often quoted passau'c, stiys that Papias distinguishes the Pres- Ijytrr .loliii from John the Apostle, 'evidently nieaIlill.^ the Evangelist.' The words in inverted commas would seem to j^oint to some indication that Eusebius found in Papias' writing that he spoke of St. John the Apostle as the Evangelist. To this may be added the naming of St. John immediately after the Evangelist St. Matthew in the Preface.
(b) A Vatican MS of the 9th cent, contains the statement : ' Evangelium .Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclcsiis nh .lolianne adhuc in cor- pore constitute: si. ut Tajiias nomine Hierapoli- tanus, discipulus .loh.inni- .aiiis, in exotericis— id est in extremis— quin.|nc liliris retulit. Descripsit vero evangelium dictante .lohanne rect«.' The words are part of a translation of an early Greek argumentum or proof that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle. As the passage stands, the words exotericis and cxtnini^ are unintelligible, and the conjecture of Ligliii....! may !..■ accepted that the former should read ■ . r '- - an. I rrtremis should read externis, which wa- an .'Xilanation of the false reading exotericis. Again, it is nonsense to say that the Gospel was published ' by John while he was yet alive ' : and Hamack suggests iChrnn. i. r)r)."))"that the preposition ab .should be .1. let...l. With tics.- <liaiii,'es it is possible to make , I, .■ ..1 111.. \\..r.U. I'll., -t.itement ' Johanne adhuc 111 . ..I |...i.. . ..ii~tituto \\..iild then imply that there \\.i.saii interval between tile writing and the pub-
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
lication of This w.ml. sary to sa'
mm. U IS si
ispel, and has reference to Jn 21-^. ill « liy Fapias had found it neces- (hr (H.spelwas published 'in the >n--l Ir. The statement at the end, ■ I 111- t H.sjiel at the dictation of St. Ill' si'l .i-iilc. .\l the same time, iirl lli.'il ii i- ii.Ti-~ai-yso to edit ryi- ;iri- -I'liiiu^ liitlii-iiitics in the
Kiisclii
!-lltl
.Mil
.tliin.i;
1 Jerusa-
siniuar statements lit liiswilli n-uanl tu ^ and St. Mark. Moreover, in vu-w of questionoftlie Presbyter aiil 111 ii'slii] I, tlir
to indicate which John is anl. (I'u
of the alleged statement "t I'lijiias i Philip of Side, that John <lieil a marty lem, see art. John [the Apostle]).
If the direct testimony of Papias must be regarded as inconclusive, it may fairly be asked whether we have a rij;ht In rxpiM-t iiimv. Tlii-rc is a very high probabilitv llial iIh' (iii-^in'l wa- .nn- nf 1 he sources of the •(■|ni,-|,.. ■ „l„rli 111- .■x|i.ii,i„li-,l. and his silence as tu tin- .•inlliiir. mi lai In mi ili^piaying any uncertainty on tin- i|iiisl imi, mny quite as easily be interpreted as nn-aiiiiii; ih.it the per.sonality of St. John was eclijiMil in ilii- iniiid of Papias by the desire to bear tin- li\ inu \oii-i- of the Lord Himself in the (Jospcl. II i^ innlialile that in Pajiias we are in the ]iii-si-nri- of a certain conservatism ■wliiih marked Avilh smiii- n-i^rct the dying out of those who were in piisscssion of the oral tradition about the life and teaching of Jesus, and the gradual substitution of the written word as the authority for the Christian life which, of necessity, was taking place. It was his aim from an early period in his activity to collect the oral tradition. One thing at least is practically certain, that if Papias knew and quoted the Gospel, it must have been for him an authentic record. If the (iospi^l emcriaod at the close of the 1st (-cut. or (In- \-im-v Iw^iniiin-- of tho 2nd, as it undoulitclly iliil, .•iml'iliil lu.l luiiii^ wilh it the strongest creili'iili.-ils and most nniiiistaka,iilt> indications that it was in complete accord with the accredited oral teaching so much valued by Papias, it is difficult to think that in a mind of such sim-