LOGIA
LOGIA
47
Marks only source of knowledge, had brought out the material in such irregular order as the oc-casion demanded (a-p6s tt]v xP^"^')-
Our first concern must be with the motive of this conception of Mk. , reserving the question of its historicity. Clearly, while unwilling to reject the narrative Gospel, it contends for the superi- ority of some other, whose characteristics may easily be inferred from what is denied to its rival. This authority of sui>erior standing in the region whence Papias obtained his traditions (Palestine) emanated from one who had been a follower of the Lord Him- self, not (like Mark) of an Apostle. It was more complete, and afforded a systematic, not necessarily chronologkal, arrangement of the Lord's wor(& ((ji'VTo^Lv rijnt tov Ki'fuov \o-/ii3y, aivera^ey rd Xoyui, ov fifVToi Td|ei) serviceable to those in search of the 'commandments given by the Lord to the faith.' For, as soon as the general f«oint of view is con- sidered, the real sigTiilicance of the complaint against Mk., so puzzling to modem critics, and perhaps not clear to Papias himself, becomes in- telligible. The deficient rafts of Mk. is explained by the contrasting statements regarding Peter and Matthew respectively, the former of whom did not aim at a avvra^iv tQjt KvpiaKu^v Xoyar [c./. \o~/iu>v'\, whereas the latter actually made such a comijend '(nverdtaTO [v. I. (Txve-ffM-J.aTo] to. Xorytal. The two fragments are parts of a single tradition, and the general point of view is that of a church to which the Gospel was primarily a new Torah, wherein the object of sy.stem (rdfis) is complete- ness in presenting ' the commandments given to the faith.' The historian - evangelists idea of ' order ' as chronological sequence in the biography {Kade^rjs Lk 1^1 is not that in consideration. In short, the tradition of Papias reflects the attitude of the Palestinian Church towards the rival claims of its own autochthonous Matthaean tradition, and the Petrine or Roman. It arms to adjust the two with recognition of the merits of the latter, while holding to the sup>eriority of the former, just as the appendix to the Fotirth Gospel (Jn 21 ) adjusts the secondary Petrine to its own primary authority, the Johannine (Asiatic).
Looked at thus, from the point of view sug- gested by its own internal relations, the tradition of Papias bec-omes not only intelligible but prob- able. It defines (no doubt correctly) the primary authority for the \6yia KvpiaKd which Papias pro- posed to expound in the light of the traditional authorities. If the Gospel of Lk. does not come into Papias' consideration, and Mk. is treated as quite subordinate, it is because the object in view is the evToXai delivered by the Lord, and tradition and Chtirch usage were at one in pointing to Mat- thew as the fountain-head for such purposes.
Sot does the tradition stand alone in its dis- tinction of syntagmata of the Logia of the Lord from Gospels of the Markan type. Ac P refers to its authors 'former treatise" as relating what 'Jesus began 1x)th to do and to teach' troiea' re Kai oiodurKeiv), thereby properly classing Lk. with Mk. and similar Crt»sfjels made up of * both works and teachings' (rj \ex_6evTa ij rpaxOi^ra). More- over, the implied distinction from syntagmata of the Saj-ings is precisely what we should expect in a church whose institutions and traditions were almost invariably based on the practice of the Synagogue. The teaching of the Synagogue was divided into (1) Halacha, i.e. 'the XVay.' authori- tative applications of the Mosaic law, "precepts of life, and (2) Uaggada. i.e. 'tales," unauthoritative preaching, based mainly on OT narrative. Just so in the primitive Palestinian Church we soon find two types of Gospel composition — ( 1 ) the cate- chetic. for the c-onverted, generally connected with the name of Matthew. Then (2) the evangelistic.
- onverted, similarly associated with the name of Peter. To the latter tj-pe would belong the 'testimony of the cross' (r6 fiafrvfHOf tov <rravpov) rejected by the opponents of Polycarp il.c); to the former not only the 'Sayings of the faith' or ' of the Lord Jesus" il Ti 4*'6®i c-ompUed by Matthew and others, but examples of Christian catechesis, sTich as the little manuals of ethics or ' teachings of Ijaptisms ' which sur\"ive to us under such titles as ' the Two Ways,' or the • Teaching ' (Ai5axi7, Aioac-jcaXiai of the Apostles. Thes« were prim^iily of Jewish origin, and were intended for the instruction of neophytes and catechumens. Such writings, on the other hand, as the Preaching of Piter, of the apologetic or evangelistic type, are clearly addressed to the unc-onverted, and ii" we go back to the examples furnished in Acts of this evang'elistic preaching, stUl attributed to ' Peter,' we may identify the already stereotyped outline of Synoptic story in Ac I'J^^*', the so-called ' lesser Gospel of Mark.' Long ago the resemblance of this Synoptic outline to the haggadic type was observed by Jewish scholars such as Wiinsche and Hirsch. Both types acc-ordingly were current in the Palestinian Church. We might, in fact, pre- suppose it from the nature of the situation. But both would not there be equally esteemed. The indigenous product, adapted to the requirements of a church more given to the perpetuation than to the propagation of the gospel, a church where Jesus was pre-eminently the ' Prophet like unto Moses,' giver of ' the perfect law of liberty,' would be the authoritative syntagma of the Lord's Say- ings, halachic in the fundamental sense of the term. The Greek version of the Preaching of Peter, imported probably from Rome, would be received ; but it would stand upon the lower foot- ing of haggadic narrative. The lateness of the combination is attested not only by the reluctance manifest in the tradition, but by the fact that when Mk. was added to the Matthaean syntagma, the editor had .so little else to add.