posed the ' oracles " (\671a) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted tliem (j/p^i/i/ei'O-f, aorist— the interpreting did not go on in Papias" own day) as he could. We need not here discuss the ques- tion of the original language of Mt., but the argu- ment which we are now considering is that, whereas our present Gospels resemble one another in general jilan, and to a great extent in detail, the Mt. of Tapias was very diH"erent from his Mk., the former being a collection of discour.ses, the latter a narra- tive of the words and deeds of Christ. Renan ( Vic de Jesus, p. xxii) stipposes that Matthew wrote the discourses and Mark the anecdotes about Christ, and that by assimilation our present Mt. and Mk. took their shajie, the former assimilating tiie anecdotes and adding them to the discourses, tiie latter adopting tlie reverse process. A further argument on tlie same side has been drawn from the evidence of Justin ^lartyr (see a1)ove, § ii. ), wlio constantly quotes the Evangelic narrative, but in words tiiat in many cases difler from our canonical Synoptics, so tiiat if he had the latter before iiim, we cannot always be sure wliich he is quoting ; we need not iiere consider whether he used tlie Fourtli Gospel. The conclusion wiiich at one time used to be drawn from Justin's quota- tions, and from iiis mentioning one or two things not found in the canonical texts, e.g. that Christ was l>orn in a cave, and that the Magi came from Arabia, was that lie used Gospels difl'erent from those wliich we now have. Perhaps also we should insert under tiiis head the fact that a comparatively long section in Mk. (6''*-S^) is omitted by Luke, from which it is argued by some that Luke's Mk. was not the same as our own. It is also argued that tlie records of tiie Two Feedings sliow that our Mic. is a compilation from two separate originals, one of whicli narrated tiie feeding of the 5000, tlie other of tlie 4(XiO, and tiiat it cannot be the work, directly or indirectly, of an eye-witness.
When we consider tiiese arguments, we are struck by the fact tiiat they assume several dis- putable points. It is not at all clear that Papias meant that his ^Ik. was an unconnected collection of anecdotes; it is quite as probable that he meant tiiat lie did not approve of tlie ciironological order of Mk. ; and, as we have seen (g ii. ), St. Luke was perhaps of the same opinion. It is also assumed as obvious tiiat Papias meant only ' discourses ' by \6yLa. Certainly tliat is tlie primary meaning of the word. But its use in the sense of ' oracles,' /.('. tlie inspired Scrijitures, is quite common in early Cluistian times. In Ko 3- rd Xcryto tov Qtov may, indeed, refer only to God's sayings (as Sanday- Headlani, in loe.; see also Sanday, Gosp. in Second Cent. p. 155), but it is more natural to refer it to the whole of OT. Sanday-Headlam remark tiiat from the time of Phiio onwards tlie word was used of any sacred writing, wiiether discourse or narra- tive. Thus, then, we cannot as.sume without argu- ment that Papias meant only discourses by \6-)ia. Eusebius (HE iii. 39) tells us that Papias' own work was called Xoyicjv KvptaKuiv f^j/TTjo-ets [v. I. e^rj- yi/cris). and Papias clearly did not deal only witli our Lord's sayings. It is at least quite possible that Papias uses the word \6yia as equivalent to our 'l4ospel" (so Westcott, Canon, p. 80 n.; Light- foot, Ess. on Su/K licl. pp. 155 n., 171 f.). If so, the argument from the dissimilarity of Papias" Mt. and Mk. breaks down. But even supposing (as living scliolars are more willing to grant than were Ligiitfoot and WestcottUhat Xj^ta in Papias means 'discourses." his words do not necessjiriiy mean tiiat Matthew wrote sayings onli/ ; and we shall he led to tiie contrary opinion by a great difficulty that meets the liyi>otliesis in question at tiie out- set. There was no time for the proce.ss imagined by Renan to take place. Such a process would
131 MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
MARK, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
take a very much longer time in its development than can hy any possibilitj' be allowed. And a fatal objection to the hj'pothesis is that the result would not be that which as a matter of fact lias taken place. We should have had a great number of variant Gospels, and tiie earlier the copies tlie greater would have been tlie variations. We should have had no certaintj' as to whicii Gospel could rightly claim any given incident, and there would have been in an aggravated form the textual conditions that we find in the case of the Pericope Adultcrcn, which appears sometimes in one Gospel and sometimes in anotlier. In reality the four Gospels are perfectly distinct, and have been so as far back as we liave any copies of tliem, the earliest MSS showing as distinct a division between them as the later ones (see Salmon, Introd. • Lect. vii. ; Liglitfoot, op. cit. p. 172 ff.). Justin Martyr tells us that the 'memoirs of tlie Ajjostles' (i.e. the Gospels) were read at Christian worship in his time {Apol. i. 67). If the Gospels then read were our canonical Gospels, there is not sufficient time between Papias and Justin for such a revolu- tion to have taken place as is supposed. If, on the otlier hand, Justin used the supposed ' original Matthew' and 'original Mark,' there is not time between him and Irenreus for the same thing to have happened. As a matter of fact, it is now generallj- iield that Justin knew at least our Syn- optic Gospels. This does not mean that he had no other sources of information, such as oral tradition, or even that he did not borrow from an ' ajjocry- phal ' Gospel ; the ' cave ' at Betlilehem, for ex- ample, may well have come from some one or other of such sources. But a careful analysis of his quotations from OT shows that he varies from the true text in these quite as much as in his (lospel quotations; and most of the variations probably arise from his trusting to memory. The ditticulty of turning to a manuscript without divisions, even for words, is so great, that the memory would be trusted in a far greater degree than with us who have printed Bibles. And^ as we sliould have conjectured, Justin is much more accurate in his longer quotations, where lie would be obliged to refer to his manuscript, than in his shorter ones, where it would be less necessary to do so (see, further, Sanday, Gospels in Second Cent. eh. ii.; Salmon, Introd. Lect. vi. ). Moreover, we may remark that an ' original Mark ' could not have disappeared without leaving any trace ; we should have found some quotations from it, or some reference to its being dispossessed by a more modern successor. And the autoptic argument (above, § iii. 2) comes in here with overwhelming force. Our Mk. could not have had its fresh, lifelike character, its evidence of first-hand knowledge, if Kenan's idea were true.