Some not only see in the phraseology of Papias* apolocj' for ' Mark's Gospel traces of the influence of Lk li-s, but aJso^infer
* Papias' very archaic use of u ■r;=s-i--T£^., for the men of the first generation, particularly Christ's personal disciples, is I anc^er indication of eariy date. In Irenxus this phrase always 1 describes those of the second generation at least.
312
PAPIAS
PARABLE
that Papias is there meeting the criticism of a party in Asia who held to Luke"s Gospel, if not exclusively (like Marcion later), yet in so preferential a way as to make it, and not our Matthe«-, "the standard by which to criticise Mark's work (so Dom Chapman in Revue Benedictine, July 1905). This Is more than dubious.
In a word, if our reading of the situation wiiich Papias had in view in writing be correct, his attitude to our GospeLs is just wliat we should expect from other sources that it would be, if he were writing in Asia about a.d. 115-129. At that time, not the form but the substance of Christ's teaching, whether oral or written, was still the prime matter. The Canon, or ' rule ' of faith, con- sisted of the Lord's words, however obtained, if only it were in purity (cf. Polyc. ad, Phil. 2, ' re- membering what things the Lord said when teach- ing"). The.se constituted 'the Gospel" that lay behind the Gospels, and secured their general use, particularly in pviblic worship — out of which can- onical authority itself gradually grew (see B. Weiss, JUanual of Introd. to the NT [1887], i. 32 ff.). This mast be borne in mind in estimating the use of all New Testament books in early Christian writers, and makes the task of identify- ing Evangelic quotations so delicate an art (cf. Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century, and The XT in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905). But once it is allowed for. PajDias becomes a valuable positive witness to our Canonical Gospels, as dis- tinct from other Gospel writings which, no doubt, existed at that time in considerable numbers. Whether he used any apocryphal Gospel is quite doubtful. Eusebius' statement th«,t 'he has set forth another story also about a woman informed against to the Lord on the scope of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews includes,' by no means proves that Papias got his version of the story from the Gospel in question (cf. Bacon in Expositor, 1905, pp. 161-177).
4. General reflexions. — Although we are un- able to conceive in detail the exact character of Papias' Exposition of Oracles of the Lord, even our meagre knowledge of it, especially when taken in connexion with other Christian writings of the period, helps us not a little to realize the way in which our Gospels, and Gospels generally, were viewed and handled early in the 2nd cen- tury. Both it and the Oxyrhynchus Gospel — fragments of which have been found by Grenfell and Hunt — teach us not only that Christ's sayings were the most prized part of the Gospel tradition, but also how strong were the tendencies at work making for change in their meaning and even wording. They were heard or read in environ- ments of thought far other than those for which they were first spoken ; and just because they were taken so seriously and practically as Divine 'oracles,' as religious laws of life, their historical or original meaning was apt to be lost as soon as they passed beyond Palestine, and the fresh mean- ings or glosses put upon them tended insensibly to replace the Master's ipsissima verba. Here the in- stances afforded by the Oxyrhynchus Gospel of how in all good faith such a process of transformation took place, are most suggestive. They show how needful something like a standard exegesis, based on knowledge of the original historical .sense, was becoming to the genuine transmission of Christ's own teaching, if it was not to be sublimated away in terms of Greek idealism and Oriental mysticism. Such a consummation was averted only by strenu- ous insistence on the part of the local Church leaders, that every care was to be taken to keep in touch with the historic meaning of the Lord's earthly teaching, as certified by Gospels histori- cally known to be of Apostolic or ^tmsi-Apostolic authorship, and expounded in the first instance by the aid of continuous local tradition going back to siinilfir sources. Thus was the mass of Gospels
**Copyright. 1908, by
once current in the 2nd cent, — and varying as be- tween Syria and Rome, Asia ]Minor and Egypt — gradually sifted out ; until by the close of the cen- tury, and a good deal earlier in some places, our four authentic Gospels emerged as the Church's standard, or Canon, of the Lord's own teaching and its true significance.
Literature. — The Fragments of Papias, and Patristic refer- ences to his book collected in Lightfoofs ApcloHc Fathers, in one vol. (Macmillan, 1891), and (with a commentary) in Funk. Patrea Apoatohci (T&bingen, 1901), i. 346 tf. ; Discussions by Weiffenbach, Das Papia»fragmerit. u.h.xc. ; Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, pp. 14'2-'216 ; Sandayl Gospeh in the Second Century ; Westcott, Canon of the XT'. Salmon in Diet, of Christian Biography ; Zahn, Gefich. d. NT Kanons, i. 849 ff., Forschungen, vi. 1U9 ff. ; Harnack, Chronologie, i. 6.58 f^. : Leimbach in PRE^ xiv 642 ff.; Abbott, EBi ii. 1809 ff.. also Tfie Oracles ascribed to Matt/tew by Papias of Hierapolis (1894), and A. Wright's renew in Some N. T. Problems (1S98), p. 26.5 : R. W. Dale, Living Christ and the Four Gospels'^*, ii. 277-3(10.