The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 30

Now, thie" older John" is supposed by some to be the author or the Second 1mrl 'l'hird Rpistlcs of John. Keim has urged, in hie 'Jesus of Nazara,' that this second John Is nuthor or the Gospol, the John alone known to Papias or to Polycarp; and he denies that John, son of Zebedee, was ever at Ephesus at all. Eusobius further dilates on his literal millenarianism, and treats him as the mistaken author of theso foolish opinions, thinking that Irenreus was led astray in this direction by the antiquity of the man. Keim has no right to follow Eusebiue in a dogmatic assertion that Papias knew nothing of the elders themsel vee ; for his first assertion is thot he had learned and remembered much of their instructions. It is very noteworthy that he calls Peter, Thomas, Andrew, John, and Matthew, "elders;" and, though he mentions a John over age.in as" the elder John" with Aristion as "disciples of the Lord," it is by no means certain that he is referring to another person at all. It is interesting to observe that he first refers to second-hand information derived from the group of elders, and then, as though .A.ristion and the elder John were still living, he adds," what they say." If John the apostle lived till Trajan's time, this is perfectly comprehensible; and the passage is a very powerful confirmation of the hypothesis so well maintained by Archdeacon Farrar, that the Presbyter John is a mere invention of Eusebius, who is, after all, the only source of the tradition worth any consideration, and that he based bis opinion on tho loose story of the two tombs of John in Ephesus. The testimony which Papias gave as to the synoptic narratives bas been discussed and ar~ued from, as though it were a detailed treatise; and two solitary phrases which he used have afforded matter for enormous debate. (a) He says that '' Matthew com- posed Ta 11.&-yu, in the Hebrew dialect, and each one interpreted them as he was able." From this sentence it has been concluded that Matthew merely edited "discourses" of our Lord, and that this Hebrew work is the foundation of onr canonical "Matthew," and different from it. It is, however, clear from New Testament usage of the word that we have no right to limit the 11.o-y,m to the discourses. The word is used for "oracles," whether" sayings" or narratives (Rom. iii. 2; Heb. v. 12; 2 Clem. 13), and may be regarded as nearly equivalent to our modem usage of the word "gospel." Papias, in this brief sentence, does not say that Matthew had not written his Greek form of the Gospel, but., as Charteris says, "It may be fairly argued that now the time for haphazard translations was passe,l." 1 (b) He gives, on the authority of" the elder John"-and this is profoundly impressive if the elder John be none other than the venerable apostle-the well-known story of Mark being the interpreter of Peter. Ho comments, therefore, on the authority of Mark's work, its accnracy, and his scrupulous attention to the facts. There is, however, one word in this passage on which much controversy has been spent-o~ ,,.,.,.,.o, .,.4(1-" not indeed in order; he wrote the things that wore said and done by our Lord." It has been urged that Mark's Gospel is the most chronological in order of the three synoptic narratives. Judging by the various harmonies that have been made, the order of Mark is that which is more often adhered to by Matthew and Luke, and moreover their respectiv:e adhesions to Mark's "orllrr," when they differ from one another, are far more numerous than their com- bined deviations from Mark. That may be true. But does Papias mean by .,.,4,. "chronological order"? All thoso who are anxious to separate the canonical Matthew and Mark from the documents to which Papias refers hold that it does. Even Dr. Sanday here seems to yiel,I to the pressure, and to agree with the author of' Supernatural Religion.' But consult Ebrard's 'Gospel History,' where he endeavours to set forth the sequences of Mark's narrative, and shows that he is guided by the resolve to exhibit in a series of tableaux the leading momenta. of the life of Christ. Even if Mark's suc- cession of events best explains the differences in arrangement seen in Matthew and Luke, it does not follow that he has placed the details of his narrative a.ny more than they have in true chronological sequence. The supposition that this testimony about Mark came from the "elder John," who is none other than the son of Zebedee, and who alone approaches a full exhibition of chronological outline, will throw light on the o~ ,,.,,,.,.o, .,.&!ei. .As compared with tho F~urth Gospel, which we cannot suppose Papias did not know, Mark's might well bear this character. If John the elder bo the author of the Second and Third Epistles, we cannot doubt 1 Alex ~oberts'e ' Disouseious 011 the Gospels,' p. 3S8. ,JOQ, d  xxxiv INTRODUCTION TO