[963] men oun. These words show plainly enough that this sentence in regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages are evidently torn out of their context; and the latter apparently stood at the close of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel. That this statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of "the presbyter" we are consequently not at liberty to assert.
[964] On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above, chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the second century. There is, therefore, no reason for assuming that the Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different Gospel from our own. This, however, does not prove that the logia which Matthew wrote (supposing Papias' report to be correct) were identical with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew. It is urged by many that the word logia could be used only to describe a collection of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is assumed that Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is quite a different thing from our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 399 sq.) that the word logia, "oracles," is not necessarily confined to a collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used to describe a work containing also a narrative of events. This being the case, it cannot be said that Matthew's logia must necessarily have been something different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek Matthew is certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence there may be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew logia and our Greek Gospel. But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not a translation of a Hebrews original, then one of two alternatives follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alternative we have no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew logia, seems highly probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition only.
[965] Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18), Papias' testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is what his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Gospel also.
[966] On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above, chap. 3, note 1.
[967] It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at the close of the eighth chapter of John's Gospel. The story was clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related by Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from the lost original Gospel, the "Ur-Matthæus."
Book IV.
Chapter I.--The Bishops of Rome and of Alexandria during the Reign of Trajan. [968]
1. About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria [969] died, and Primus, [970] the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.
2. At that time also Alexander, [971] the fifth in the line of succession from Peter and Paul, received the episcopate at Rome, after Evarestus had held the office eight years. [972]
[968] We still have lists of bishops as old as the end of the second century. The most ancient is that of the Roman bishops given by Irenæus (III. 3. 3); but this has no dates. The list is probably the official catalogue as it had been handed down to the time of Eleutherus; but it is not authentic, as there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at the time of Clement, nor even in the time of Hermas. For other churches the oldest lists date from the end of the third century. According to one interpretation of a passage from Hegesippus, quoted in chapter 22, below, Hegesippus drew up a list of Roman bishops down to the time of Anicetus; and Bishop Lightfoot thinks he has discovered this lost catalogue in Epiphanius, Hær. XXVII. 6 (see his article in the Academy for May 27, 1887). If Lightfoot is right, we have recovered the oldest Papal catalogue; but it is very doubtful whether Hegesippus composed such a catalogue (see note on chap. 22), and even if he did, it is uncertain whether the list which Epiphanius gives is identical with it. See the writer's notice of Lightfoot's article in the Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1887; No. 18, Col. 435 sqq. The list of Roman bishops which Eusebius gives is the same as that of Irenæus; but it has dates, while Irenæus' has none. From what source Eusebius took his dates we do not know. His Chronicle contains different dates. It is possible that the difference is owing, in part, to defective transcriptions or translations; but it is more probable that Eusebius himself discovered another source, before writing his History, which he considered more authentic, and therefore substituted for the one he has used in his Chronicle. Lipsius (Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, p. 145) says, "We may assume that the oldest catalogue extended as far as Eleutherus, but rested upon historical knowledge only from Xystus, or, at the farthest, from Alexander down." On the chronology of the Roman bishops in general, see especially the important work of Lipsius just referred to.
[969] Cerdon, mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 21.
[970] The Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian) makes Primus succeed to the bishopric of Alexandria in the eleventh year of Trajan; the version of Jerome, in the ninth. According to chap. 4, below, he held office twelve years. No reliance can be placed upon any of the figures. The Alexandrian church is shrouded in darkness until the latter part of the second century, and all extant traditions in regard to its history before that time are about equally worthless. Of Primus himself we have no authentic knowledge, though he figures somewhat in later tradition. See Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biography, in loco.
[971] According to the Chronicle of Eusebius (Armenian), Alexander became bishop of Rome in the eighth year of Trajan; according to Jerome's version, in the twelfth year. He is said, in chap. 4, below, to have died in the third year of Hadrian, after holding office ten years. On the reliability of these dates, see note 1, above. Of Alexander's life and character we know nothing.
[972] On Evarestus, see Bk. III. chap. 34, note 3.