The Books of the New Testament Part 30

E. Renan, By the Presbyter John and others, who Not by St.

1879. pretended that they were by St. John, John, but 120 A.D. circulated by him.

C. Weizsac- By a disciple Not by St. John nor by the Not by ker, 1886. of St. John. author of the Gospel. St. John.

A. Harnack, The Gospel and Epistles all probably by By the 1897. the Presbyter John, who did not pretend Presbyter that they were by St. John, John, 80-110 A.D. 96 A.D.

A. C. Uncertain. By the Uncertain. Possibly McGiffert, author by the 1897. of the Presbyter Gospel. John.

B. W. By an All by another unknown By St.

Bacon, unknown writer, A.D. 95-100 A.D. John.

1900. writer, 100-110 A.D.

P. W. Not by St. By a By a third Possibly Schmiedel, John, nor second forger. by the 1901. by the forger. Presbyter Presbyter. John.

{285}

APPENDIX B

PAPIAS AND JOHN THE PRESBYTER

Papias, a Phrygian by birth, and Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, wrote in the first half of the 2nd century a book called _Expositions of Oracles of the Lord_. Among the "Elders" whom Irenaeus quotes, Papias and Polycarp alone are called "ancient" (_archaios_--_Adv. Haer._ v.

33). This helps us to fix the date of Papias. For Polycarp died either in A.D. 155 or 156. He had been a Christian for eighty-six years, and was therefore born in A.D. 70 at the very latest. Papias was therefore probably born about A.D. 70. We know from Irenaeus that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and several ancient writers, including Irenaeus, expressly a.s.sert that Papias also was a hearer of St. John. Eusebius (_H. E._ iii. 39) says that "in his preface" Papias does not declare that he was an "eye-witness of the holy _apostles_."

But Eusebius in his Chronicle (_Syncell._ 655, 14) plainly says that Papias, like Polycarp, was a "hearer" of John the Divine and Apostle.

The preface of Papias, which Eusebius transcribes, mentions John the Presbyter. The following is a literal translation of it:--

"But for your advantage I will not hesitate to put side by side with my interpretations everything that in time past I learnt well from the Elders, and remembered well, guaranteeing its truth. For, unlike the many, I did not take pleasure in those who say much, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who relate alien commandments, but in those who relate such as were given from the Lord to the Faith, and are derived from 'the Truth' itself. And again, on any occasion when a person came who had been a follower of the Elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the Elders--what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and the things which Aristion and John the Presbyter (Elder), the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did {286} not suppose that the contents of books would profit me so much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice."

The exact meaning of this pa.s.sage is disputed, but much of it is perfectly clear. It is plain that Papias is referring to his action at a time long past (_pote_), probably about A.D. 100. It is also plain that he had no direct access at that date to the apostles about whose sayings he inquired. They were already dead, their speech was a thing of the past (_eipen_). On the other hand, Aristion and John the Presbyter were then living, their speech was a thing of the present (_legousin_). They survived at the time of his inquiries, and we cannot accept the hypothesis that Papias only meant that he inquired what Aristion and John the Presbyter said in their books. He recorded what they said to his friends, and he quoted them both so freely that Eusebius believed that Papias also wrote down words which Aristion and John the Presbyter said in his own hearing. But whether he heard them or only heard about them, it is evident that he had reached manhood before they were dead. It is also certain that he calls them "disciples of the Lord." He must mean by this that they had been personally in contact with Christ, like the apostles whom he has just mentioned. We therefore can only draw the conclusion that Papias believed that these two men had known the Lord in their boyhood, and the fact that he mentions only two such men favours this interpretation.

With regard to the other Elders, the question at once arises, Did Papias include among those Elders the apostles whom he mentions? If he did _not_ include them, he means that he inquired of travellers what they had heard from Elders who had known the apostles. This seems incredible; the information gained would be far inferior to that contained in books, whereas Papias speaks of it as superior. Moreover, it would imply that the knowledge possessed by Papias about those who had known the Lord was less direct than that possessed by Irenaeus!

For Irenaeus (1) knew Polycarp (2) and others, who knew St. John and others who had seen the Lord. Whereas, according to this theory, Papias (1) was instructed by travellers (2), who had heard the Elders (3) speak about the apostles. If Papias had no better knowledge than this, Irenaeus would not have referred to Papias with such marked deference. We conclude, therefore, that Papias used the word "Elders"

to denote Christians who had actually seen the Lord, including the apostles whom he mentions. This interpretation is {287} supported by the fact that in the New Testament both St. Peter and St. John give themselves this very t.i.tle.

If the above views are correct, they have an important bearing on the authenticity of St. John's Gospel. The lifetime of Papias, like that of Polycarp, covers the whole period of dates to which modern Rationalists now a.s.sign that Gospel. If it was not written by the apostle, it is hard indeed to suppose that Papias did not know the truth, and record it. And it is equally hard to believe that his statements about it would not have been copied by such men as Irenaeus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius.

{288}

APPENDIX C

THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT

The _Muratorian Fragment_ is part of a Latin list of the books of the New Testament, named after Muratori, the librarian at Milan, who published it in A.D. 1740. The Canon of which the Fragment is a part was probably written about A.D. 180. It begins in the midst of a sentence relating to St. Mark--

[Sidenote: The Gospels.]

". . . at some things, however, he was present, and has thus recorded them."

"The third book of the Gospel according to Luke, Luke compiled in his own name from report, the physician whom Paul took with him after the ascension of Christ, for a companion as devoted to the law: however he did not himself see the Lord in the flesh, and hence begins his account with the birth of John as he was able to trace (matters) up."

[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. John.]

"Of the fourth of the Gospels (the author is) John, one of the disciples. At the instance of his fellow-disciples and bishops he said, 'Fast with me to-day for three days, and whatever shall be revealed to each, let us relate it to one another.' The same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write all in his own name, the rest revising. . . . And therefore, although varying ideas may be taught in the several books of the Evangelists, there is no difference in that which pertains to the faith of believers, since by one Sovereign Spirit in all are declared all things that relate to the nativity (of the Lord), His pa.s.sion, resurrection, intercourse with His disciples, and concerning His double advent, the first in humble guise, which has taken place, the second splendid with royal power, which is yet to be. . . . What wonder, then, if John in his Epistles also, speaking of his own authors.h.i.+p, so boldly advances each {289} detail, saying, 'What we have seen with our eyes, and have heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, these things we have written unto you.' For thus he professes himself not only an eye-witness, but a hearer, yea, and a writer as well, of all the wonders done by the Lord in their order."

[Sidenote: Acts.]

"But the Acts of all the Apostles are written in a single book, Luke relates them excellently to Theophilus, confining himself to such as fell under his own notice, as he plainly shows by the omission of all reference either to the martyrdom of Peter or the journey of Paul from Rome to Spain. . . ."

[Sidenote: The Epistles of St. Paul.]

"But the letters of Paul themselves make known to those who would know both what they are, and from what place, or what occasion they were sent. At considerable length he wrote to the Corinthians first, forbidding schismatic divisions, then to the Galatians (forbidding) circ.u.mcision, and to the Romans (expounding) the general tenor of the Scriptures, showing, however, that Christ is the essence of their teaching; to these (Epistles) we must devote separate discussion; for the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, wrote by name to seven Churches only in this order: First to the Corinthians, second to the Ephesians, third to the Philippians, fourth to the Colossians, fifth to the Galatians, sixth to the Thessalonians, seventh to the Romans. True, he wrote twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, but he shows thereby[1] the unity of the universal Church; for John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven Churches only, yet speaks to all.

He also writes one to Philemon, one to t.i.tus, and two to Timothy, out of personal regard and affection, but these too are hallowed in the respect of the Catholic Church for the arrangement of ecclesiastical discipline. Moreover, there is in circulation an Epistle to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians forged under the name of Paul, looking towards the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for gall should not be mixed with honey. However, the Epistle of Jude, and two of John the above named, are received among Catholics. Also the Book of Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honour."

{290}

[Sidenote: Apocalypses.]

"We receive, moreover, the Apocalypse of John and Peter only, though some of our body will not have the latter read in the Church. The _Shepherd_ indeed was written quite recently in our own times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother Pius occupied the seat of Bishop of the Church of Rome; wherefore the private reading of it is indeed commendable, but it can never be publicly read to the people in the Church whether among the Prophets . . . or among the Apostles."

"We receive nothing whatever of the Arsinoite, or Valentinus, or of Mitias (?) . . . who also were the compilers of the new Book of Psalms (?) for Marcion, together with Basilides. . . ."

[1] As symbolized by the number seven.