Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/839

Rh giiatius. ‘.I'll€ll.)aS. olycarp. spoken. ” EXTERNAL EvioENeE.] Early in the second century we for the first time meet with a quotation from the addition to thc coimrioii tradition _wliieh_ arc peculiar to Matthew. The Curetoiiian or shorter version of the epistles of Ignatius (107 or 115 A.l).) uses Matt. x. 16 almost -rcrbatim, and possibly refers (Sariday, p. 79) to the star of lllatthew (chap. ii.). The Vossiaii or loirgcr version of the Igiiatian ep1s_tles (which may be accepted as testimony for about 150 A. D.) contains, besides an ample and somewhat exaggerated reference to the star in Matt. ii., three or four (Westcott, Canon, p. 60) short but striking phrases peculiar to Matthew. But none of these passages have marks of quotation, the words of Matthew being in cacti case em- bedded in the writer's own words. It is remarkable that the only words of the Lord expressly quoted by Ignatius are words not found in any of our synoptic writers: “And when He came to those about (-n-epi) Peter, He said to tlienr, Take, liaiidlc Me, and see that I am not a bodilcss dcmon.” These words, although they have soirie likeness (the word i1«nAa¢-:';aa-re is in both) to Lu. xxiv. 39, are expressly said by Eusebius to be derived from some source unknown to him, and by Jerome to be derived from :1 Gospel which he had translated (from Hebrew), and which was read in his time by the -.’azareiics (Kirchliofer, p. 449); and, according to Origen, the passage occurred in the teaching of Peter. It is, of course, impos- sible for us, upon this evidence, to determine whether Ignatius quoted from the Nazarene gospel, or from the teaching of Peter, or from some other document or tradition embodied before or after in both those documents. the second century, the writer of the Vossian version of the lgnatiaii epistles was familiar with the Gospel of Matthew, but that he also used other sources (not known to us) when quoting the words of the Lord in support of the material resurrection of Jesus. In the Epistles of Barnabas (100-125 A.D.) is found (chap. iv.) the first apparent reference (if we except the reference in 2 Pet. iii. 16) to any passage of the New Testament as “written”: “Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, many called, but few chosen," words almost exactly found in Matt. xxii. 14 alone (pro- bably interpolated in Matt. xx. 16). There is also an allusive quotation of the words in Matt. ix. 13; Mk. ii. 17 ; Lu. v. 32: “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” The only words ex- pressly assigncd to Jesus (chap. vii.) are not found in our Gospels: “Even so, saith He, they that would see Me and torieh My king- dom, inust take Me, through persecution and suffering.” It is most unfortunate that the incxactircss of the verifiable quotations in this epistlc prevents us from laying much stress upon the author's statement as to the source of those which are unveritiable. For example, in chap. xvi., the author has, “The scripture saith, And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the Lord will deliver up the sheep of His pasture, and their sheepfold and tower to destruction. And it so happened as the Lord had But we know of no “ scripture” containing these words; and the probability is that the author was quoting from memory and erroneously, as when (chap. v.) he combines lsa. iii. 9 and Wisdom ii. 12, as follows : “ The prophet speaks against Israel, Voe to their soul because they have counselled an evil counsel against themselves, saying, Let us bind the Just One, because He is displeasing to us. ” ( lnr conclusion is that, if Barnabas is deceived by his memory in atti-ibutiiig one passage to “ writing” or “ scrip- ture," he may be deceived about another, arid that we consequently cannot feel sure that he is quoting Matt. xxii. 14 from a document and not from memory of oral tradition. Brit ((2) that the author was acquainted with passages found in Matthew is certain ; and (12) it is also certain and noteworthy that the only words of the Lord quoted by him are quoted from sources not known to us. Polyearp (born about 69 A.D., died 155 or 156) quotes (chap. ii.) sentences from the Sermon on the Mount, similar to those quoted by Clement above, with the preface, “remembering those things which the Lord said (while) teaching, Judge not,” &c. The quotation, like Cleinent’s, is antithetical and compressed, but neither in order nor in words agrees so far with Clement's as to make it in the least degree probable that Polycarp and Clement are quoting from a written version differing from our synoptics. There is also a quotation from Mat. xxvi. 41 and Mk. xiv. 38, and a refer- ence to Mat. vi. 13, “ Asking the all-beholding God not to lead us into temptation; even as the Lord said, The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Two other coincidences (chap. v. and vi.) seem to refer to Mat. xx. 28; Mat. ix. 35; Mat. vi. 12, 14; Lu. xi. 4. There are no supposed allusions to apocryphal writings in Polycarp (Westeott, Canon, p. 61). It will be seen from what has been said above that there is nothing remarkable in the great varia- tions with which the “ Sermon on the Mount” was taught and quoted, among the Christians in the first century. Like the " Lords Prayei',".it has not a literary but a practical interest; and being much used in many different churches from the earliest times, it may naturally have assumed many different shapes serviceable for_c_atecliists_and preachers. This consideration (and the possi- bilities _of yariation arising from translation) may easily account for the_ variation between Clement and Polycarp, without necessitating 01" .)“-‘‘t1f.V1"£‘. W011 as a Working hypothesis, the supposition that GOSPELS Our conclusion is that, by the middle of- 815 Clement or Polycarp, iii qnotiiig the “Sermon on the Mount,” quoted from other documents than our existing Gospels. _The “ Shepherd " of Hermas, written about 135-40 A.D., “ con- Shepherd of tains no distinct traces of any writing of Old or New Testament" H9""33- (Sanday, Gospels). This is_worth_ bearing in mind, as a warning that the nature of the _sub_]ect. will greatly affect the number of‘ quotatioitis f]'roin‘tg11c sc]ript1u,res in aqydearly books. The allegorical nature 0 t ic .. 1eI‘ll(31'(, ’ intcnte more as a stimulatinrr tale than as a polcniieal or liortatory discourse, dispenses with scriptural illfustratifons; andfin ttllic sainetway J uqtip, in llii_s Scpimd ./l])(])l0g;y, re rains roin quo me ie scrip iires w n e in us o ier “'01- 's c multiplies quotation; or references. , In appealing to the heathen, Justin “ quotes the scriptures only when he _must speak of things beyond the range of common history, preferring elsewhere to appeal to external documents such as the enrolment of Quirinus and the Acts of Pilate" (Vestcott C'cm.0n p. 110). Papias, who wrote abdut 130?-140 A.D., composed five books, entitled “Exposition (e'§'q'y‘r'1a'ewS) of thc Oracles‘ of the Lord." It is (apparently) in an introduction to this work that he speaks (Euseb., iii. 39)_of traditions gathered from different sources : “ But I will not shrink from placing along with my interpretations (épinyvetazs) as many (traditions) as at any time I learned well, and well stored up in memory from the elders." The noun “inter- pr'cta’piolilis” (égipnveiais) may reeleive some light from Papias’s own use 0 t e wor s épnnveurﬁs am épa-queue: as quoted in the same chapter of Eusebius. “ Mark,” he says, "‘was the interpreter of Peter (épunvcvriys I”Ie':rpov 'yev¢ip.£L'os):”2 again, “ Matthew wrote his scriptures (A6-yia) in Hebrew, and each man interpreted them (ﬁpnﬁueuae) as he best could.” So Ensebius himself in the preced- ing chaptcr tells us that some believe Clement to have “inter- preted” (épu-queﬁcrai) Paul’s (Hebrew) Epistle to the Hebrews into Greek. Our conclusion would be that the word épniprelgr may here‘ iipleaq lsoinethitqg mlqiel (tlhaii merte co_mpientatryt_ ; itfii:-iry imp y ia ie, as o iers at one, wio e air in erpre a ion o ic “ Logia,” accompanied by coimneiits and by supplementary tradi- ' . l . ll ‘ -- i‘[ir*etl1tib n ” lblfclllltais t t llldiv (¢‘ll.(S,el?('l dig) hsslidf ][{)aI(‘,¢1fn1:rll1)l,lt illill ritative, so as to exclude the necessity of further “interpretations.” Of Mark he speaks (in the person of “the elder”) almost apolo- getically, implyinrr that his narrative had been censured for its incompleteness and unpolished style; and he defends it by quoting a tradition from “ the elder” (apparently John the elder) thus :— “1lll£{ll1l‘l:,}llt'lVlllg bqcomtlzl’ctqr’s1iiitei'pi'ete;, wit-pte dlpiitp tirlecnratelly a a re reinem )(‘l'et —no owever in or er— o 1 1c woris and deeds of Christ. For hd neither lieard the Lord, nor attaehed himself to Him, but later on, as I said, attached himself to Peter ; who used to adapt his lessons to the needs of the occasion, but not as though he were composing a eonnectcd treatise of the diseourses (A6-mu, v. r. Ao-yiwv) of the Lord : so that Mark committed no error in writing down some matters justlas hlc rerpenibered them (dre- M.l"I1].L(lVEl/0'6). For one object was in iis t 10110‘ ts (évbs -yc‘zp e‘-n-ore?-ro -rrp6uoiav)—to make no omissions and no falsce statements in what he heard.” Much of this exactly applies to our Mark. If we desire to know phat is nlilealnt by1llaik’sI no: vi'r_iting_ “tint oi'dei_',t” w‘e.have1 only tq urn o u<e w o mate 1 us o _]ec o wri e in or er‘ am whose arrangeinent, chronologically as well as artistically, ’dil’l-L‘l'S from Mark. It is true that we may be disposed to think Mark's “ order” not inferior to Liike’s; but the fact is indisputable that Luke attempted to write “in order,” and that his “order” differs considerably from that of Mark, who manifests no purpose except the desire to put down what he knew as he remembered it. It has been shown above (see p. 802) that Mark’s Gospel is rather a col- lection of anecdotes than a connected narrative ; and of such a collection it would be natural to say that it was not written as an orderly narrative. To the single evidence of Papias, derived from air unknown elder not much importance can be attached; and it is very doubtful livhcther the most searching investigations will ever determine with certainty the name of the author or authors of any one of the synoptic Gospels. But at all events, it is only reasonable to admit that the hypothesis of “ notes” taken from oral d1secl>(11irses,1 and servingfastthclgroundwork Ifforuthc Secqng Gospel, wou exp ain many 0 i s p ieiioinena. ese ora iseourses embodied the early common Greek tradition, it would be easy to see how the First and Third Gospels came to resemble the Second Gospel, although all three Gospels are mutually independent. As regards the First Gospel, it has been shown above that internal evidence is against the theory of a very early authorship ; and we ‘ No one word in English will exactly express the word 7o'-yra, which was used both before and after Papias, to mean not merely “sayings " but “ Scrip- tnres.”—Llghtt'oot. Contemporary Review, Oct. 1875. 2 Cf. also Clem. Alcx., S(rom.,vii. 17, 106, where certain heretics appeal to Glaucias -réu Tlérpov éppipuéa; and Jerome suggests us an explanation of the difference in style between the First and Second Epistle of Peter that the apostle used different interpreters (Kirchhofer, p. 276). The point for considerationis. not whether the statements of Papias are correct, but what Papias meirnt when he spoke of Mark as E'p[u]y£uT1;9, and of himself as writing c'p,m;u£r’ai.