is his inheritance,' as an 'oracle' (λóyɩov); in another he quotes as an 'oracle' (λóylov) the narrative in Gen. iv. 15, 'The Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him'.' From this and other passages it is clear that with Philo an 'oracle' is a synonyme for a 'scripture.' Similarly Clement of Rome writes, 'Ye know well the sacred Scriptures, and have studied the oracles of God',' and immediately he recalls to their mind the account in Deut. ix. 12 sq, Exod. xxxii. 7 sq, of which the point is not any divine precept or prediction, but the example of Moses. A few years later Polycarp speaks in condemnation of those who 'pervert the oracles of the Lords.' How much he included under this expression, we cannot say, but it must be observed that he does not write тà KUρiaкà λόγια 'the Dominical oracles, or τὰ λόγια “ the oracles' simply -the two expressions which occur in Papias-but Tà Xóyia Toû Kupiov, the oracles of the Lord,' which form of words would. more directly suggest the Lord as the speaker. Again Irenæus, denouncing the interpretations of the Scriptures current among the Gnostics, uses the very expression of Papias, тà KUριaкà Xóyla1; and though he does not define his exact meaning, yet as the 'oracles of God' are mentioned immediately afterwards, and as the first instance of such false interpretation which he gives is not a saying, but an incident in the Gospels-the healing of the ruler's daughter-we may infer that he had no idea of restricting the term to sayings of Christ. Again when we turn to Clement of Alexandria, we find that the Scriptures in one passage are called 'the oracles of truth,' while in another among the good deeds attributed to Ezra is the 'discovery and restoration of the inspired oracles". Similarly Origen

1 De Conj. erud. grat. 24 (p. 538); de Profug. 11 (p. 555). Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books (of Moses) are oracles (χρησμοί) pronounced (χρησθέν· TES) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different kinds of λóyia (Vit. Moys. iii. 23, p. 163).

• Clem. Rom. 53 ἐγκεκύφατε εἰς τὰ λόγια τοῦ [Θεοῦ]. Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression ἐγκύπτειν εἰς τὰς γραφάς.

3 Polyc. Phil. 7.

4 Iren. Hær. i. 8. 1.

5 Clem. Alex. Coh. ad Gent. p. 84 (ed. Potter), Strom. i. p. 392.

speaks of the teachings of the Scripture as 'the oracles,' 'the oracles of God'.' In the context of the latter of the two passages to which I refer, he has clearly stated that he is contemplating the histories, the law, and the prophets alike. So too St Basil uses 'sacred' (or divine) 'oracles,'' oracles of the Spirit,' as synonymes for the Scriptures. And this catena of passages might be largely extended.

This wide sense of the word 'oracles' therefore in itself is fully substantiated by examples both before and after the time of Papias. But our author objects that it is not consistent with the usage of Papias himself elsewhere. The examples alleged however fail to prove this. If Papias entitled his work 'Exposition of Oracles of the Lord,' or rather of Dominical Oracles,' there is nothing to show that he did not include narrative portions of the Gospels, as well as discourses; though from the nature of the case the latter would occupy the chief place. On the contrary, it is certain from the extant notices that he dealt largely with incidents. And this he would naturally do. By false allegory and in other ways Gnostic teachers misinterpreted the facts, not less than the sayings, of the Gospels; and Papias would be anxious to supply the corrective in the one case as in the other. The second example of its use in Papias certainly does not favour our author's view. This father, as we have seen3, describes St Mark as not writing down 'in order the things said or done by Christ” (οὐ μέντοι τάξει τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα). This, he states, was not within the Evangelist's power, because he was not a personal disciple of our Lord, but obtained his information from the preaching of Peter, who consulted the immediate needs of his hearers and had 'no intention of giving a consecutive record of the Dominical oracles” (οὐχ ὥσπερ σύνταξιν τῶν κυριακῶν ποιούμενος λογίων). Here the obvious inference is that τὰ κυριακὰ λόγια in the second clause is equivalent to τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ

1 De Princ. iv. 11 (1. p. 168, Delarue), in Matth. x. § 6 (ш. p. 447).

2 Hom. xi. 5 (II. p. 96); ib. xii. 1 (p. 97).

3 See p. 163.

Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα in the first, just as the σύνταξιν in the second clause corresponds to the τάξει in the first. Our author however, following the lead of those who adopt the same interpretation of 'the oracles,' explains it differently1.

λex@évra

There is an evident contrast made. Mark wrote πраɣ0évτα, because he had not the means of writing discourses, but Matthew composed the λóyia. Papias clearly distinguishes the work of Mark, who had written reminiscences of what Jesus had said and done, from that of Matthew, who had made a collection of his discourses.

This interpretation depends altogether on the assumption that the extracts relating to St Mark and St Matthew belonged to the same context; but this is only an assumption. Moreover it introduces into the extract relating to St Mark a contrast which is not only not suggested by the language, but is opposed to the order of the words. The leading idea in this extract is the absence of strict historical sequence in St Mark's narrative. Accordingly the emphatic word in the clause in question is σύνταξιν, which picks up the previous τάξει, and itself occupies the prominent position in its own clause. If our author's interpretation were correct, the main idea would be a contrast between a work relating deeds as well as sayings, and a work relating sayings only; and λoyiwv, as bringing out this idea, would demand the most emphatic place (οὐχ ὥσπερ τῶν λογίων σύνταξιν ποιούμενος); whereas in its present position it is entirely subordinated to other words in the clause.

The examples quoted above show that 'the oracles' (tà λóyia) can be used as co-extensive with the Scriptures' (ai ypapai) in the time of Papias. Hence it follows that 'the Dominical Oracles' (τà Kupiakà λóyia) can have as wide a meaning as 'the Dominical Scriptures' (Dominicae Scripturae, ai kuριakai ypa

paí)-an expression occurring in Irenæus and in Dionysius of Corinth1-or, in other words, that the Gospels may be so called. If any difficulty therefore remains, it must lie in the second of the two assumptions which I mentioned above-namely, that no Evangelical record could at this early date be invested with the authority implied by the use of this term, or (in other words) could be regarded as Scripture. This assumption again is contradicted by facts. The Gospel of St Matthew is twice quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas, and in the first passage the quotation is introduced by the common formula of Scriptural reference—' as it is written.' To what contortions our author puts his argument, when dealing with that epistle, in the vain attempt to escape the grip of hard fact, I shall have occasion to show when the proper time comes3. At present it is sufficient say that the only ground for refusing to accept St Matthew as the source of these two quotations, which are found there, is the assumption that St Matthew could not at this early date be regarded as 'Scripture.' In other words, it is a petitio principii. But the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas, on any showing, was written before the date which our author himself assigns to the Exposition of Papias. Some place it as early as A.D. 70, or thereabouts; some as late as A.D. 120; the majority incline to the later years of the first, or the very beginning of the second century. If therefore this Gospel could be quoted as Scripture in Barnabas, it could à fortiori be described as 'oracles' when Papias wrote.

to

1 Iren. Hær. v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23.

2 Ep. Barn. 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on Supernatural Religion in

the April [1875] number of the Dublin Review, p. 403.

3 [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the Preface to this Reprint.]

S. R.

12

IT

VI. PAPIAS OF HIERAPOLIS.

Continued.

[OCTOBER, 1875.]

T has been seen that, in the meagre fragments of his work which alone survive, Papias mentions by name the Evangelical records of St Matthew and St Mark. With the Third and Fourth Gospels the case is different. Eusebius has not recorded any reference to them by Papias, and our author therefore concludes that they were unknown to this early writer. I have shown in a previous paper on the 'Silence of Eusebius',' that this inference is altogether unwarrantable. I have pointed out that the assumption on which it rests is not justified by the principles which Eusebius lays down for himself as his rule of procedure, while it is directly refuted by almost every instance in which he quotes a writing now extant, and in which therefore it is possible to apply a test. I have proved that, as regards the four Gospels, Eusebius only pledges himself to give, and (as a matter of fact) only does give, traditions of interest respecting them. I have proved also that it is not consistent either with his principles or with his practice to refer to mere quotations, however numerous, even though they are given by name. Papias therefore might have quoted the Third Gospel any number of times as written by Luke the companion of Paul, and the Fourth Gospel not less frequently as written by John the Apostle; and Eusebius would not have cared to record the fact.

All this I have proved, and the author of Supernatural 2 [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]

1 See above, p. 34 sq.