to suggest a solution. Papias may have quoted the Gospel 'delivered by John to the Churches, which they wrote down from his lips (ὃ ἀπέγραφον ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ); and some later writer, mistaking the ambiguous aπéypapov, interpreted it, I wrote down,' thus making Papias himself the amanuensis'. The dictation of St John's Gospel is suggested, as I have said already, by internal evidence also. Here again, so far as we can judge from his practice elsewhere, Eusebius would be more likely than not to omit such a statement, if it was made thus casually. This seems to me the most probable explanation of the whole passage. But obviously no weight can be attached to such evidence. Like the statement of John Malalas respecting Ignatius, which I considered in a former paper3, it is discredited by its companionship with an anachronism, though the anachronism is not so flagrant as those of John Malalas, and the statement itself does not, like his, contradict the unanimous testimony of all the preceding centuries. But the author of Supernatural Religion closes with an argument, which he seems to think a formidable obstacle to the belief that Papias recognized the Fourth Gospel as the work of St John: Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility' (TÒ åέiómiσTOV) of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin... Now, he must, therefore, have recognized the book as the work of the Apostle John, and we shall hereafter show that it is impossible that the author of the Apocalypse is the author of the Gospel; therefore, in this way also, Papias is a witness against the Apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel". 1 Or, the confusion may have been between ἀπέγραψα (ἀπέγραψαν), and ἀπέγραψα. 2 [See above, p. 187.] The passage of Andreas of Casarea will be found in Routh Rel. Sacr. 1. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the Apocalypse to St John the name. Apostle, or even that he quoted it by Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its This argument however is an anachronism. Many very considerable critics of the nineteenth century, it is true, maintain that the two works cannot have come from the same author. I do not stop now to ask whether they are right or wrong; but the nineteenth century is not the second. In the second century there is not the slightest evidence that a single writer felt any difficulty on this score, or attempted to separate the authorship of the two books. It is true that Eusebius mentions one or two authors, whose works unfortunately are lost, as using the Apocalypse, while he does not mention their using the Gospel; and this negative fact has obviously misled many. But here again the inference arises from a fundamental misconception of his purpose. I have shown' that his principles required him to notice quotations from and references to the Apocalypse in every early writer, because the authorship and canonicity of the work had been questioned by Church writers before his time; whereas it would lead him to ignore all such in the case of the Fourth Gospel, because no question had ever been entertained within the Church respecting it. This indeed is precisely what he does with Theophilus; he refers to this father's use of the Apocalypse, and he ignores his direct quotations from the Gospel. The inference therefore must be set aside as a fallacy. Beyond this, all the direct evidence points the other way. There was indeed a small sect or section of men outside the pale of the Church, before the close of the second century, who rejected the Gospel, but they rejected the Apocalypse also. Moreover they ascribed both to a single author, and (what is more important still) this author was Cerinthus, a contemporary of St John. Thus the very oppo use by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was said by them mystically and in figurative language' (ἐν ὑποδείγμασι). 1 [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.] 2 These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius (Hær. li.), who calls them Alogi. They are mentioned also, with special reference to the Gospel, by Irenæus (iii. 11. 9). nents of the Gospel in the second century are witnesses not only to the very early date of the two writings, but also to the identity of authorship. On the other hand, every Church writer without exception during this century (so far as our knowledge goes) who accepted the one accepted the other also. The most doubtful case is Justin Martyr, who refers by name to the Apocalypse; but even Hilgenfeld says that it is difficult to deny the use of the Gospel of St John in his case'. Melito again commented on the Apocalypse; and there is ample evidence (as I trust to show hereafter) that he recognized the Fourth Gospel also. Both books alike are used in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (A.D. 177). Both alike are accepted by Theophilus of Antioch, by the Muratorian writer, by Irenæus, and by Clement. It is the same during the first half of the third century. Tertullian and Cyprian, Hippolytus and Origen, place them on an equal footing, and attribute them to the same Apostle. The first distinct trace of an attempt to separate the authorship of the two books appears in Dionysius of Alexandria2, who wrote about the middle or early in the second half of the third century. Even he argues entirely upon considerations of internal criticism, and does not pretend to any traditional evidence. He accepts both works as canonical; and he questions the Apostolic authorship, not of the Gospel, but of the Apocalypse. p. 98, 1868); and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (Hermathena vol. vi. p. 397 sq, 1888), showing as it does that there was a Gaius different from Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.] IT VII. THE LATER SCHOOL OF ST JOHN. [FEBRUARY, 1876.] T has been stated in a former paper that at the fall of Jerusalem a remnant of the Apostolic company, together with other primitive disciples, sought a new home in Asia Minor'. Of this colony Ephesus was the head-quarters, and St John the leader. Here he is reported to have lived and laboured for more than a quarter of a century, surviving the accession of Trajan, who ascended the imperial throne A.D. 98%. In this respect his position is unique among the earliest preachers of Christianity. While St Peter and St Paul converted disciples and organized congregations, St John alone was the founder of a school. The prolongation of his life after the Church was firmly rooted, and his fixed residence in the midst of a compact Christian society, combined to give a certain definiteness to his personal influence, which would be wanting to the labours of these more strictly missionary preachers. Hence the traditions of St John are more direct, more consistent, and more trustworthy, than those which relate to the other Apostles. Thus we may, without any great impropriety, speak of the 'school of St John.' The existence of such a body of disciples gathered about the veteran teacher is indicated by notices in various writers. The author of the Muratorian fragment, for instance, speaks of this Apostle as writing his Gospel at the request not only of his fellow-disciples, but also of his 1 See above, p. 89 sq. 2 Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4. 'bishops'.' Clement of Alexandria again, among whose teachers was one from this very district, and probably of this very school', represents him as going about from place to place in the neighbourhood of Ephesus, appointing bishops and providing in other ways for the government of the Churches". More especially Irenæus, who had received his earliest lessons in Christianity from an immediate disciple of St John, appeals again and again to such a body as preserving and handing down the correct tradition of the Apostolic doctrine and practice. He describes these persons in one place as the elders who in Asia associated with John the disciple of the Lord';' in another as all the Churches which are in Asia,' specifying more particularly the 'Church in Ephesus...the true witness of the Apostolic tradition";' in a third as those who saw John face to ་ face,' or 'the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord';' in a fourth as 'the elders who were before us, and who also were pupils of the Apostles';' in a fifth 'as the elders who have their succession from the Apostles';' in a sixth as 'the elders, disciples of the Apostles 10,' with similar expressions elsewhere. The prominent members of this school in the first age were Polycarp of Smyrna and Papias of Hierapolis, of whom the former survived beyond the middle of the century, and the latter probably died not many years before. In the next generation the most famous names are Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who flourished in the third quarter of the century. They again are succeeded by other writers, of whom the most celebrated was Polycrates of Ephesus, already an old man, when in the last decade of the century a controversial question obliged him to take up his pen in defence of the traditions of his Church. 1 See above, p. 189. 2 Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 1 (p. 322) ¿ μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ̔Ελλάδος, ὁ Ιωνικός. 3 Clem. Alex. Quis div. salv. 42, p. 959. Iren. ii. 22. 5. 5 Iren. iii. 3. 4. Iren. v. 30. 1. 7 Iren. v. 33. 3. 8 Ep. ad Flor. in Euseb. H. E. v. 20. See above, p. 96. 9 Iren. iv. 26. 2. 10 Iren. v. 5. 1. |