[268:1] Eusebius, H. E., 4:22.

[268:2] Tên aplanê paradosin tou apostolikou kêrygmatos aploustatê syntaxei graphês hupomnêmatisamenos, k.t.l. Eusebius, H. E. 4:8.

[268:3] Eusebius, H. E., 2:23. cf. Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 22.

[268:4] Eusebius, H. E., 4:22.

[269:1] Eusebius, H. E., 2:23.

[269:2] Euseb., H. E., 2:23.

[269:3] Epiphanius also has the tradition that James alone, as, High Priest, once a year went into the Holy of Holies. Haer., 78:13; cf. 14; 29:4.

[269:4] Eusebius, H. E., 4:22.

[270:1] H. E., 4:22.

[270:2] Credibility, etc., Works, ii., p. 144.

[270:3] In Evangelio juxta Hebraeos quod Chaldaico quidem Syroque sermone sed hebraicis literis scriptum est, etc.   Adv. Pelag., 3:1.

[271:1] Cf. Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 2.

[271:2] Even Dr. Westcott admits: "There is indeed nothing to show distinctly that he refers to the apocryphal books of the New Testament, but there is nothing to limit his words to the Old" (On the Canon, p. 184).

[271:3] Bibl., 232; cf. Routh, Reliq. Sacrae, 1846, i., p. 281 f.

[271:4] Ephobeito gar tên parousian tou Christou, hôs kai Herôdês.   Euseb., H. E., 3:20.

[272:1] Cf. Epiphanius, Haer., 29:9; Hieron., De Vir. Ill., 8, Comm. ad Matt. 2:6, 12:13, ad Es. 11:1; ad Habac., 3:3.

[272:2] Westcott, On the Canon, p. 182, note 4.

[272:3] Ti me eperôtate peri Iêsou tou uiou tou anthrôpou; kai autos kathêtai en tô ouranô ek dexiôn tês megalês dynameôs, kai mellei erchesthai epi tôn nephelôn tou ouranou.   Euseb., H. E., 2:23.

[272:4] Ap' arti opsesthe ton uion tou anthrôpou kathêmenon ek dexiôn tês dynameôs kai erchomenon epi tôn nephelôn tou ouranou. Matt. 26: 64.

[272:5] 1 Thess. 4:18.

[272:6] Euseb., H. E., 2:23.

[273:1] On the Canon, p. 182, note 4.

[273:2] Matt. 22:16; Mark 12:14.

[273:3] Euseb., H. E., 2:23.

[273:5] Zeitschr. wiss. Theol., 1863, p. 354, p. 360, anm. 1; Die Evv. Justin's, p. 369; Der Kanon, p. 28. In each of these places the bare assertion is made, and the reader is referred to the other passages. In fact, there is merely a circle of references to mere unargued assumptions. Bunsen (Bibelwerk, viii., p. 543) repeats the assertion of Hilgenfeld, and refers to the passages above, where, however, as we have stated, no attempt whatever is made to establish the truth of the assumption. Cf. Scholten, Die ält. Zeugnisse, p. 19; Het Paulin. Evangelie, p. 3.

[273:6] The passage is put within brackets by Lachmann, and within double brackets by Westcott and Hort.

[274:1] The Clementine Homilies give the prayer of Jesus: Pater, aphes autois tas amartias autôn, k.t.l.   Hom., 11:20.

[274:2] The passage we are considering was certainly not an original addition by the author of our present third gospel, but was derived from earlier sources. Cf. Ewald, Die drei ersten Evv., p. 150.

[274:3] "Ganz aus dem innersten Geiste Jesus' geschöpft." Ewald, Die drei erst. Evv., p. 361.

[275:1] Photius, Bibl. Cod., 232, col. 893.

[275:2] Ep. ad Corinth. 34.

[275:3] Comm. Es., 44:4.

[275:4] Cf. Cotelerius, Patr. Apost., in notis ad. Constit. Apost., 6:16.

[275:5] Euseb., H. E., 4:22.

[275:6] 16:21.

[276:1] 6:18; cf. 18

[276:2] 4:34.

[276:3] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 19.

[276:4] Eusebius, H. E., 3:36, 39; Hieron., De Vir. Ill., 18.

[276:5] Chron. Pasch., i. 481.

[276:6] Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[277:1] Eusebius, H. E., 3:39.

[277:2] With reference to the last sentence of Papias, Tischendorf asks: "What books does he refer to here, perhaps our Gospels? According to the expression this is not impossible, but from the whole character of the book in the highest degree improbable" (Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 109). We know little or nothing of the "whole character" of the book, and what we do know is contradictory to our Gospels. The natural and only reasonable course is to believe the express declaration of Papias, more especially as it is made, in this instance, as a prefatory statement of his belief.

[277:3] H. E., 3:39. Bleek (Einl. N. T., 1866, p. 94), Credner (Beiträge, i., p. 23 f.; Gesch. N. T. Kan., p. 27 f.), and others, consider that Papias used oral tradition solely or mainly in his work. Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. w. Theol., 1875, p. 238 f.; Einl. N. T., 1875, p. 53 ff.) and others suppose that the Hebrew logia of Matthew were the basis of his Exposition, together with tradition, but that he did not use any of our Gospels.

[278:1] Adv. Haer., 5:33, § 4

[278:2] Eusebius, H. E., 3:39.

[278:3] Euseb., H. E., 3:39. Cf. Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 18.

[278:4] Ib., H. E., 7. Proem.

[278:5] Ib., 7:25. Cf. Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 9.

[278:6] Ewald, Gesch. Volkes Isr., vii., p. 226, anm. 1; Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 105. Dr. Lightfoot argues that the Chronicon Paschale, from which this date is derived, has inserted the name of Papias in mistake for Papylus, which stands in the History of Eusebius (4:15), from which, he contends, the author of the Chronicle derived his information. He, therefore, concludes that the above date may henceforth be dismissed, and at once proceeds in a singularly arbitrary manner to fix dates for the career of Papias which he considers more acceptable. The matter does not require elaborate argument here. Cf. Lightfoot, Contemp. Rev., 1875, p. 381 ff.

[279:1] Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1875, p. 842), in the course of a highly fanciful argument, says, in reference to this "as I said": "It is quite clear that Papias had already said something of the relations existing between St. Peter and St. Mark previously to the extract which gives an account of the Second Gospel, for he there refers back to a preceding notice." It is quite clear that he refers back, but only to the preceding sentence, in which he "had already said something of the relations" in stating the fact that "Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote, etc."

[279:2] "Kai touth' ho presbyteros elege. Markos men ermêneutês Petrou genomenos hosa emnêmoneusen, akribôs egrapsen, ou men toi taxei ta hupo tou Christou ê lechthenta ê prachthenta. Oute gar êkouse tou Kuriou, oute parêkolouthêsen autô, husteron de, hôs ephên, Petrô, hos pros tas chreias epoieito tas didaskalias, all' ouch hôper ountaxein tôn kuriakôn poioumenos logôn, hôste ouden hêmarte Markos, outôs enia grapsas hôs apemnêmoneusen. Henos gar epoiêsato pronoian, tou mêden hôn êkouse paralipein, ê pseusasthai ti en autois."Tauta men oun istorêtai ta Papia peri tou Markou.   Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[279:3] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., 3:1; cf. Eusebius, H. E., 5:8; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 4:5; Origen, ap. Euseb., H. E., 6:25; Eusebius, H. E., 3:4; Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 7.

[279:4] Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc., 4:5.

[279:5] Meta de tên toutôn exodon, Markos ho mathêtês kai ermêneutês Petrou, kai autos ta hupo Petrou kêryssomena engraphôs hêmin paradedôke.   Adv. Haer., 3:1, § 1; Euseb., H. E., 5:8.

[280:1] To de kata Markon tautên erchêkenai tên oikinomian. Tou Petrou dêmosia en Rhômê kêryxantos ton logon, kai Pneumati to euangelion exeipontos, tous parontas pollous ontas parakalesai ton Markon, hôs an akolouthêsanta autô porrôthen kai memnênon tôn lechthentôn, anagrapsai ta eirêmena, poiêsanta de to euangelion, metadounai tois deomenois autou. Hoper epignonta ton Petron, protreptikôs mête kôlusai mête protrepsasthai.   Euseb., H. E., 6:14.

[280:2] Licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus ... Capit majistrorum videri, quae discipuli promulgarint.   Adv. Marc., 4:5

[280:3] Deuteron de to kata Markon, hôs Petros huphêgêsato autô, poiêsanta. Comment. in Matt. Euseb., H. E., 6:25.

[280:4] Euseb., H. E., 2:15.

[280:5] Demonstr. Evang., 3:5.

[281:1] De Vir. Ill., 8.

[281:2] Ad Hedib., C. 2.

[281:3] A similar discrepancy of tradition is to be observed as to the place in which the Gospel was written, Irenaeus and others dating it from Rome, and others (as Chrysostom, in Matt. Homil., i.) assigning it to Egypt. Indeed, some MSS. of the second Gospel have the words egraphê en Aigyptô in accordance with this tradition as to its origin. Cf. Scholz, Einl. N. T., i., p. 201. Various critics have argued for its composition at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. We do not go into the discussion as to whether Peter ever was in Rome.

[281:4] Dem. Ev., 3:3.

[281:5] Cf. Mark i. 16, 17; Matt. 4:18.

[281:6] Luke 5:1-11.

[282:1] Mark 1:29.

[282:2] Matt. 10:2.

[282:3] Mark 3:16.

[282:4] Matt. 14:22-33.

[282:5] Matt, adds, "the son of the living God," 16:16.

[282:6] Mark 8: 27-30; cf. Baur, Das Markus Ev., p. 133.

[282:7] Matt. 16:16-19.

[282:8] Matt. 17:24-27.

[282:9] Luke 22:8; Mark 14:13.

[282:10] Luke 22:31, 32.

[282:11] Ib., 61, 62; cf. Matt. 26:75.

[282:12] Mark 14:27.

[283:1] Adv. Haer., 3:1, § 1; Euseb., H. E., 5:8. See quot., p. 279, note 5.

[284:1] Augustine calls Mark the follower and abbreviator of Matthew. "Tanquam pedisequus et breviator Matthaei."   De Consensu Evang., 1:2.

[284:2] Origen, Comment. in Joan., 13:17.

[284:3] Strom., i. 29, § 182; vi. 5, § 39, 6, § 48, 15, § 128.

[284:4] The work is generally quoted by the latter with the introduction, "Peter in the Preaching says:" Petros en tô kêrygmati legei, k.t.l.

[284:5] De Princip. Praef., 8.

[284:6] Ep. 16. (ad Caesar., i.). Cf. Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. N. T., i., p. 812.

[285:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 107.

[286:1] Dr. Westcott himself admits that "the proof of the Canon is rendered more difficult by the uncritical character of the first two centuries." He says: "The spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical" (On the Canon, p. 7 f.).

[286:2] Matthaios men oun Hebraidi dialektô ta logia synegrapsato. Hermêneuse d'auta hôs ên dynatos ekastos. Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[286:3] Tauta men oun istorêstai tô Papia peri tou Markou. Peri de tou Matthaiou taut' eirêtai.   Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[287:1] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 106 f.

[287:2] "They were entrusted with the oracles of God," ta logia tou Theou, Rom. 3:2.
"The first principles of the oracles of God," Tôn logiôn tou Theou, Heb. 5:12.
"Let him speak as the oracles of God," hôs logia Theou, 1 Pet. 4:11.
Cf. Suicer, Thes. Eccles., ii., p. 247 f.   Dr. Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., 1875, p. 400 f.) argues that in the first of the above passages Paul's expression, "the oracles of God," can mean nothing else than the O. T. Scriptures, and, therefore, includes the historical books of Genesis, Joshua, Samuel, etc. We must maintain that Paul certainly does not refer to a collection of writings, but to the communications or revelations of God, and, as the context shows, probably more immediately to the Messianic prophecies. The advantage of the Jews, in fact, according to Paul here, was that to them were first communicated the divine oracles: that they were made the medium of God's utterances to mankind. There seems almost an echo of the expression in Acts 7:38, where Stephen is represented as saying to the Jews of their fathers on Mount Sinai: "who received living oracles (logia zônta) to give unto us." Of this nature were "the oracles of God" entrusted to the Jews. Further, the phrase, "the first principles of the oracles of God" (Heb. 5:12), is no application of the term to narrative, as is argued, however much the author may illustrate his own teaching by O. T. history; but the writer of the Epistle clearly explains his own meaning in the first and second verses of his letter, when he says: "God having spoken to the fathers in time past in the prophets, at the end of these days spake unto us in his Son." Dr. Lightfoot also urges that Philo applies the term "oracle" (logion) to the narrative in Gen 4:15, etc. The fact is, however, that Philo considered almost every part of the O. T. as allegorical, and held that narrative or descriptive phrases frequently veiled divine oracles. When he applies the term "oracle" to any of these, it is not to the narrative, but to the divine utterance which he believes to be mystically contained in it, and which he extracts and expounds in the usual extravagant manner of Alexandrian typologists.

[289:1] Tischendorf himself, in a note, says: "Rufinus translates the word logia, according to the old linguistic usage, by oracula. it is in the highest degree probable that in fact the book of Papias, according to the Millenarian standing-point of the man, was dedicated specially to prophecies of the Lord. Christian linguistic usage, however, gave the word a wider signification, so that the sayings of the Lord and of the Apostles, even when they had not the particular character of prophecy, were so called, and Holy Scripture was designated theia logia" (Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 102, note 1).

[290:1] Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 107 f.

[290:2] Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 107 f.

[290:3] Dr. Westcott scarcely refers to the subject at all, and indeed on other points which are inconvenient in the evidence of Papias regarding Matthew's work he preserves almost complete silence, and assumes, with hardly a hint of doubt or uncertainty, the orthodox conclusions (On the Canon, pp. 59-62; 4th ed., p. 68 ff.).

[290:4] Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., pp. 106-111.

[290:5] H. E., 3:39. The passage (3:36) in which, on the contrary, Papias is called "a man in all respects most learned" (anêr ta panta hoti malista logiôstatos) is doubtful, as it is not found in the St. Petersburg Syriac edition, not in several other old Greek MSS.; but, treated even as an ancient note by someone acquainted with the writings of Papias, it may be mentioned here.

[291:1] Ho men dê Matthaios en tois Hebraiois tê idia autôn dialektô kai graphên exêneken euangeliou, tou Petrou kai tou Paulou en Rhômê euangelizomenôn kai themeliountôn tên ekklêsian. 
Adv. Haer., 3:1, § 1; Euseb. H. E., 5:8.

[291:2] Euseb. H. E. 5:10.

[292:1] De Vir. Ill., 36.

[292:2] Euseb., H. E., 6:25.

[292:3] Euseb., H. E., 3:24.

[292:4] Matthaios ho grapsas to euangelion, Hebraidi glôssê touto egrapsen.   Cat. 14.

[292:5] Hôs ta alêthê estin eipein hoti Matthaios monos Hebraisti kai Hebraikois grammasin en tê kainê diathêkê epoiêsato tên tou euangeliou ekthesin te kai kêrygma. Haer., 30:3. ed. Petav., p. 127.

[292:6] ... Ho Matthaios Hebraikois grammasi graphei to euangelion, k.t.l.   Haer., 51:5; ed. Pet., p. 426.

[292:7] Hom. in Matth., 1.

[292:8] De Consensu Evang., 1:2.

[292:9] Tischendorf, Wann wurden, u.s.w., p. 108.

[293:1] Matthaeus, qui et Levi, ex publicano apostolus, primus in Judaea, propter eos qui ex circumcisione crediderant, evangelium Christi Hebraicis litteris verbisque composuit: quod quis postea in Graecum transtulerit, non satis certum est. Hieron. De Vir. Ill., 3.

[293:2] Cf. Theophylact, Com. in Matth., Proem.; Auctor Synops. Script. Sacr.; Athanasius, Opp. Paris., ii., p. 155; Evang. sec. Matth. ed. Matthaei, p. 10.

[293:3] Th. Studien u. Krit., 1832, p. 735 f.

[293:4] In connection with this it may be of interest to remember that, in the account of his conversion and the vision which he saw on his way to Damascus which Paul gives to King Agrippa in the Acts of the Apostles, he states that Jesus spoke to him "in the Hebrew dialect" (Hebraidi dialektô), Acts 26:14.

[294:1] Einl. N. T., ii., p. 997, cf. p. 1,003.

[295:1] Augustine, Contra Faust., 32, 2; 33, 3.

[295:2] Sixtus Senensis, Bibl. Sancta, 7:2, p. 924.

[296:1] In Acts 1:18 f. an account is given which again contradicts both Matthew and the version of Papias.

[296:2] Oecumenius, Comm. in Acta Apost., cap. 2.

[297:1] Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[297:2] Proleg. Comment. in Apocalypsin; Routh, Reliq. Sacrae, 1846, i., p. 15.

[297:3] H. E., 3:39.

[297:4] Euseb., H. E., 3:39.

[298:1] We may merely remark that Papias does not call the Matthew who wrote the logia an Apostle. In this sentence he speaks of the Apostle, but he does not distinctly identify him with the Matthew of the other passage.