[47] Both Philip of Side 1 and George the Sinful say that John was slain by the Jews, and their agreement shows that Papias, whom they quote as authority, must have said either this or something which suggested this to them. They were both eager to make the agreement with the prediction, as they understood it, as close as possible, and they understood that, like Jesus, James and John must have been delivered to death by the Jews. We know too little about the circumstances in which James was slain, or those in which John suffered banishment, to judge whether, and how far, the agency of the Jews operated in either case. The death of James, inflicted by Herod, pleased the Jews (Acts xii. 3). Whether the persecution had [48] been in any way suggested by them we do Dot know. George and Philip may have been right or not, we cannot judge. It should not be assumed, however, that the same exact words in which they agree were used by Papias. There was, in addition to the words of Papias, another force acting on them, viz., the prediction. 2 When James was killed by Herod, it pleased the Jews; and it may very well be that Papias said something of the same kind regarding the punishment of John. It is not necessary to suppose that Philip and George understood Papias correctly and reproduce his testimony exactly. George quotes Origen on the same subject; and, as we possess Origen's words, we are able to see that George misunderstood him.

This is all, of course, mere speculation and possibility, Lightfoot in his reply to " Supernatural Religion" makes a different suggestion in order to restore the real evidence of Papias a suggestion which is not in any way inconsistent with what we have just said. The truth is that the two references to Papias are so slight [49] and vague, and so encompassed with inaccuracies in the context, that one can only speculate about what Papias said or meant. What is important to observe is that it is on the strength of a mere speculation that Dr. Moffatt and the modern critics whom he follows build up their empty and untrustworthy theory that John was killed by the Jews at some early time in the history of the congregation in Jerusalem. Such people as George the Sinner and the late epitomizer of Philip of Side are absolutely valueless authorities; yet Irenaeus and Eusebius must forsooth be set aside as mistaken in order to make room for these worthless and inaccurate scribblers of late time; and the theory is sup-ported by equally vague combinations of even more worthless evidence selected from the worst side of the Martyrologies, 3 and by a needlessly [50] strained interpretation of a saying of Jesus. Dr. Moffatt probably would set little store by that saying, if there were not a possibility that it was invented by some anonymous editor after John's death, though he leaves open the hypothesis that it may be a real prophecy of Jesus.

If any writer on the opposite side had ventured to quote such worthless evidence, how he would have been laughed to scorn. Suppose [51] that some ninth-century writer, full of inaccuracies and quite valueless in himself, agreed with an anonymous epitomizer of a poor fifth-century historian as to the correctness of some statement in the book of the Acts, and that this agreement had been quoted as proving the correctness of that statement, what value would any critic of any school have attributed to the proof? We all know that such corroborations are valueless. It is only when writers like these can be tortured into an argument which seems to disagree with the New Testament that they are quoted. Their agreement and their disagreement, real or apparent, are alike valueless, unless confirmed by better authorities.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Or rather a fragment understood to be the work of a late epitomizer of Philip.

2 The same force, doubtless, acted on Papias

3 That John and James, who were certainly (as the Author allows) not slain at the same time, should be commemorated together, is the flimsiest conceivable evidence that John was killed early in Jerusalem. The bracketing together of the memory of Apostles who had some historical connexion in life, but none in death, must be regarded as the worst side, historically speaking, of the Martyrologies. Who, except a man with a theory, could attach even the smallest value to the record that John and James were commemorated on 27 December, and Paul and Peter on 28 December? To speak of this as historical evidence shows a defective conception of what historical evidence is. On this subject I may refer to Dean Armitage Robinson's “Historical Character of St. John's Gospel," p. 64 f., where much is well said that needed to be said. A calendar of saints' days is like the map of a partly surveyed country : towns have to be put at some point, and so it is with commemorations. When the death is otherwise at tested, the day is, or may be, a historical record. As to James, Herod allowed no interval of months between his death and Peter's, Acts XII. 1 ff. The date, Dec. 26, for Stephen is supported by that assigned for the conversion of Paul, and has therefore some probability. The two following days were given to the four great Apostles for reasons stated loc. cit.