It will also be noticed that Papias no more mentions a Gospel of Mark than he does of Matthew. What he speaks of is not an inspired narrative, but records written from memory. Now if Mark wrote from memory he did not write from inspiration. The argument for the genuineness of the Gospel is at the expense of its inspiration. But the evidence from the numerous passages in which Mark agrees with Matthew and with Luke is overwhelming that it is not an original document written from memory at all, but with the writer having other documents directly before him. This is admitted by all the best critics.
Papias says Mark did not arrange in order the things which were said and done by Christ, and that he was careful to omit none of the things which he heard. How can this apply to our Gospel, which we have seen omits many most important things with which Peter was most especially concerned, and which moreover is the most orderly and consecutive of the Gospels. Canon Sanday says ("Gospels in the Second Century," p. 151): "The second Gospel is written in order, it is not an original document. These two characteristics make it improbable that it is in its present shape the document to which Papias alludes." And again (p. 155): "Neither of the two first Gospels, as we have them, complies with the conditions of Papias' description to such an extent that we can claim Papias as a witness to them." Once more (p. 159), "I am bound in candor to say that, so far as I can see myself at present, I am inclined to agree with the author of 'Supernatural Religion' against his critics, that the works to which Papias alludes cannot be our present Gospels in their present form."
Dr. Davidson (Introduction to N. T., vol. i., p. 539, 1882,) declares: "A careful examination of Papias's testimony shows that it does not relate to our present Gospel, nor bring Mark into connection with it as its author. All we learn from it is, that Mark wrote notes of a Gospel which was not our canonical one."
The description of Papias would lead us to expect, not a regularly concocted Gospel, but fragmentary reminiscences of Peter's preaching. It seems altogether more likely that the allusion is to the work known as the "Preaching of Peter," which was undoubtedly popular in early Christian times, and which was used by Heracleon and Clement of Alexandria as authentic canonical Scripture. Since Papias gives no quotations whatever from these alleged writings of Matthew and Mark the whole matter remains a bare tradition resting on the authority of this weak-minded Father. We are unaware if he took the slightest pains to test the truth of the statements made. It is highly improbable that he did anything of the kind. Dupin says: "The judgment that ought to be given concerning him is that which hath been already given by Eusebius, that is to say, that he was a very good man, but very credulous, and of very mean parts, who delighted much in hearing and telling stories and miracles. And since he was exceedingly inquisitive, and inclined to believe everything that was told him, it is not to be admired that he hath divulged divers errors and extravagant notions as the judgments of the Apostles, and hath given us fabulous narratives for real histories, which shows that nothing is so dangerous in matters of religion, as lightly to believe, and too greedily to embrace, all that hath the appearance of piety without considering in the first place how true it is" ("A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers," vol. i., p. 50, 1692).
Traditions coming from such a source could be of very little value. It is, however, certain that Papias preferred tradition to any book with which he was acquainted He says: "For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living abiding voice "—a saying which doubtless included the books of Matthew and Mark he referred to, and possibly others of the "many" who had written "a declaration of those things which are surely believed among us," referred to by Luke. Jeremiah Jones thinks he refers to spurious productions, as "he never would have said this concerning any inspired book" ("New and Full Method of Settling the Canonical Authority of the New Testament," vol. i., p. 24). The idea of a Christian bishop preferring uncertain tradition to the sure and certain testimony of an infallibly inspired revelation is well-nigh incredible to a Protestant apologist.
This extreme credulity is evinced throughout the slight fragments which has come down to us. He relates on the authority of Philip's daughters that a man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison and received no harm. After this we are not surprised at the information that the government of the world's affairs was left to angels, and that they made a mess of it. It is noticeable that while mentioning Matthew and Mark, and especially mentioning John, he never ascribes to the latter any such writing as our fourth Gospel The only saying which he does ascribe to him: "The days shall come when vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches," etc., is not only uncanonical but entirely dissimilar to the style of both Gospel and First Epistle, though not to that of the Apocalypse. Dr. Davidson considers his notices of St. John preclude Papias from having believed him to be the author of a Gospel Had he known of such a document he would surely have mentioned it as much as Matthew and Mark, and Eusebius would not have failed to reproduce the testimony.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, seems to have been a fair average specimen of the early Christian. Probably he was very devout and pious, but most certainly he was not strong in intellect, and was ready to give credence to old wives' tales concerning the Christ or his Apostles. It is upon such authorities as these that the whole fabric of historical Christianity rests.