native expressions.

[155:2] _S.R._ I. p. 434 sq.

[156:1] So again, I. p. 484 sq, 'Whatever books Papias knew, however, it
is certain, from his own express declaration, that he ascribed little
importance to them, and preferred tradition as a more reliable source of
information regarding Evangelical history,' etc. See also II. p. 820 sq.

[156:2] _H.E._ iv. 23, v. 8.

[156:3] See below, p. 160.

[157:1] The references will be found above, p. 154.

[157:2] The proper word, if the work had been what our author supposes,
was not [Greek: exegesis] but [Greek: diegesis], which Eusebius uses
several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; _H.E._ iii. 39.

[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach _Das
Papias-Fragment_ p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to
the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such
violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of
violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon,
and that the [Greek: _kai hosa pote_] here is answered by the words
[Greek: _ei_ de pou _kai_ parekolouthekos], which occur several lines
below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermeneiais] 'the interpretations
belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in
the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced
impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact
will still remain that the _interpretations are presupposed_.
Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the
two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared,
Hilgenfeld and Leimbach.

[158:2] Haer. v. 33. 1 sq.

[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the
looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenaeus,
does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines
features from all the three.

[159:1] The view that Papias took _written_ Gospels as the basis of his
interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld
in his recent works; _Papias von Hierapolis_ (_Zeitschrift_, 1875) p.
238 sq; _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_ (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq.
But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical
conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical
narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in
little esteem.

[160:1] _Haer._ Pr