Essays on "Supernatural Religion"
by J. B. Lightfoot
[1:1] _Supernatural Religion; An Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation._ Two Vols. Second Edition, 1874. [Subsequent editions are as follows, Third and Fourth Editions (1874), Fifth and Sixth Editions (1875), Third Volume (1877), Complete Edition, in Three Vols. (1879).]
[3:1] Iren. v. 36. 1, 2.
[4:1] _S.R._ II. p. 328 sq.
[4:2] _Canon_ p. 63, note 2.
[4:3] The Greek is [Greek: Einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs ... kai dia touto _eirêkenai ton Kurion_ en tois tou patros mou monas einai pollas k.t.l.]
[4:4] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 4 (II. p. 328) where the sentence runs: 'But ... there is this distinction etc.' See below, p. 56.]
[5:1] [The author's defence is dealt with, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]
[5:2] [The question is discussed below, p. 142 sq, where the author's subsequent explanation is considered.]
[5:3] [This charge is withdrawn in ed. 4 (II. p. 328 n. 3), but objection is still taken to the words 'they taught' as conveying 'too positive a view of the case.' On the character of this withdrawal see below, p. 53 sq.]
[5:4] Our author has already (II. p. 326) accused Tischendorf of 'deliberately falsifying the text by inserting, "say they."' Tischendorf's words are, 'Und deshalb sagen sie habe der Herr den Ausspruch gethan.' He might have spared the 'sagen sie,' because the German idiom 'habe' enables him to express the main fact that the words are not Irenæus' own, without this addition. But he has not altered any idea which the original contains; whereas our author himself has suppressed this all-important fact in his own translation. [On this treatment of Tischendorf see below, pp. 55 sq, 128, 138. The language is modified in ed. 4 (II. p. 326) 'Tischendorf renders the oblique construction of the text by inserting "say they" referring to the Presbyters of Papias,' where the point of grammar is silently conceded.]
The reader may compare _S.R._ II. p. 100, 'The lightness and inaccuracy with which the "Great African" proceeds is all the better illustrated by the fact, that not only does he accuse Marcion falsely, but he actually defines the motives for which he expunged the passage which never existed etc.... he actually repeats the same charge on two other occasions.'
[6:1] _S.R._ II. p. 334.
[6:2] [On the wording of this footnote in ed. 4 see below, p. 58. It is omitted in ed. 6, where see II. p. 333.]
[6:3] [See further on this subject below, pp. 53 sq, 126 sq.]
[7:1] _c. Cels._ i. 8.
[7:2] _c. Cels._ viii. 76.
[7:3] _S.R._ II. p. 231 sq. [So also the Complete Edition (1879) II. p. 229 sq.]
[7:4] There is also another aorist in the part of the sentence, which our author has not quoted, [Greek: allo suntagma ... en hô didaxein epêngeilato.]
[8:1] [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 46).]
[8:2] [Some of the grammatical errors are corrected in ed. 6 (II. p. 63), where however new mistranslations are introduced, as [Greek: pollachôs] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houtô makarizetai ... hoti opsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.]
[8:3] [[Greek: to rhêma] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but [Greek: zêtêsantes] still remains 'they who inquire' (ii. p. 265).]
[8:4] II. p. 296 sq. [Corrected in ed. 6.]
[8:5] II. p. 193. [Corrected in ed. 6.]
[8:6] I. p. 448, comp. p. 455. [The latter passage is struck out in ed. 6 (see I. p. 455); the former becomes 'committed no error'. See below, p. 163.]
[8:7] II. p. 384.
[8:8] [But in ed. 6 (II. p. 384) I see that my translation is tacitly substituted.]
[8:9] [Defended as a 'paraphrase' (see below, p. 129), but corrected in ed. 6, which also omits the first clause.]
[9:1] [Other errors in translation are given below, p. 129.]
[9:2] I. p. 113. The last words ran 'certainly a late interpolation' in the first edition (I. p. 103). Thus the passage has undergone revision, and yet the author has not discovered the contradiction. [The author's own explanation of this discrepancy is given below, p. 124. In ed. 6 (I. p. 113) the sentence ends, 'and it is argued that it was probably a later interpolation,' while in the Complete Edition (I. p. 113) it is further qualified 'argued by some.']
[10:1] II. p. 421. [The argument in favour of the genuineness is expanded in the Complete Edition (II. pp. 419-423).]
[10:2] [See below, p. 163 sq.]
[11:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276. [And so throughout all the editions.]
[11:2] [See below, p. 111.]
[11:3] i. pp. 444-485.
[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.]
[12:1] I. p. 441.
[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.]
[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.]
[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, 'For the arguments of apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to Canon Westcott's work _On the Canon_ pp. 112-139. Dr Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our Gospels; but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' ['seem to us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author had read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence would doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.'
[13:1] II. p. 411.
[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different purpose later on (II. p. 416).
[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: "And thou didst try them which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them false."' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis ... than the fact that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' _i.e._, after St Paul's death. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between the two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English review of high character.
[14:2] 1 Cor. x. 7, 8, 14, 21. When the season of persecution arrived, and the constancy of Christians was tested in this very way, St Paul's own principles would require a correspondingly rigid abstinence from even apparent complicity in idolatrous rites. There is every reason therefore to believe that, if St Paul had been living when the Apocalypse was written, he would have expressed himself not less strongly on the same side. On the other hand these early Gnostics who are denounced in the Apocalypse seem, like their successors in the next generation, to have held that a Christian might conform to Gentile practices in these matters to escape persecution. St Paul combats this spirit of license, then in its infancy, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
[14:3] [On the diction of the Fourth Gospel see below, p. 131 sq.]
[14:4] II. p. 445.
[15:1] [_The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel_ (1872). Macmillans.]
[15:2] Our author (II. p. 444) speaks of 'the works of imagination of which the world is full, and the singular realism of many of which is recognized by all.' Is this a true description of the world in the early Christian ages? If not, it is nothing to the purpose.
[15:3] II. p. 389. 'Apologists' lay stress on the _difference_ of theme. [See below, p. 131 sq.]
[15:4] [He does however mention the term elsewhere; see below, p. 123.]
[15:5] II. p. 468, and elsewhere.
[16:1] II. p. 451.
[16:2] [These passages are added without comment in the Complete Edition in a note on II. p. 453.]
[16:3] [On this point see below, p. 131.]
[17:1] II, p. 472 sq; comp. pp. 186 sq, 271. [The statement stands unchanged in the Complete Edition (II. p. 474 sq).]
[17:2] [See further, p. 99 sq.]
[17:3] II. p. 421. Travellers and 'apologists' alike now more commonly identify Sychar with the village bearing the Arabic name Askar. This fact is not mentioned by our author. He says moreover, 'It is admitted' ['evident' ed. 6] 'that there was no such place [as Sychar, [Greek: Suchar]], and apologetic ingenuity is severely taxed to explain the difficulty.' This is altogether untrue. Others besides 'apologists' point to passages in the Talmud which speak of 'the well of Suchar (or Sochar, or Sichar);' see Neubauer _La Géographie du Talmud_ p. 169 sq. Our author refers in his note to an article by Delitzsch _Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol._ 1856 p. 240 sq. He cannot have read the article, for these Talmudic references are its main purport.
[18:1] [The whole question of Sychar in treated at length below, p. 133 sq, where also the author's explanation of his meaning is given.]
[18:2] II. p. 419. [This whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 417), but the error survived ed. 6 (II. p. 419).]
[18:3] ['never once' ed. 6 (II. p. 424).]
[19:1] II. p. 423 sq.
[19:2] Credner _Einl._ I. p. 210 '...hat er es nicht für nöthig gefunden, den Täufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistês] zu unterscheiden (i. 6, 15, 19, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35, 41; iii. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27; iv. 1; v. 33, 36; x. 40, 41).'
[19:3] [For the author's own explanation of this error see below, p. 124 sq.]
[20:1] _S.R._ I. p. 459.
[21:1] _Canon_ p. 264. The words of Clement (_Strom._ vii. 17) to which Dr Westcott refers, are: [Greek: Kathaper ho Basileidês, kan Glaukian epigraphêtai didaskalon, hôs auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermênea].
[21:2] _S.R._ II. p. 44 sq. The words which I have enclosed in brackets were inserted in the Second Edition. A frank withdrawal would have been worth something; but this insertion only aggravates the offence. [After having been partly re-written in ed. 6 (II. p. 44), the whole section is cut out in the Complete Edition (see II. p. 44).]
[22:1] [For the author's explanation of his language see below, p. 123 sq.]
[22:2] [This point is reverted to below, pp. 134, 187 sq.]
[22:3] [Our author's explanation of the term is given below, p. 134.]
[23:1] [One such list is dealt with in full, p. 65 sq.]
[24:1] _Essays in Criticism_ p. 57.
[24:2] _Paulus_ p. 469 sq (1st ed.).
[24:3] _Nachapost. Zeitalter_ II. p. 135.
[24:4] _Theolog. Jahrb._ XV. p. 311 sq, XVI. p. 147 sq.
[25:1] _Zur Kritik Paulinischer Briefe._ Leipzig, 1870. The author's conclusions are supported by an appeal to the Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian languages. The learning of this curious pamphlet keeps pace with its absurdity. If the reader is disposed to think that this writer must be laughing in his sleeve at the methods of the modern school to which he belongs, he is checked by the obviously serious tone of the whole discussion. Indeed it is altogether in keeping with Hitzig's critical discoveries elsewhere. To this same critic we owe the suggestion, that the name of the fabulist Æsop is derived from Solomon's "_hyssop_ that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33: _Die Sprüche Salomo's_ p. xvi. sq.
[25:2] _e.g._ respecting the date of the book of Judith, on which depends the authenticity of Clement's Epistle (I. p. 222), the date of Celsus (II. p. 228), etc.
[25:3] [See further, p. 141.]
[27:1] [Our author objects to this conclusion; see below, p. 138 sq.]
[27:1] II. p. 484.
[27:2] II. p. 487 sq.
[27:3] II. p. 486.
[27:4] II. p. 487 sq.
[27:5] II. p. 489.
[28:1] _S.R._ II. p. 490.
[29:1] _S.R._ I. p. xiv.
[30:1] II. p. 492.
[30:2] II. p. 492.
[30:3] II. p. 492.
[32:1] I. p. 212. The references throughout this article are given to the fourth edition. But, with the single exception which I shall have occasion to notice at the close, I have not observed any alterations from the second, with which I have compared it in all the passages here quoted.
[32:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27.
[34:1] _S.R._ I. p. 432.
[34:2] I. p. 433 sq. I must leave it to others to reconcile the statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Cæsarea, in the preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics, I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.
[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6 (I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition (p. xxi).]
[35:1] I. p. 435.
[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]
[35:3] II. p. 320.
[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p. 318).]
[35:5] I. p. 483.
[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of this expression see below, p. 183 sq.]
[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]
[35:8] II. p. 322.
[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]
[35:10] II. p. 323.
[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']
[35:12] II. p. 164.
[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.]
[36:1] II. p. 166.
[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition.]
[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ tôn kata chronous ekklêsiastikôn sungrapheôn _hopoiais kechrêntai_ tôn antilegomenôn, _tina te peri_ tôn endiathêkôn kai homologoumenôn graphôn kai _hosa peri_ tôn mê toioutôn autois eirêtai.] The words spaced will show the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike. The double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is incapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect the question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of Irenæus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle to the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and Apocalypse alike.
[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this Essay see below, p. 178 sq.]
[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24.
[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of economising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that they are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been confused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It must be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the amount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I refer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved by Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies.
[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5.
[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223.
[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel? Of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikôs] concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made parties ([Greek: proskliseis]).
[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37.
[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16.
[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33.
[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12.
[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8.
[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29.
[41:6] _Rom._ 4.
[41:7] _Ephes._ 12.
[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius generally.
[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36.
[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16.
[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4.
[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc.
[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6.
[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages.
[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14.
[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36.
[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66.
[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I.
[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18.
[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24.
[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq.
[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22.
[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474.
[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24.
[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq.
[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6.
[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8.
[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26.
[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26.
[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18.
[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20.
[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14.
[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1.
[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1.
[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483.
[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later editions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition (1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however, which survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending note.]
[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341.
[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.]
[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62.
[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66.
[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.]
[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.]
[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier and later editions.
[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th .
[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.]
[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.]
[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.]
[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.]
[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views at the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven Vossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness will be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he refers his readers.]
[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263.
[62:1] I. p. 269.
[62:2] I. p. 270.
[62:3] I. p. 274.
[63:1] I. p. 274.
[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the preface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.]
[63:3] I. p. 263 sq.
[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn Bunsen_, Tübingen, 1848.
[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz einverstanden' with Baur's view.
[64:3] _Apostol. Väter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq.
[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861).
[64:5] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 50.
[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636.
[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers, supposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170.
[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr. Recens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq.
[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862).
[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works, where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian letters.
[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted by Jacobson, are taken.
[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p. 260 in that edition.]
[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is given.
[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however 'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]
[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).
[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9.
[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi.
[72:1] I. p. 264.
[72:2] I. p. 265.
[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions, and is imbedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the Greek, before the MS of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See Zahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 111.
[73:2] I. p. 262.
[73:3] p. 164.
[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: egô ginôskô nun archomai mathêtês einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but are wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences.
[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269.
[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267.
[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered by anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I venture to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to have attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important contribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since Cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.
[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.)
[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere coepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem refrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum eis.'
[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12.
[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no longer a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathêkas tinas kai paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi toutô presbeutas tôn hetairôn echeirotonêse nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of Ignatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonêsai_ tina ... hos dunêsetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp when he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly Lucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and believed by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from the pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by burning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the credulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to have had at least a superficial acquaintance.
[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the Epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such circumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles are more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a soldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in parts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton, has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian Letters.
Our author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian Letters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227. Even the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as many hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty, Ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than weeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at every stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two stages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written either at Smyrna or at Troas.
[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the meaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._ 5.
[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268.
[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the fourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published separately.
[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq.
[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.).
[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a different time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53.
[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the other by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those of the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have no independent value, being compacted from these two.
[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq.
[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhältniss des Textes der drei Syrischen Briefe etc._ p. 7.
[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.).
[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the latter by Zahn, p. 67.
[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the credibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traïanou], is treated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).]
[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.]
[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered down (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire for another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti] is substituted for [Greek: philoülon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per materiam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation, but has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from the Greek.
[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq.
[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aïdios, ouk] apo sigês proelthôn.]
[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245.
[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in the _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq.
[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq.
[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoêkonta kai hex etê echô douleuôn autô]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek: echô douleuôn] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuô].
[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere); Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p. 958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18.
[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D. 170-180).
[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq.
[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the Apostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
[91:5] Papias, _l.c._
[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1.
[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4.
[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Præscr. Hær._ 32.
[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4.
[93:2] _ib._ § 8.
[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq.
[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain writings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_ (§ 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or others like him (§ 3).
[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been much disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I find the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr. 2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE. FECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be hazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son of a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of Domitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of Christianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the name _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian princes.
[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi.
[94:3] _Phil._ §10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9.
[95:1] _Phil._ § 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et nolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,' evidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26.
[95:2] _ib._ § 1. [Greek: hon êgeiren ho Theos lusas tas ôdinas tou hadou], from Acts ii. 24.
[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference to Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt.
[96:1] _Phil._ § 8.
[97:1] [Greek: tôn autoptôn tês zôês tou Logou.] I would gladly translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i. 1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek order. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text. The Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living Word.'
[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20.
[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe _Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2) considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenæus could hardly have expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._ 7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is too late for our purpose.
As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia (Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne, and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite, and Irenæus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the circumstances.
[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.
[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek: parechôrêse tên eucharistian.]
[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.
[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe_ p. 263.
[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.
[103:3] See his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ in the _Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202 sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_.
[104:1] _L'Antéchrist_ p. 566.
[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188 (1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.
[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.
[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiæ conventu legitur.'
[108:1] _Phil._ § 5.
[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in the ordinary theological language of the two writers.
[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid on the occurrence of these few obvious words.
[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).
[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]
[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]
[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must have been [Greek: tôn met' autou].
[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.
[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq. [See also below, p. 189.]
[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 3.
[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]
[115:2] The words of Irenæus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos Markiôni pote eis opsin autô elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496) remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.
[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.
[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 7.
[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.
[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.
[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.
[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come ([Greek: elêluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be [Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: mê homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of Irenæus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32) says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of Irenæus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to conceive that the very simple [Greek: mê homologei] would be altered into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in Irenæus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere eos praecepit dicens' etc.
[119:1] Die ältesten Zeugnisse p. 41.
[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.
[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.
[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.
[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.
[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.
[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Præscr. Hær._ 33.
[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with the context.
[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of his martyrdom (§ 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai pro tês polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tês marturias].
[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Väter_ p. 273) evidently feels this difficulty, and apologises for it.
[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's note.
[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.
[124:1] See above, p. 20.
[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.
[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.
[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.
[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his footnote is too clear to be misunderstood.
[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning, but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first last" ([Greek: outôs esontai oi eschatoi prôtoi kai oi prôtoi eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30, it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last, and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.
[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.
[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course, to which a passing reference is sufficient.
[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]
[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.
[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.
[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]
[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.
[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]
[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he 'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's 'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of 'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong justification I had for taking this view.
[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.
[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the earlier editions.
[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc.... His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the critical point in question Irenæus passes from the direct to the indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship upon himself.'
This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.
[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.
[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.
[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These two examples ... Commentaries of Cæsar.']
[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]
[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author assumes in his reply.
[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]
[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.
[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.
[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]
[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware, which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is only a probability.
[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]
[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read 'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By 'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._, Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.
[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.
[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]
[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.
[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the Complete Edition.]
[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']
[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.
[136:2] John iv. 35.
[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]
[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.
[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]
[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]
[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.
[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly. No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged himself from it.
In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with these beliefs.
[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Iôannou men akoustês, Polukarpou de hetairos gegonôs].
[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk oknêsô de soi kai hosa pote para tôn presbuterôn kalôs emathon kai kalôs emnêmoneusa sunkatataxai] [v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermêneiais, diabebaioumenos huper autôn alêtheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise stated.
[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.
[145:1] _Hær._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3; v. 36. 1, 2.
[145:2] _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenæus.' Clement of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantænus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.
[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.
[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.
[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that it is not likely to find much favour.
[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.
[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.
[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.
[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.
[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_ gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still living.
[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.
[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.
[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.
[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.
[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.
[150:1] See above, p. 90.
[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin Martyr and events connected with him.
[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te Aristiôn kai ho presbuteros Iôannês ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143], and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a historic present introduced for the sake of variety.
[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.' Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second half of the second century.'
[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307); Irenæus _Hær._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr. Carn._ 24.
[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ § 15.
[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.
[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.
[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel; _H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.
[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hên to kat' Hebraious euangelion periechei].
[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553). 'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation. _Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to render this very doubtful.
[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii sôtêri].
[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.
[153:3] Boeckh 3817.
[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kühn).
[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7; _Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.
[153:6] See above, p. 142.
[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.
[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given); the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where again only the Latin 'celebris' is given).
[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural, 'Exposition' ([Greek: exêgêsis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exêgêseis]), I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias uses [Greek: logiôn], not [Greek: logôn], 'oracles,' not 'words' or 'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakôn logiôn], not [Greek: logiôn tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than if he had used the alternative 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: exêgêsis] but [Greek: diêgêsis], 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_ parêkolouthêkôs], which occur several lines below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermêneiais] '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] Hær. 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 Irenæus, 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] _Hær._ Præf. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings] by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek: exêgêseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek: dia tês exêgêseôs].
[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.
[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of the Naassenes; _Hær._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous discourses ([Greek: pollôn panu logôn]), which they say that James,' etc.
[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.
[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his _History of the Canon_ p. 288.
[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.
[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of books is intended, as I have explained in the text.
[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated [Greek: ouden hêmarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,' thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.
[165:1] I. p. 456.
[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete Edition.]
[166:1] I. p. 459.
[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the Complete Edition.]
[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.
[167:3] I. p. 447.
[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenæus, ii. 22. 5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes seniores testantur, qui in Asiâ apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.
[169:1] I. p. 474.
[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]
[171:1] I. p. 465.
[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng. Transl.), where there is more to the same effect.
[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollständiges Evangelium lässt schon Papias den Matthäus hebräisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq, 454 sq.
[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenæus did not derive his information solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by Pantænus in certainly independent of Papias.'
[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.
[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.
[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]
[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555). Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books (of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chrêsmoi]) pronounced ([Greek: chrêsthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).
[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].] Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis tas graphas].
[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
[174:4] Iren. _Hær._ i. 8. 1.
[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p. 392.
[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. § 6 (III. p. 447).
[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).
[175:3] See p. 163.
[176:1] I. p. 466.
[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logôn] for [Greek: logiôn] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument; but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek: logiôn].
[177:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural Religion_ in the April  number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.
[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the Preface to this Reprint.]
[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.
[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]
[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]
[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore proposes--however precise.']
[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.
[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.
[182:1] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 11. 1.
[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,' etc.
[182:3] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 1. 1.
[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.
[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.
[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.
[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]
[184:3] II. p. 166.
[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]
[184:5] I. p. 483.
[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]
[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]
[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.
[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me) unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June  number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of _Supernatural Religion_.
[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.
[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514 sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_, that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.
[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert 'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek: kai autos, kathôs hêdunato parakolouthein, outôs ethêke, k.t.l.]), 'And he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage is quite independent of any textual conjectures.
[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek tôn mathêtôn], where [Greek: mathêtês], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and Irenæus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who had been taught directly by Christ.
[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legôn eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former part of the sentence.
[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this Gospel was composed.
[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II. p. 323.
[191:2] See above, p. 49.
[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.
[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note is omitted in the Complete Edition.]
[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]
[194:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 36. 1, 2.
[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]
[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly, though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other, in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek: en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making [Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from [Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.
A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after (p. 332), I find the work of Irenæus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenæus and Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed. II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_ was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page to be 'carefully revised.'
[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).
[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).
[196:1] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1. Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures of Irenæus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed. Kühn). The discourses which Irenæus reports from the lips of this anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate, that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to account for them.
[197:1] See above, p. 143.
[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.
[198:1] See above, p. 158.
[198:2] Iren. _Hær._ v. 6. 1.
[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.
[199:2] See above, p. 143.
[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]
[200:2] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).
[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a philosophical allegory, and Irenæus, who regards it as a supramundane abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main point which he has in view.
[201:1] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.
[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.
[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse, emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p. 186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).
[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.
[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55.
[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.
[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.
[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.
[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.
[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]
[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.
[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.
[208:1] Euseb. _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome, who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist. 120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam _sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non _sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'
[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.
[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis anapempsantes _anankaiôs_ nun prosthêsomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek: tauta d' hêmin _anankaiôs_ pros tois ektetheisin epitetêrêsthô].
[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7 sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._
[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.
[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).
[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.
[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ (1875), p. 258.
[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6 (III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepôkasi de potêrion kai to baptisma ebaptisthêsan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Hêrôdês men apekteinen Iakôbon ton Iôannou machaira, ho de Rhômaiôn basileus, hôs hê paradosis didaskei, katedikase ton Iôannên marturounta dia ton tês alêtheias logon eis Patmon tên nêson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).
[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237 (1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.
[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's suggestion of the spurious Papias.
[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by the Palæographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.
[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Græc. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder), [Greek: haireseôn anaphueisôn deinôn hupêgoreuse to euangelion tô heautou mathêtê Papia eubiôtô] (_sic_) [Greek: tô hierapolitê, k.t.l.].
[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsâ (apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].
[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]
[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]
[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Cæsarea will be found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name. 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 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' [Greek: en hupodeigmasi].
[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]
[215:2] 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). Hippolytus wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.
[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.
[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. 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.]
[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.
[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.
[218:1] See above, p. 189.
[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tês Hellados, ho Iônikos].
[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.
[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.
[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.
[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.
[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.
[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.
[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.
[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.
[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 1.
[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 6 [Greek: ho keklêrômenos to auto onoma, Hêrôdês epilegomenos], where [Greek: keklêrômenos] (not [Greek: kai klêronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,' _i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.
[221:2] _ib._ § 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.
[221:3] _ib._ § 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi hupêrchon].
[221:4] _ib._ § 8.
[221:5] _ib._ § 7 [Greek: hos epi lêstên]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.
[221:6] _ib._ § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.
[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious. See above, p. 103.
[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.
[222:1] John xii. 28.
[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. § 5.
[222:3] _ib._ § 12 [Greek: edei gar to tês ... optasias plêrôthênai hote ... eipen, k.t.l.]
[222:4] John xii. 33.
[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iêsou plêrôthê, hon eipen sêmainôn k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch says (§ 12), [Greek: _mê einai exon_ autô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case, the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hêmin ouk exestin_ apokteinai oudena.]
[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16 [Greek: exêlthe [peristera kai] plêthos haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words [Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka] according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted altogether as in the text of Eusebius.
[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.
[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 15.
[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.
[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16.
[223:2] _ib._ § 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.
[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p. 507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.
[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.
[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antôninon biblidion]. The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.
[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[224:2] See above, p. 218.
[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete Edition].
[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences are not important enough to be considered here.
[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the Syriac fragments.
[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.
[227:1] See above, p. 177.
[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.
[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' autôn apomnêmoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].
[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.
[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.
[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.
[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.
[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Græc._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.
[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.
[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.
[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction between [Greek: phonê] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek: phonê boôntos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].
[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.] 'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the early Church bearing the name of Melito.
[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 61 (p. 284).
[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 34 (p. 251).
[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).
[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).
[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.
[237:1] See above, p. 202.
[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.
[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.
[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.
[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.
[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.
[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.
[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollôn para pollois sôzomenôn, ta eis hêmas elthonta esti tade.]
[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.]
[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).
[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.
[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius, _l.c._
[240:1] [See above, p. 17].
[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh, apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont, where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p. 91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._ p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the text.]
Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without hesitation.
[242:1] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.
[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.
[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'
[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.
[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.
[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris ([Greek: to alêthinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself taking the opposite view.
[245:2] Iren. _Hær._ ii. 22.
[247:1] See above, p. 131.
[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]
[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not [Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some adversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental confirmation of the statement of Irenæus respecting the Asiatic elders.
[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this elder with Papias.
[248:3] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.
[248:4] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27 sq.
[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.
[249:2] Acts v. 29.
[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards.
[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1.
[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may be read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.
[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Mémoires_ II. p. 343.
[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3.
[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4.
[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated 'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition (II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is substituted for the above, and defended at some length.]
[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44.
[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom, _which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues throughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]
The _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken (_e.g._ §§ 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51, the writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned to the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of § 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx. 25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other portion of the work.
[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381.
[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons] some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events which had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenæus] was deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenæus is made the bearer of the Epistle.
This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution, which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenæus was certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which Irenæus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence recommending Irenæus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3, 4.
[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3.
[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1.
[260:3] _De Pond. et Mens._ 16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus Pius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M. Aurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus likewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next, and was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus translated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign of the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the before-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his translation; with more of the same kind. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also assigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year A.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that he repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed.
I should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him just where it would be most in place.
[261:1] _S.R._ II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which the _first three books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written, and the rest _must_ be assigned to a later period under the episcopate of Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics are my own.
[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case, then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection with Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons] and our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary, in association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere. It follows clearly, and _few venture to doubt the fact_, that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not to our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I have disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is still more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the facts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those extraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former occasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth Gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics the least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by Hilgenfeld (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die ältesten Zeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in the Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.']
[263:1] _S.R._ II. p. 474.
[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en tê prôtê hêmôn hêlikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu gêraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, Irenæus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenæus saw him, since the words [Greek: panu gêraleos] refer, not to the period of their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a parallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine gar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus limited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage are taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenæus der Bischof von Lyon_ p. 15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenäus geboren_ p. 622 sq (in _Stud. u. Krit._ 1873), in answer to Ziegler.
[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq.
[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1.
[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq.
[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.
[265:4] See above, p. 253.
[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq.
[266:2] See above, p. 196, note.
[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq.
[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ himself (II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenæus remained in Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc.
There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The notice at the end of the Moscow MS of the _Martyrium Polycarpi_, recently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875, p. 362 sq), states that Irenæus, 'being in Rome at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice announcing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some foundation in fact.
[267:2] Photius _Bibl._ 121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood, the metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct evidence.
[267:3] [See above, p. 219.]
[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an intelligent author like Tacitus (_Hist._ v. 1. sq). It is related, he says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence called _Iudæi, i.e. Idæi_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He states it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deity _Semo Sancus_ for _Simo Sanctus_, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.
[270:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553.
[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.]
[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the following:--Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1; Rhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12, p. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29; Epiphanius _Hær._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20. The statements in the text are justified by one or other of these references.
[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in this article will be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq.
[273:3] _e.g._ Clement of Alexandria (_l.c._ p. 547) gives Tatian's comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (_Pref. ad Tit._ vii. p. 686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit.'
[274:1] Hort (_Journal of Philology_, iii. p. 155 sq, _On the date of Justin Martyr_) places it as early as A.D. 148.
[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1.
[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq.
[274:4] Clem. Alex. _Strom_. i. 1 (p. 322).
[275:1] See Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 116 sq, where this point is brought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve of the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it.
[277:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 29.
[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I. p. 150.]
[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15, 44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8, 56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59.
[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's posthumous volume, _Ancient Syriac Documents_ p. 6 sq (London, 1864), from MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire by Dr Phillips, _The Doctrine of Addai_ (London, 1876), from a St Petersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the word is corrupted into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton conjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (see pp. 15; 158), and his conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly so reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (_Lettre d'Abgare_, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of the _Trinity_ is substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if so, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of Capua, mentioned below.
[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083.
[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13.
[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Götting. Gelehrte Anzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work itself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages containing these anachronisms are interpolations.
[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the British Museum (Wright's _Catalogue_ p. 947) as 'Ann. Græc. 684.'
[280:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should be warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading. More correct renderings are given here.
[281:1] Euseb. _Op._ iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammônios men ho Alexandreus ... to dia tessarôn hêmin kataleloipen euangelion, tô kata Matthaion tas homophônous tôn loipôn euangelistôn perikopas paratheis, hos ex anankês sumbênai ton tês akolouthias heirmon tôn triôn diaphtharânai, hoson epi tô huphei anagnôseôs]--_i.e._ 'He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was destroyed, so far as regards the order (texture) of reading.'
[281:2] Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 158. See Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_ p. 77.
[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without difficulty:--
(i) Bar-Hebræus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Cæsarea, seeing the corruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of the _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, which commenced, _In the beginning was the Word_, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four Gospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from the language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood him, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the coincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear that the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this interpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus obliterated the resemblance.
(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the beginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but the men. He writes (Assem. _Bibl. Orient._ iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which was compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and he called it _Diatessaron_.' He too supposed the two independent sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to his collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's work which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script. Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).
(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes. Syr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made) from the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in Alexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of Alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with Ammonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul flourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice were really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this confusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown by accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original compiler.
Since writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr Hoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611, _i.e._, A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as it is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through Professor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul. Thus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language.
[282:1] _H.E._ i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who flourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian omitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869 sq.
[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze).
[283:2] Zahn (_Gött. Gel. Anz._ p. 184) points out that Aphraates also, a somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used this _Diatessaron_. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And Christ is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour--_In the beginning was the Word._' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337.
[284:1] Epiphan. _Hær._ xlvi. 1.
[284:2] See the reference in the last note.
[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome relating to it, will be found in Westcott's _Introduction to the Gospels_ p. 462 sq.
[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is given.
[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq.
[286:1] _Patrol. Lat._ lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish translation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more than once; _e.g._ by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841).
[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained this by inquiry.
[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (_Einleitung_ p. 79); and curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is consistent with the facts.
[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]
[291:1] _Les Apôtres_ p. xviii.
[291:2] _Les Évangiles_ p. 436.
[292:1] xvii. p. 840.
[293:1] Sub ann. 46.
[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. i. p. 294 sq. Even De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to Strabo Cyprus was governed by proprætors,' and he therefore supposes that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.
[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12.
[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4.
[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Græc._ 2631, 2632.
[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's _Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 39.
[294:4] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription discovered by Mr Wood.
[294:5] _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ iii. 218.
[294:6] Cesnola's _Cyprus_ p. 425.
[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two others--the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen--whom he describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is a mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year 94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first time, as suffectus, _i.e._ about A.D. 150. See Marini _Atti e Monumenti de' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731.
[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de Anat. Admin._ i. 1 (_Op._ ii. p. 218, ed. Kühn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tês Rhômaiôn poleôs, andros ta panta prôteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Prænot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p. 612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tês poleôs, kai Phlabios, hupatikos men ôn êdê kai autos, espeukôs de peri tên Aristotelous philosophian, hôsper kai ho Paulos, hois diêgêsamenos, k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho Paulos] in Kühn and other earlier printed editions which I have consulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense; for (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that plainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho] altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii. p. 504.
[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.]
[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr. Græc._ 2954. The first sentence which I have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our own day.
[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated 'robbers of churches.'
[300:1] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 14.
[300:2] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neôkorôn tôn Sebastôn, monô]n hapa[sôn] de tês Artemidos.]
[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESIÔN TRIS NEÔKORÔN KAI TÊS ARTEMIDOS.]
[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153, _Suppl._ vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.
[300:5] Xen. _Anab._ v. 3, 6.
[301:1] _Inscr._ vi. 6, p. 50.
[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hêmerai]] [Greek: agontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there are deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court days are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just as _e.g._ in Euripides (_Iph. Taur._ 1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from the land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek gês xoana kai thuêpolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess.
[301:3] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 38.
[302:1] Ign. _Ephes._ 9.
[302:2] _Inscr._ vi. 1, p. 42.
Anglican Library, This HTML edition copyright ©2001.