How then can we explain the statement of Epiphanius? It is a simple blunder, not more egregious than scores of other blunders which deface his pages. He had not seen the Diatessaron: this our author himself says. But he had heard that it was in circulation in certain parts of Syria; and he knew also that the Gospel of the Hebrews was current in these same regions, there or thereabouts. Hence he jumped at the identification. To a writer who can go astray so incredibly about the broadest facts of history, as we have seen him do in the succession of the Roman Emperors [285:2], such an error would be the easiest thing in the world. Yet it was perfectly consistent on the part of our author, who in another instance prefers John Malalas to the concurrent testimony of all the preceding centuries [285:3], to set aside the direct evidence of a Theodoret, and to accept without hesitation the hearsay of an Epiphanius.
2. 'Tatian's Gospel,' writes the author of Supernatural Religion, 'was not only called Diatessaron, but according to Victor of Capua, it was also called Diapente ([Greek: dia pente]) "by five," a complication which shows the incorrectness of the ecclesiastical theory of its composition.'
This is not a very accurate statement. If our author had referred to the actual passage in Victor of Capua, he would have found that Victor does not himself call it Diapente, but says that Eusebius called it Diapente. This makes all the difference.
Victor, who flourished about A.D. 545, happened to stumble upon an anonymous Harmony or Digest of the Gospels [286:1], and began in consequence to investigate the authorship. He found two notices in Eusebius of such Harmonies; one in the Epistle to Carpianus prefixed to the Canons, relating to the work of Ammonius; another in the Ecclesiastical History, relating to that of Tatian. Assuming that the work which he had discovered must be one or other, he decides in favour of the latter, because it does not give St Matthew continuously and append the passages of the other evangelists, as Eusebius states Ammonius to have done. All this Victor tells us in the preface to this anonymous Harmony, which he publishes in a Latin dress.
There can be no doubt that Victor was mistaken about the authorship; for, though the work is constructed on the same general plan as Tatian's, it does not begin with John i. 1, but with Luke i. 1, and it does contain the genealogies. It belongs therefore, at least in its present form, neither to Tatian nor to Ammonius.
But we are concerned only with the passage relating to Tatian, which commences as follows:—
Ex historia quoque ejus (i.e. Eusebii) comperi quod Tatianus vir eruditissimus et orator illius temporis clarus unum ex quatuor compaginaverit Evangelium cui titulum Diapente imposuit.
Thus Victor gets his information directly from Eusebius, whom he repeats. He knows nothing about Tatian's Diatessaron, except what Eusebius tells him. But we ourselves have this same passage of Eusebius before us, and find that Eusebius does not call it Diapente but Diatessaron. This is not only the reading of all the Greek MSS without exception, but likewise of the Syriac version [287:1], which was probably contemporary with Eusebius and of which there is an extant MS belonging to the sixth century, as also of the Latin version which was made by Rufinus a century and a half before Victor wrote. About the text of Eusebius therefore there can be no doubt. Moreover Victor himself, who knew Greek, says ex quatuor, which requires Diatessaron, and the work which he identifies with Tatian's Harmony is made up of passages from our Four Gospels alone. Therefore he can hardly have written Diapente himself; and the curious reading is probably due to the blundering or the officiousness of some later scribe [287:2].
Thus we way safely acquiesce in the universal tradition, or as our author, [Greek: ouk oid' hopos], prefers to call it, the 'ecclesiastical theory,' respecting the character and composition of Tatian's Diatessaron [287:3].
* * * * *
[The actual Diatessaron of Tatian has since been discovered, though not in the original language, so that no doubt can now remain on the subject. The history of this discovery has been given in the careful and scholarly work of Prof. Hemphill of Dublin (The Diatessaron of Tatian 1888), where (see esp. p. xx sq) full information will be found. Ephraem's Commentary exists in an Armenian translation of some works of this Syrian father, which had been published in Venice as early as 1836. I had for some years possessed a copy of this work in four volumes, and the thought had more than once crossed my mind that possibly it might throw light on Ephraem's mode of dealing with the Gospels, as I knew that it contained notes on St Paul's Epistles or some portion of them. I did not however then possess sufficient knowledge of Armenian to sift its contents, but I hoped to investigate the matter when I had mastered enough of the language. Meanwhile a Latin translation was published by Moesinger under the title of Evangelii concordantis expositio facta a Sancto Ephraemo doctore Syro Venet. 1876, just about the time when I wrote the above article; but it was not known in England till some years after. Later still an Arabic translation of the Diatessaron itself has been discovered and published in Rome by Ciasca (Tatiani Evangeliorum Harmoniae Arabice nunc primum etc., 1888). On the relation of Victor's Diatessaron, which seems to be shown after all not to be independent of Tatian, and for the quotations in Aphraates, etc., see Hemphill's Diatessaron. Thus the 'ecclesiastical theory'—the only theory which was supported by any sound continuous tradition—is shown to be unquestionably true, and its nineteenth century critical rivals must all be abandoned.]
The following paper has no reference to the work entitled 'Supernatural Religion'; but, as it is kindred in subject and appeared in the same Review, I have given it a place here.
DISCOVERIES ILLUSTRATING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
In a former volume M. Renan declared his opinion that 'the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts was verily and indeed (bien reellement) Luke, a disciple of St Paul [291:1]. In the last instalment of his work he condemns as untenable the view that the first person plural of the later chapters is derived from some earlier document inserted by the author, on the ground that these portions are identical in style with the rest of the work [291:2]. Such an expression of opinion, proceeding from a not too conservative critic, is significant; and this view of the authorship, I cannot doubt, will be the final verdict of the future, as it has been the unbroken tradition of the past. But at a time when attacks on the genuineness of the work have been renewed, it may not be out of place to call attention to some illustrations of the narrative which recent discoveries have brought to light. No ancient work affords so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and topography, whether Jewish or Greek or Roman. In the publications of the year 1877 Cyprus and Ephesus have made important contributions to the large mass of evidence already existing.
1. The government of the Roman provinces at this time was peculiarly dangerous ground for the romance-writer to venture upon. When Augustus assumed the supreme power he divided the provinces under the Roman dominion with the Senate. From that time forward there were two sets of provincial governors. The ruler of a senatorial province was styled a proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), while the officer to whom an imperatorial province was entrusted bore the name of propraetor ([Greek: antistrategos]) or legate ([Greek: presbeutes]). Thus the use of the terms 'proconsul' and 'propraetor' was changed; for, whereas in republican times they signified that the provincial governors bearing them had previously held the offices of consul and praetor respectively at home, they were now employed to distinguish the superior power under which the provinces were administered without regard to the previous rank of the governors administering them. Moreover, the original subdivision of the provinces between the Emperor and Senate underwent constant modifications. If disturbances broke out in a senatorial province and military rule was necessary to restore order, it would be transferred to the Emperor as the head of the army, and the Senate would receive an imperatorial province in exchange. Hence at any given time it would be impossible to say without contemporary, or at least very exact historical knowledge, whether a particular province was governed by a proconsul or a propraetor. The province of Achaia is a familiar illustration of this point. A very few years before St Paul's visit to Corinth, and some years later, Achaia was governed by a propraetor. Just at this time, however, it was in the hands of the Senate, and its ruler therefore was a proconsul as represented by St Luke.
Cyprus is a less familiar, but not less instructive, example of the same accuracy. Older critics, even when writing on the apologetic side, had charged St Luke with an incorrect use of terms; and the origin of their mistake is a significant comment on the perplexities in which a later forger would find himself entangled in dealing with these official designations. They fell upon a passage in Strabo [292:1] where this writer, after mentioning the division of the provinces between the Emperor and the Senate, states that the Senate sent consuls to the two provinces of Asia and Africa but praetors to the rest on their list,—among which he mentions Cyprus; and they jumped at the conclusion—very natural in itself—that the governor of Cyprus would be called a propraetor. Accordingly Baronio [293:1] suggested that Cyprus, though a praetorian province, was often handed over honoris causa to be administered by the proconsul of Cilicia, and he assumed therefore that Sergius Paulus held this latter office; while Grotius found a solution in the hypothesis that proconsul was a title bestowed by flatterers on an official whose proper designation was propraetor. The error illustrates the danger of a little learning, not the less dangerous when it is in the hands of really learned men. Asia and Africa, the two great prizes of the profession, exhausted the normal two consuls of the preceding year; and the Senate therefore were obliged to send ex-praetors and other magistrates to govern the remaining provinces under their jurisdiction. But it is now an unquestioned and unquestionable fact that all the provincial governors who represented the Senate in imperial times, whatever magistracy they might have held previously, were styled officially proconsuls [293:2].
The circumstances indeed, so far as regards Cyprus, are distinctly stated by Dion Cassius. At the original distribution of the provinces (B.C. 27) this island had fallen to the Emperor's share; but the historian, while describing the assignment of the several countries in the first instance, adds that the Emperor subsequently gave back Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis to the Senate, himself taking Dalmatia in exchange [293:3]; and at a later point, when he arrives at the time in question (B.C. 22), he repeats the information respecting the transfer. 'And so,' he adds, 'proconsuls began to be sent to those nations also' [294:1]. Of the continuance of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the Senate, about the time to which St Luke's narrative refers we have ample evidence. Contemporary records bear testimony to the existence of proconsuls in Cyprus not only before and after but during the reign of Claudius. The inscriptions mention by name two proconsuls who governed the province in this Emperor's time (A.D. 51, 52) [294:2]; while a third, and perhaps a fourth, are recorded on the coins [294:3]. At a later date, under Hadrian, we come across a propraetor of Cyprus [294:4]. The change would probably be owing to the disturbed state of the province consequent on the insurrection of the Jews. But at the close of the same century (A.D. 198)—under Severus—it is again governed by a proconsul [294:5]; and this was its normal condition.
Thus the accuracy of St Luke's designation is abundantly established; but hitherto no record had been found of the particular proconsul mentioned by him. This defect is supplied by one of General Cesnola's inscriptions. It is somewhat mutilated indeed, so that the meaning of parts is doubtful; but for our purpose it is adequate. A date is given as [Greek: EPI PAULOU [ANTH]UPATOU], 'in the proconsulship of Paulus.' On this Cesnola remarks: 'The proconsul Paulus may be the Sergius Paulus of the Acts of the Apostles (chap. xiii.), as instances of the suppression of one of two names are not rare' [294:6]. An example of the suppression in this very name Sergius Paulus will be given presently, thus justifying the identification of the proconsul of the Acts with the proconsul of this inscription.
Of this Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, Dean Alford says that 'nothing more is known.' But is it certain that he is not mentioned elsewhere? In the index of contents and authorities which forms the first book of Pliny's Natural History, this writer twice names one Sergius Paulus among the Latin authors to whom he was indebted. May not this have been the same person? The name is not common. So far as I have observed, only one other person bearing it [295:1]—probably a descendant of this Cyprian proconsul—is mentioned, of whom I shall have something to say hereafter; and he flourished more than a century later. Only one test of identity suggests itself. The Sergius Paulus of Pliny is named as an authority for the second and eighteenth books of that writer. Now on the hypothesis that the proconsul of Cyprus is meant, it would be a natural supposition that, like Sir J. Emerson Tennent or Sir Rutherford Alcock, this Sergius Paulus would avail himself of the opportunities afforded by his official residence in the East to tell his Roman fellow-countrymen something about the region in which he had resided. We therefore look with interest to see whether these two books of Pliny contain any notices respecting Cyprus, which might reasonably be explained in this way; and our curiosity is not disappointed. In the second book, besides two other brief notices (cc. 90, 112) relating to the situation of Cyprus, Pliny mentions (c. 97) an area in the temple of Venus at Paphos on which the rain never falls. In the eighteenth book again, besides an incidental mention of this island (c. 57), he gives some curious information (c. 12) with respect to the Cyprian corn, and the bread made therefrom. It should be added that for the second book, in which the references to Cyprus come late, Sergius Paulus is the last-mentioned Latin authority; whereas for the eighteenth, where they are early, he occupies an earlier, though not very early, place in the list. These facts may be taken for what they are worth. In a work, which contains such a multiplicity of details as Pliny's Natural History, we should not be justified in laying too much stress on coincidences of this kind.
From the Sergius Paulus of Luke the physician we turn to the Sergius Paulus of Galen the physician. Soon after the accession of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161) Galen paid his first visit to Rome, where he stayed for three or four years. Among other persons whom he met there was L. Sergius Paulus, who had been already consul suffectus about A.D. 150, and was hereafter to be consul for the second time in A.D. 168 (on this latter occasion as the regular consul of the year), after which time he held the Prefecture of the City [296:1]. He is probably also the same person who is mentioned elsewhere as proconsul of Asia in connection with a Christian martyrdom [296:2]. This later Sergius Paulus reproduces many features of his earlier namesake. Both alike are public men; both alike are proconsuls; both alike show an inquisitive and acquisitive disposition. The Sergius Paulus of the Acts, dissatisfied (as we may suppose) alike with the coarse mythology of popular religion and with the lifeless precepts of abstract philosophies, has recourse first to the magic of the sorcerer Elymas, and then to the theology of the Apostles Barnabas and Saul, for satisfaction. The Sergius Paulus of Galen is described as 'holding the foremost place in practical life as well as in philosophical studies;' he is especially mentioned as a student of the Aristotelian philosophy; and he takes a very keen interest in medical and anatomical learning. Moreover, if we may trust the reading, there is another striking coincidence between the two accounts. The same expression, 'who is also Paul' ([Greek: ho kai Paulos]), is used to describe Saul of Tarsus in the context of the Acts, and L. Sergius in the account of Galen. Not the wildest venture of criticism could so trample on chronology as to maintain that the author of the Acts borrowed from these treatises of Galen; and conversely I have no desire to suggest that Galen borrowed from St Luke. But if so, the facts are a warning against certain methods of criticism which find favour in this age. To sober critics, the coincidence will merely furnish an additional illustration of the permanence of type which forms so striking a feature in the great Roman families. One other remark is suggested by Galen's notices of his friend. Having introduced him to us as 'Sergius who is also Paulus,' he drops the former name altogether in the subsequent narrative, and speaks of him again and again as Paulus simply. This illustrates the newly-published Cyprian inscription, in which the proconsul of that province is designated by the one name Paulus only.
2. The transition from General Cesnola's Cyprus to Mr Wood's Ephesus carries us forward from the first to the third missionary journey of St Paul. Here, again, we have illustrative matter of some importance. The main feature in the narrative of the Acts is the manner in which the cultus of the Ephesian Artemis dominates the incidents of the Apostle's sojourn in that city. As an illustration of this feature, it would hardly be possible to surpass one of the inscriptions in the existing collection [297:1]. We seem to be reading a running commentary on the excited appeal of Demetrius the silversmith, when we are informed that 'not only in this city but everywhere temples are dedicated to the goddess, and statues erected and altars consecrated to her, on account of the manifest epiphanies which she vouchsafes' ([Greek: tas hup' autes geinomenas enargeis epiphaneias]); that 'the greatest proof of the reverence paid to her is the fact that a month bears her name, being called Artemision among ourselves, and Artemisius among the Macedonians and the other nations of Greece and their respective cities;' that during this month 'solemn assemblies and religious festivals are held, and more especially in this our city, which is the nurse of its own Ephesian goddess' ([Greek: te tropho tes idias theou tes Ephesias]); and that therefore 'the people of the Ephesians, considering it meet that the whole of this month which bears the divine name ([Greek: ton eponumon tou theiou onomatos]) should be kept holy, and dedicated to the goddess,' has decreed accordingly. 'For so,' concludes this remarkable document, 'the cultus being set on a better footing, our city will continue to grow in glory and to be prosperous to all time.' The sense of special proprietorship in this goddess of world-wide fame, which pervades the narrative in the Acts, could not be better illustrated than by this decree. But still the newly-published inscriptions greatly enhance the effect. The patron deity not only appears in these as 'the great goddess Artemis,' as in the Acts, but sometimes she is styled 'the supremely great goddess ([Greek: he megiste theos]) Artemis.' To her favour all men are indebted for all their choicest possessions. She has not only her priestesses, but her temple-curators, her essenes, her divines ([Greek: theologoi]), her choristers ([Greek: humnodoi]), her vergers ([Greek: skeptouchoi]), her tire-women or dressers ([Greek: kosmeteirai]), and even her 'acrobats,' whatever may be meant by some of these terms. Fines are allocated to provide adornments for her; endowments are given for the cleaning and custody of her images; decrees are issued for the public exhibition of her treasures. Her birthday is again and again mentioned. She is seen and heard everywhere. She is hardly more at home in her own sanctuary than in the Great Theatre. This last-mentioned place—the scene of the tumult in the Acts—is brought vividly before our eyes in Mr Wood's inscriptions. The theatre appears as the recognized place of public assembly. Here edicts are proclaimed, and decrees recorded, and benefactors crowned. When the mob, under the leadership of Demetrius, gathered here for their demonstration against St Paul and his companions, they would find themselves surrounded by memorials which might stimulate their zeal for the goddess. If the 'town-clerk' had desired to make good his assertion, 'What man is there that knoweth not that the city of the Ephesians is sacristan of the great goddess Artemis?' he had only to point to the inscriptions which lined the theatre for confirmation. The very stones would have cried out from the walls in response to his appeal.
Nor is the illustration of the magistracies which are named by St Luke less complete. Three distinct officers are mentioned in the narrative—the Roman proconsul ([Greek: anthupatos]), the governor of the province and supreme administrator of the law, translated 'deputy' in our version; the recorder ([Greek: grammateus]) or chief magistrate of the city itself, translated 'town-clerk;' and the Asiarchs ([Greek: Asiarchai]), or presidents of the games and of other religious ceremonials, translated 'the chief of Asia.' All these appear again and again in the newly-discovered inscriptions. Sometimes two of the three magistracies will be mentioned on the same stone. Sometimes the same person will unite in himself the two offices of recorder and Asiarch, either simultaneously or not. The mention of the recorder is especially frequent. His name is employed to authenticate every decree and to fix every date.
But besides these more general illustrations of the account in the Acts, the newly-discovered inscriptions throw light on some special points in the narrative. Thus where the chief magistrate pronounces St Paul and his companions to be 'neither sacrilegious ([Greek: hierosulous]) nor blasphemers of our goddess' [299:1], we discover a special emphasis in the term on finding from these inscriptions that certain offences (owing to the mutilation of the stone, we are unable to determine the special offences) were treated as constructive sacrilege against the goddess. 'Let it be regarded as sacrilege and impiety' ([Greek: esto hierosulia kai asebeia]), says an inscription found in this very theatre [300:1], though not yet set up at the time when the 'town-clerk' spoke. So again, where the same speaker describes the city of Ephesus as the 'neocoros,' the 'temple sweeper,' or 'sacristan of the great goddess Artemis,' we find in these inscriptions for the first time a direct example of this term so applied. Though the term 'neocoros' in itself is capable of general application, yet as a matter of fact, when used of Ephesus on coins and inscriptions (as commonly in the case of other Asiatic cities), it has reference to the cultus not of the patron deity, but of the Roman emperors. In this sense Ephesus is described as 'twice' or 'thrice sacristan,' as the case may be, the term being used absolutely. There was indeed every probability that the same term would be employed also to describe the relation of the city to Artemis. By a plausible but highly precarious conjecture it had been introduced into the lacuna of a mutilated inscription [300:2]. By a highly probable but not certain interpretation it had been elicited from the legend on a coin [300:3]. There were analogies too which supported it. Thus the Magnesians are styled on the coins 'sacristans of Artemis' [300:4]; and at Ephesus itself an individual priest is designated by the same term 'sacristan of Artemis' [300:5]. Nor did it seem unlikely that a city which styled itself 'the nurse of Artemis' should also claim the less audacious title of 'sacristan' to this same goddess. Still probability is not certainty; and (so far as I am aware) no direct example was forthcoming. Mr Wood's inscriptions supply this defect. On one of these 'the city of the Ephesians' is described as 'twice sacristan of the Augusti according to the decrees of the Senate and sacristan of Artemis' [301:1].
One other special coincidence deserves notice. The recorder, desirous of pacifying the tumult, appeals to the recognized forms of law. 'If Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen,' he says, 'have a matter against any one, assizes are held, and there are proconsuls [301:2]. Let them indict one another. But if you have any further question (i.e., one which does not fall within the province of the courts of justice), it shall be settled in the lawful (regular) assembly.' By a 'lawful (regular) assembly' ([Greek: ennomos ekklesia]) he means one of those which were held on stated days already predetermined by the law, as opposed to those which were called together on special emergencies out of the ordinary course, though in another sense these latter might be equally 'lawful.' An inscription, found in this very theatre in which the words were uttered, illustrates this technical sense of 'lawful.' It provides that a certain silver image of Athene shall be brought and 'set at every lawful (regular) assembly ([Greek: kata pasan nomimon ekklesian]) above the bench where the boys sit' [301:3].
With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial times—the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and perseverance of Mr Wood—comparable for its life-like truthfulness to the narrative of St Paul's sojourn there in the Acts.
I am tempted to add one other illustration of an ancient Christian writer, which these inscriptions furnish. Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians from Smyrna in the early years of the second century, borrows an image from the sacred pageant of some heathen deity, where the statues, sacred vessels, and other treasures, of the temple are borne in solemn procession. He tells his Christian readers that they all are marching in festive pomp along the Via Sacra—the way of love—which leads to God; they all are bearers of treasures committed to them,—for they carry their God, their Christ, their shrine, their sacred things, in their heart [302:1]. The image was not new. It is found in Stoic writers. It underlies the surname Theophorus, the 'God-bearer,' which Ignatius himself adopted. But he had in his company several Ephesian delegates when he wrote; and the newly-discovered inscriptions inform us that the practice which supplies the metaphor had received a fresh impulse at Ephesus shortly before this letter was written. The most important inscriptions in Mr Wood's collection relate to a gift of numerous valuable statues, images, and other treasures to the temple of Artemis, by one C. Vibius Salutaris, with an endowment for their custody. In one of these (dated A.D. 104) it is ordained that the treasures so given shall be carried in solemn procession from the temple to the theatre and back 'at every meeting of the assembly, and at the gymnastic contests, and on any other days that may be directed by the Council and the People.' Orders are given respecting the persons forming the procession, as well as respecting its route. It must pass through the length of the city, entering by the Magnesian Gate and leaving by the Coressian [302:2].
[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 ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos ... kai dia touto eirekenai 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 Irenaeus' 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 ho didaxein epengeilato.]
[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: pollachos] 'in divers parts', and [Greek: houto makarizetai ... hoti opsetai ton theon] 'becomes so blessed that he shall see God'.]
[8:3] [[Greek: to rhema] from 'Reason' becomes 'Word' in ed. 6, but [Greek: zetesantes] 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 Geographie 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 fuer noethig gefunden, den Taeufer Johannes von dem gleichnamigen Apostel Johannes auch nur ein einziges Mal durch den Zusatz [Greek: ho baptistes] 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 Basileides, kan Glaukian epigraphetai didaskalon, hos auchousin autoi, ton Petrou hermenea].
[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 AEsop is derived from Solomon's "hyssop that springeth out of the wall," 1 Kings iv. 33: Die Sprueche 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 Caesarea, 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 ton kata chronous ekklesiastikon sungrapheon hopoiais kechrentai ton antilegomenon, tina te peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon graphon kai hosa peri ton me toiouton autois eiretai.] 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 Irenaeus. 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: pneumatikos] 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, Tuebingen, 1848.
[64:2] Apostelgeschichte p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz einverstanden' with Baur's view.
[64:3] Apostol. Vaeter p. 189; Zeitschrift (1874) p. 96 sq.
[64:4] Meletemata Ignatiana (1861).
[64:5] Die aelt. 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 Vindiciae Ignatianae 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 Vindiciae Ignatianae 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: ego ginosko nun archomai mathetes 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, diathekas tinas kai paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi touto presbeutas ton hetairon echeirotonese nekrangelous kai nerterodromous prosagoreusas.] This description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of Ignatius. See especially Polyc. 7, [Greek: cheirotonesai tina ... hos dunesetai 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 Verhaeltniss 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 Traianou], 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: philouelon]. 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 [aidios, ouk] apo siges proelthon.]
[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: ogdoekonta kai hex ete echo douleuon auto]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek: echo douleuon] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuo].
[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 Praescr. Haer. 32.
[93:1] Ign. Polyc. 1-4.
[93:2] ib. Sec. 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 (Sec. 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or others like him (Sec. 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. Sec.10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10, xii. 9.
[95:1] Phil. Sec. 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. Sec. 1. [Greek: hon egeiren ho Theos lusas tas odinas 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. Sec. 8.
[97:1] [Greek: ton autopton tes zoes 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 Irenaeus 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 Rheteur AElius 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 Irenaeus 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: parechorese ten 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 Roemischen Bischoefe p. 263.
[103:2] See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici ii. p. 604.
[103:3] See his Memoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rheteur AElius Aristide in the Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions xxvi. p. 202 sq; and his Fastes des provinces Asiatiques in Le Bas and Waddington's Voyage Archeologique en Grece et en Asie Mineure.
[104:1] L'Antechrist 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 Asiae conventu legitur.'
[108:1] Phil. Sec. 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: ton 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. Sec. 3.
[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]
[115:2] The words of Irenaeus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos Markioni pote eis opsin auto 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. Sec. 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: eleluthota]) 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: me homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of Irenaeus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (H.E. vii. 32) says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of Irenaeus 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: me 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 Irenaeus, 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 aeltesten 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 Praescr. Haer. 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 (Sec. 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai pro tes polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in Eusebius, H.E. iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tes marturias].
[122:1] Hilgenfeld (Apost. Vaeter 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: outos esontai oi eschatoi protoi kai oi protoi 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 ten diastolen tauten tes oikeseos], 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 Irenaeus 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 Caesar.']
[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: Ioannou men akoustes, Polukarpou de hetairos gegonos].
[143:1] Euseb. H.E. iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk okneso de soi kai hosa pote para ton presbuteron kalos emathon kai kalos emnemoneusa sunkatataxai] [v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermeneiais, diabebaioumenos huper auton aletheian, 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] Haer. iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3; v. 36. 1, 2.
[145:2] Ref. Haer. vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenaeus.' Clement of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantaenus; 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. Schoene). 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 Aristion kai ho presbuteros Ioannes ... 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); Irenaeus Haer. v. 81 sq; Tertullian adv. Marc. iii. 24, de Resurr. Carn. 24.
[151:2] Ep. Barn. Sec. 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: hen 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 soteri].
[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.
[153:3] Boeckh 3817.
[153:4] Galen Op. xii. p. 799 (ed. Kuehn).
[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. Graec. 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: exegesis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exegeseis]), I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias uses [Greek: logion], not [Greek: logon], 'oracles,' not 'words' or 'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakon logion], not [Greek: logion 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: exegesis] but [Greek: diegesis], which Eusebius uses several times of the anecdotes related by Papias; H.E. iii. 39.
[158:1] This attempt has recently been made by Weiffenbach Das Papias-Fragment p. 16 sq; and it is chiefly valuable as a testimony to the real significance of the words, which can only be set aside by such violent treatment. Weiffenbach is obliged to perform two acts of violence on the sentence: (1) He supposes that there is an anacoluthon, and that the [Greek: kai hosa pote] here is answered by the words [Greek: ei de pou kai parekolouthekos], which occur several lines below. (2) He interprets [Greek: tais hermeneiais] 'the interpretations belonging to them.' Each of these by itself is harsh and unnatural in the extreme; and the combination of the two may be safely pronounced impossible. Even if his grammatical treatment could be allowed, the fact will still remain that the interpretations are presupposed. Weiffenbach's constructions of this passage are justly rejected by the two writers who have written on the subject since his essay appeared, Hilgenfeld and Leimbach.
[158:2] Haer. v. 33. 1 sq.
[158:3] It may be observed in passing, as an illustration of the looseness of early quotations, that this passage, as given by Irenaeus, does not accord with any one of the Synoptic Evangelists, but combines features from all the three.
[159:1] The view that Papias took written Gospels as the basis of his interpretations is maintained by no one more strongly than by Hilgenfeld in his recent works; Papias von Hierapolis (Zeitschrift, 1875) p. 238 sq; Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1875), pp. 53 sq, 454 sq. But it seems to me that he is not carrying out this view to its logical conclusion, when he still interprets [Greek: biblia] of Evangelical narratives, and talks of Papias as holding these written records in little esteem.
[160:1] Haer. Praef. 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: exegeseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek: dia tes exegeseos].
[161:1] Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17, p. 898.
[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of the Naassenes; Haer. v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous discourses ([Greek: pollon panu logon]), 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.