[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 hemarte] '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 Irenaeus, 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 Asia 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 vollstaendiges Evangelium laesst schon Papias den Matthaeus hebraeisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq, 454 sq.
[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenaeus did not derive his information solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by Pantaenus 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: chresmoi]) pronounced ([Greek: chresthentes]) 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 (Sec. 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis tas graphas].
[174:3] Polyc. Phil. 7.
[174:4] Iren. Haer. 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. Sec. 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: logon] for [Greek: logion] 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: logion].
[177:1] Iren. Haer. 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. Haer. 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. Haer. 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, kathos hedunato parakolouthein, outos etheke, 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 ton matheton], where [Greek: mathetes], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and Irenaeus, 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 legon 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. Haer. 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 Irenaeus, de Ogdoade, cited instead of the Epistle to Florinus, for the relations between Irenaeus 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. Haer. 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 Irenaeus (Photius Bibl. 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils taking down his lectures as he delivered them (Op. xix. p. 11, ed. Kuehn). The discourses which Irenaeus 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. Haer. 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. Graec. 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 Irenaeus, 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. Graec. 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. Haer. 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. Quaest. 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 anankaios nun prosthesomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek: tauta d' hemin anankaios pros tois ektetheisin epiteterestho].
[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: pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma ebaptisthesan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Herodes men apekteinen Iakobon ton Ioannou machaira, ho de Rhomaion basileus, hos he paradosis didaskei, katedikase ton Ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon eis Patmon ten neson.] 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 Palaeographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.
[213:4] In the Catena Patr. Graec. in S. Joann. Prooem. (ed. Corder), [Greek: haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to heautou mathete Papia eubioto] (sic) [Greek: to hierapolite, k.t.l.].
[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsa (apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].
[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]
[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]
[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Caesarea 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 (Haer. li.), who calls them Alogi. They are mentioned also, with special reference to the Gospel, by Irenaeus (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 tes Hellados, ho Ionikos].
[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. Sec. 1.
[221:1] Martyr. Polyc. Sec. 6 [Greek: ho kekleromenos to auto onoma, Herodes epilegomenos], where [Greek: kekleromenos] (not [Greek: kai kleronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,' i.e., with the tyrant of the Gospels.
[221:2] ib. Sec. 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.
[221:3] ib. Sec. 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi huperchon].
[221:4] ib. Sec. 8.
[221:5] ib. Sec. 7 [Greek: hos epi lesten]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.
[221:6] ib. Sec. 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. Sec. 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.
[222:1] John xii. 28.
[222:2] Martyr. Polyc. Sec. 5.
[222:3] ib. Sec. 12 [Greek: edei gar to tes ... optasias plerothenai hote ... eipen, k.t.l.]
[222:4] John xii. 33.
[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iesou plerothe, hon eipen semainon k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch says (Sec. 12), [Greek: me einai exon auto, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case, the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: hemin ouk exestin apokteinai oudena.]
[222:6] Martyr. Polyc. Sec. 16 [Greek: exelthe [peristera kai] plethos 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. Sec. 15.
[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.
[223:1] Martyr. Polyc. Sec. 16.
[223:2] ib. Sec. 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 Archeologique 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 Antoninon 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 apomnemoneumata ton apostolon e ta sungrammata ton propheton anaginosketia k.t.l.], compared with ib. 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' auton apomnemoneumasin 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. Graec. 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: phone] 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: phone boontos], 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. Sec. 61 (p. 284).
[235:2] Justin Martyr Dial. Sec. 34 (p. 251).
[235:3] Justin Martyr Dial. Sec. 100 (p. 327).
[236:1] Justin Martyr Dial. Sec. 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: pollon para pollois sozomenon, ta eis hemas elthonta esti tade.]
[238:5] Photius Bibl. 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnemoneuta einai, ois oupo hemeis 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 Osee 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 aelt. 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 alethinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself taking the opposite view.
[245:2] Iren. Haer. 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 Irenaeus respecting the Asiatic elders.
[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this elder with Papias.
[248:3] Iren. Haer. iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.
[248:4] Iren. Haer. 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 Memoires 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. Sec.Sec. 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 Sec. 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 [Irenaeus] 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, Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus was certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which Irenaeus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence recommending Irenaeus 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 aeltesten 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 te prote hemon helikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu geraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, Irenaeus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenaeus saw him, since the words [Greek: panu geraleos] 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 Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon p. 15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach Wann ist Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus, '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 Iudaei, i.e. Idaei. 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 Graec. 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenaeus 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 Haer. xlvi.; Theodoret Haer. 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 Goetting. 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. Graec. 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: Ammonios men ho Alexandreus ... to dia tessaron hemin kataleloipen euangelion, to kata Matthaion tas homophonous ton loipon euangeliston perikopas paratheis, hos ex anankes sumbenai ton tes akolouthias heirmon ton trion diaphtharanai, hoson epi to huphei anagnoseos]—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-Hebraeus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem. Bibl. Orient. i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Caesarea, 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 (Goett. 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. Haer. 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 Apotres p. xviii.
[291:2] Les Evangiles p. 436.
[292:1] xvii. p. 840.
[293:1] Sub ann. 46.
[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt Roem. 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 propraetors,' 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. Graec. 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. Kuehn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tes Rhomaion poleos, andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: de Praenot. 2 (Op. ii. p. 612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tes poleos, kai Phlabios, hupatikos men on ede kai autos, espeukos de peri ten Aristotelous philosophian, hosper kai ho Paulos, hois diegesamenos, k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho Paulos] in Kuehn 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. Graec. 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 neokoron ton Sebaston, mono]n hapa[son] de tes Artemidos.]
[300:3] Eckhel Doctr. Num. ii. p. 520. The legend is—[Greek: EPHESION TRIS NEOKORON KAI TES 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: hemerai]] [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 ges xoana kai thuepolous]), 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.
I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. II. INDEX OF PASSAGES.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Aberle, 210, 213 n
Achaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292
Acts of Peter, 37
Acts of the Apostles; Eusebius' method with regard to, 46; used by Polycarp, 95; by Polycrates, 249; ascribed by Irenaeus to St Luke, 44; quoted in the Letter of the Gallican Churches, 257; Renan on its authorship, 291; recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq
Addai; see Doctrine of Addai
AElian, credulity of, 269
AEsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n
African martyrs, 76, 83
Alford, 9, 294, 295 n
Alogi, 215 n
Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7
Ammonius of Alexandria; his date, 280; his Harmony of the Gospels, 280; Eusebius' account of it, 280; its scope distinct from Tatian's Diatessaron, 280 sq; but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq
Anastasius of Sinai; his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq; quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq
Andreas of Caesarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214
Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193
Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102
Anthropomorphism, 139 n
Antinomianism, 119 sq
Antioch; Trajan at, 79; Antoninus Pius at, 98 n; earthquake at, 79 sq
Antoninus Pius; proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n; his movements as emperor, 98 n
Aphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian's Diatessaron, 283 n, 
Apion, as a critic, 269
Apocalypse; its date, 14 n, 132; its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq; the term Logos in, 15, 123; supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq; the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n; its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47; Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq; Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214; Justin Martyr, 43, 216; Irenaeus, 45, 47, 216; Eusebius, 144; the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq; notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216; in Melito, 47; his commentary on it, 216; in the Muratorian Canon, 216; in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216; in Apollonius, 47
Apocalypse of Peter, 37, 47
Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis; a contemporary of Melito, 237; his date, 237 sq; his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238; his orthodoxy, 238 sq; his writings, 238, 242 sq; Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq; his Apology, 237; his work against the Montanists, 238, 243; against the Severians, 243; on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq; the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq; not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245; but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq; genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq; references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240; to the Fourth Gospel, 240; follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248; mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237; his prominence in the School of St John, 218
Apollonius; notice of the Apocalypse in, 47; extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n
Apologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275
Arianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69
Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270
Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266
Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n
Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq
Asia Minor; imperial visits to, 98; the proconsulate of, 293; the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n; its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252
Asia Minor, the Churches of; importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq; Apostles resident in, 91, 217; episcopacy in, 84, 218; solidarity of, 102; the arena of controversy, 84, 219; literary activity of, 219, 249; testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249; the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249; intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq; Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n
Asiarchs, 222 n, 299
Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq
Assemani, 280 n, 281 n
Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80
Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254
Aubertin, 66, 67
Augustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq
Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13
Bar-Ali, the lexicographer; his date, 282 n; mentions Tatian, 282 n
Bar-Bahlul; his date, 282 n; Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n
Bar-Hebraeus; his date, 281 n; confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n
Bar-Salibi; his date, 280; his testimony to Tatian's Diatessaron, 280 sq
Barnabas, Epistle of; its date, 177; quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227; employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47; Chiliasm in, 151
Basil (St), 175
Basilides; his date, 85, 161; his work On the Gospel, 161; fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161; his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219; the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85; his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123
Basnoge, 66, 67
Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69
Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70
Beausobre, 68, 69
Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126
Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171
Blondel, 66, 67
Bochart, 66, 67, 83
Borghesi, 296 n
Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66
Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66
Capitolinus, 98 n
Casaubon, 66, 67
Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n
Cerinthus; encountered by St John, 101, 212; his separationism, 118; attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118; according to Irenaeus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182; the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215; the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219; confused with Marcion, 210, 212
Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297
Chemnitz, 65, 66
Chiliasm; of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n; of the early Church generally, 151
Christian literature; compared with the classics as regards external evidence for documents, 82; plagiarisms in, 202
Christian martyrs; coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220; zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq
Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq
Christology; of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq; of Cerinthus, 118; of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231; of Polycarp, 106, 108; of Justin Martyr, 235; of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq
Christ's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq
Chronicon Paschale; see Paschal Chronicle
Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80
Claudius Apollinaris; see Apollinaris
Clemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n
Clement of Alexandria; coincidence in the name, 94 n; a pupil of Pantaenus, 274; perhaps of Melito, 218, 224; perhaps also of Tatian, 274; quotes from Tatian, 273 n; his wide learning, 269; compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269; his travels, 270; his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270; to St Mark, 167; to the Fourth Gospel, 52; to the labours of St John, 218; accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216; employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47; the Epistle of Barnabas, 47; the Apocalypse of Peter, 47; the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 152; quotes Basilides, 161; his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq; date of his Stromateis, 274; his use of the word 'oracles,' 174
Clement of Rome; his name, 94 n; probably a Hellenist Jew, 94; and a freedman, 94; his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89; scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110; Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179; its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49; employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47; its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n; his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105; his use of the word 'oracles,' 174; the story of the phoenix in, 268; his place in modern German theories, 24
Clementines; as a romance, 15; Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n; quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52
Cook, 66, 67
Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
Cramer's Catena, 201
Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186
Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272
Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n
Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq; see also Ignatian Epistles
Cyprian; his correspondence, 76; accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216
Cyprus; its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq; the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294; source of Pliny's information regarding, 295; proconsuls and propraetors of, 294; recent excavations at, 291 sq
Cyrrhestice, 282, 283
Dallaeus, 65, 114
De Wette, 9, 293 n
Decian persecution, 76
Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136
Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301
Denzinger, 63, 71
Diapente, 279 n, 285 sq
Diatessaron; see Tatian
Dion Cassius, 293
Dionysius of Alexandria; his critical insight, 167; assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216; but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216
Dionysius of Corinth; his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227; the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184
Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n
Doctrine of Addai; discovery of the document, 278 n; its subject, 278; its date, 279; its country, 279; noticed in Eusebius, 279; mentions Tatian's Diatessaron, 278; the Armenian version, 279
Dodwell, 98 n, 264
Dogma and morality, 27 sq
Donaldson, 241 n
Dressel, 80 n
Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36
Ebionism; no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42; nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq; nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq
Edessa, 278 sq
Elders; quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq; by Irenaeus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq; who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq; identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266
Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261; Irenaeus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n
Elias of Salamia; his Diatessaron, 280; his name Aphthonius, 280
Encratites; Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243; Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284
Ephesus; St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq; other Apostles at, 91; Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq; cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq; the great theatre at, 298 sq; the designation of magistrates, 299; the title neocoros, 300; the lawful assemblies, 301; image-processions at, 301 sq; gates of, 302
Ephraem of Antioch, 172
Ephraem Syrus; date of his death, 280; his commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, 280 sq; [an Armenian version discovered, 287]
Epiphanius; date of his work on Heresies, 284; his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n; his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n; his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285; confuses Tatian's Diatessaron with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 284
Episcopacy; in the time of St John, 218; in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84; stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107; especially in the Vossian Letters, 87; the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61; not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122; prominent in the writings of Irenaeus, 122
Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq
Eusebius; sources of his history, 32 sq; his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq, 190 sq, 215 sq; tested on extant literature, 40 sq; what his silence means, 32 sq; its value as a direct testimony, 51; his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209; his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209; on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82; on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq; his estimate of Papias, 209; on John the Presbyter, 143 sq; his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228; nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242; dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225; on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245; attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209; for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208
Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204
[Greek: epi Traianou], 81
[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189
[Greek: exegesis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq; and [Greek: diegesis], 157 n
Fathers, early; compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq; considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268; the dearth of scriptural quotations in their works accounted for, 33, 271; explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237
Florinus; a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq; Irenaeus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n; date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq; his subsequent history, 98
Four Gospels; that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270; in Irenaeus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq; in Eusebius, 39
Fourth Gospel; its spirit, 13; its Hebraic character, 14; the minuteness of its details, 14 sq; the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq; compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq; in Christology, 15 sq; the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267; compared with the Synoptists in chronology and narrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq; the relation of the Paschal controversy to this question, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267; historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq; the personality of its author, 18 sq; association of others with him in the work, 187; anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217; probably dictated, 187, 214; its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq; testimony given by the growth of various readings and interpolations, 9 sq, 52; by the commentary of Heracleon, 52; the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41; of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq; of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 221 sq; of the elders in Irenaeus, 48; of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq; of Claudius Apollinaris, 240; of the School of St John generally, 249 sq; of the Letter of the Gallican Churches, 258; of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq; of Origen, 216; of Gaius, 216 n; Irenaeus on its purpose, 48, 182; quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216; significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq; ascribed to Cerinthus, 215; its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220
Gaius; on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47; of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n; his date, 216 n; his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n
Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq
Gallican Churches; a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq; intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq; persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq; their letter to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271; its date, 259; scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq; their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253; their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq
Gaul, called Galatia, 251
Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq
Gnosticism; the development of antinomian, 119; the literature of, 160 sq; the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202; the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268; the scene of the conflict with, 219; attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119; in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119; in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq; not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219
Gospel of Peter, 37
Gospel according to the Hebrews; see Hebrews, Gospel according to the
Gospels; see Matthew's (St) Gospel, Mark's (St) Gospel, Luke's (St) Gospel, Fourth Gospel, Four Gospels
Grabe, 98 n
Griesbach, 68, 69
[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n]
Hebrews, Gospel according to the; employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183; by other fathers, 152; perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153; Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq; translated by Jerome, 203, 285; statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152; confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285; with Tatian's Diatessaron, 284; distinct scope of the last-named work, 285
Hebrews, Epistle to the; in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52; the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49; of Irenaeus, 46, 47; of Gaius, 47
Hegesippus; his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39; the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185; his attitude towards St Paul, 12; towards tradition, 155; employs the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 47, 183
'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n
[Hemphill, 287, 288]
Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52
Hermas, the Shepherd of; its devotional character, 271; hence does not quote Scripture, 271; the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq; quoted by Irenaeus, 45, 47, 184
Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221
Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224
Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172, 176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n
Hippolytus; pupil of Irenaeus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267; probably at Rome, 267 n; opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219; defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n; plagiarisms of, 202; plagiarisms from, 216 n; Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161; his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n
Hitzig, 24 sq
Hoffmann, 282 n
Hort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n
Ignatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93; three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60; documents, 60; date of the forgery, 60; (2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq; MSS and Versions, 61; history of their discovery, 61; (3) Curetonian Epistles, 61; their discovery, 61; questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistles are prior, 61; the view of S.R., 63, 74; the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq; arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from (i) the Armenian Version, 60; a translation from the Syriac Version of the Curetonian Epistles, 71, 86; (ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86; the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious letters answered, 60, 71, 72 sq; the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq; (B) whether any form is genuine, 61; denied by S.R., 62, 74; (i) internal evidence considered, (a) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq; (b) the journey to Rome, 79 sq; (c) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82; (d) supposed anachronisms, 83; (e) evidence of style, 84; (ii) external evidence, 82; result, 84, 88; relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq; argument from silence, 84 sq; limit of their date, 85; arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq; result, 88, [59 n]; scriptural quotations in the, 41; Eusebius' method tested on the, 41; theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq; Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231; a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302
Ignatius; the name Theophorus, 302; his letters (see Ignatian Epistles); his journey to Rome, 59; its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111; his route, 93, 113; his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq; his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113; the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq; his zeal for martyrdom, 82; not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214; date of his martyrdom, 59; days of commemoration of, 79; extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80
Irenaeus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264; a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq; his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n; represents three Churches, 267; his connexion with the Letter of the Gallican Churches, 259; sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267; at Rome more than once, 267 n; his lectures there, 267; his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267; date of his episcopate, 97; his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100; his literary activity, 267; date of his Refutation, 259, 260; the first great controversial treatise, 271; its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271; his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261; Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184; importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq; appeals to the elders (see Elders); his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq; to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182; to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq; to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82; to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq; his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262; his controversial treatises, 267; his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219; on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267; on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246; on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq; on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216; on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101; on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116; on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n; on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172; his Chiliasm, 151, 197; his evidence for episcopacy, 122; his use of the word 'oracles,' 174; his literary obligations to Papias, 202; to Melito, 236 sq; considered as a critic, 268 sq
Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n
Jerome; on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285; on the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 42, 152, 208, 285; on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n; on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n; on Apollinaris, 242, 243
Jerusalem, results to the Christian Church from the fall of, 90 sq, 217
John (St); at Ephesus, 91, 101, 142 sq; his church organisation, 218; the founder of a school, 217 sq; the repositary of Apostolic doctrine and practice, 218; his encounter with Cerinthus, 101, 212; his connexion with Polycarp, 89, 92; with Papias, 142 sq, 160, 193, 198, 210 sq; with his namesake John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 187; his longevity, 48, 89, 91, 92, 101, 217, 246; a story of his martyrdom explained, 211 sq; traditions respecting him, 48, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217; see also Fourth Gospel
John (St), the Epistles of; their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 39, 46 sq; two mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, 190; the First Epistle employed by Polycarp, 49 sq, 118, 191 sq, 220; by Papias, 49, 154, 186, 190 sq, 206, 220; by Irenaeus, 45; a postscript to the Fourth Gospel, 186 sq, 190, 220; the evidence of Papias, and of the Muratorian Canon, to this fact, 189, 206
John Malalas; represents Ignatius as martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214; his historical blunders, 80 sq, 214, 269, 285; on a visit of Antoninus Pius to Asia Minor, 98 n
John the Baptist; his designation in the Fourth Gospel, 18 sq, 124 sq; his father Zacharias, 146 n, 256 sq; the [Greek: phone], 232 n
John the Presbyter; in Asia Minor, 91; his connexion with Papias, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164, 165 sq, 266; with Pothinus, 266; with the Apostle St John, 143 sq, 187
Judith, date of the book of, 25 n
Julian, the Emperor, 270
Justa, the Syrophoenician, 129
Justin Martyr; his pupil Tatian, 272, 274; his accuser Crescens, 148, 272; his martyrdom, 148, 274; the account in Eusebius, 150; his evangelical quotations, 43; looseness of his quotations from the O.T., 12, 43; his lost writings, 33; Eusebius' method tested upon his extant works, 43; his Chiliasm, 151; his error as to Simon Magus, 268; his Logos doctrine compared with Melito, 235; his references to the Virgin Mary, 236; his evidence to the authorship of the Apocalypse, 43; to the public use of the Gospels, 227
Kestner, 68, 69
Lardner, 40, 41 n, 42 n, 68, 69, 94 n, 109 n, 241 n
Leimbach, 158 n, 264 n
Lipsius, 64, 65, 71, 80 n, 81 n, 85, 103 n, 104, 116, 213 n
Logos; the expression common to the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 15; as distinct from [Greek: phone], 232 n; the doctrine in the Ignatian Epistles, 86 sq; in Justin Martyr, 235; in Valentinus, 86; in Melito, 232, 234 sq; in Marcellus of Ancyra, 87; its importance a characteristic of the second century, 235
Lucian; illustrates the Ignatian Epistles, 76 sq; the Epistle of Polycarp, 77 n
Luke's (St) Gospel; the source of Marcion's Gospel, 8, 186; Papias acquainted with, 178 sq, 186; the evidence of the Muratorian Canon, 189; quoted in the Letter of the Gallican Churches, 255 sq; Renan on its authorship, 291
Luthardt, 14, 132
[Greek: Leopardos], 67, 83
[Greek: Logia], 155 n, 160, 163, 171, 172 sq
Magdeburg Centuriators, 65, 66
Malalas; see John Malalas
Marcellus of Ancyra, the Logos doctrine of, 87
Marcion; his date, 81, 116, 213 n; confused with Cerinthus, 210, 212; his Gospel, 6 n, 8, 186; his Canon, 117, 227, 263, 273; Papias' acquaintance with it, 186; his attitude towards St Paul, 273; his high moral character, 119; his distinctive views, 117 sq; not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; nor in Polycarp's Epistle, 101, 115, 212; a supposed allusion considered, 106, 115 sq; opposed by Justin Martyr, 33; by Melito, 231; scene of his heresy, 219, 227, 231; the question of the Canon raised by it, 219, 225; his views on the resurrection and judgment, 120
Maries, the four, in Papias the lexicographer, 210 sq
Mark's (St) Gospel; the account and criticism of Papias, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq; the motive of Papias' allusion, 207; compared by Papias with the Fourth Gospel, 165, 205 sq; identification of Papias' St Mark, 2, 10, 20, 46, 163 sq; evidence of the Muratorian Canon to, 189, 205 sq
Martyrdom of Polycarp; see Polycarp, Martyrdom of
Massuet, 98 n
Matthew (St), and Papias, 143, 193
Matthew's (St) Gospel; the account in Papias, 163, 167 sq, 181; his testimony to the Hebrew original, 168, 172; its character, 170 sq; a Greek St Matthew in existence in his day, 168 sq; identical with the extant Gospel, 169 sq; relation of the Hebrew to the Greek Gospel, 170; confused with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, by Jerome, 285; perhaps by Papias, 170; motive of Papias' allusion, 208; quoted in the Epistle of Barnabas as 'Scripture,' 227
Meletius, confused with Melito, 231
Melito; his date, 223, 224; a contemporary of Polycarp and Papias, 224; perhaps one of the elders quoted in Irenaeus, 196 n, 224; perhaps a teacher of Clement of Alexandria, 218, 224; his travels, 224, 226; his learning, 228; his orthodoxy, 230; range of his literary works, 32, 102, 224; their popularity, 102, 224, 230; his lost works, 223, 225, 229; his Apology, 223, 241 n; the preface to his Selections, 226; (1) the extant Greek fragments, their genuineness, 228 sq; supported by the evidence of Tertullian and Hippolytus to his style, 229 sq, 234; not the work of Meletius, 231; their direct evidence to the Gospels, 231; (2) the Syriac fragments, 232 sq; their theology, 234 sq; his doctrine of the Logos, 234; his references to the Virgin Mary, 235 sq; passages from his works incorporated into Irenaeus, 236 sq; Armenian version of a fragment and its Syriac abridgment, 236 sq; a quotation in Chronicon Paschale, 241 n; his work on the Paschal controversy, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq; evidence to the Fourth Gospel therefrom, 248; notice of the Apocalypse in, 47, 216; coincidences with St Paul's Epistles, 237; his treatise against Marcion, 231; date and manner of his death, 224
Merx, 64, 71
Mill (J.S.), 28 sq, 204
Ministry, the duration of our Lord's, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq
Miracles, 26 sq
Montanism; its centre in Asia Minor, 219; correspondence between the Churches of Asia and Gaul relating to, 253; Irenaeus' mission to Rome respecting, 253, 259 n; not referred to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85; nor in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106; opposed by Apollinaris, 238; by Irenaeus, 267; the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219, 238, 267
Morality and dogma, 27 sq
Muratori, 295 n
Muratorian Canon; date, 188; original language, 188 n; English translation, 189 sq; emendations in the text, 189 n; represents the Church of Rome, 53, 270; its evidence to St Mark's Gospel, 189, 205 sq; to St Luke's Gospel, 189, 206; to the Fourth Gospel, 52 sq, 91, 189 sq, 206, 216; to four Gospels, 164, 188 sq, 205 sq, 270; its testimony compared with that of Papias, 205 sq; perhaps borrowed from him, 207; Matthew Arnold's estimate of, 190 n
Naassenes, 161 n
Nature; two meanings of the term, 29 sq; its relation to a Personal God, 28 sq
Neander, 68, 69, 120 n, 141, 242
Neubauer, 17 n, 133, 135, 136
Nicolaitans, 48, 182
Nolte, 211 n
Onesimus, the friend of Melito, 226
Ophites, 52, 161, 202, 219
Origen; on Celsus, 7; on the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 216; of the Apocalypse, 216; uses the Gospel according to the Hebrews, 152 n; quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82; his accuracy in textual criticism, 269; his use of the word 'oracles', 174
Otto, 223 n, 228 n, 229, 238 n, 241 n
Overbeck, 210, 213 n, 293 n
[Greek: ouk oid' hopos], 277 sq
Pantaenus, 145 n, 172, 274
Papias; his date, 142, 147 sq; his name and namesakes, 153, 211; of heathen origin, 153; a companion of Polycarp, 142, 150, 153, 218; perhaps not a hearer of St John, 142, 143 sq, 146, 193, 198, 210 sq; his Expositions, 32, 39, 142; its title, 155 n, 156, 171 sq, 175 sq; its date, 150; its nature, 11, 155; directed against Gnostic exegesis, 160 sq, 175, 202; as affecting his attitude towards the written Gospels, 156, 159 n, 160; the extant Gospels the text for his exegesis, 163 sq; his method illustrated, 143, 158 sq, 194, 197; his informants the 'elders', 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 197 sq; especially Aristion and John the Presbyter, 143 sq, 149, 150 n, 164 sq, 266; his Chiliasm, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197 sq, 215 n; not an Ebionite, 151 sq; his attitude towards St Paul, 151 sq; his use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews considered, 152, 203 sq; his orthodoxy, 154; story of his martyrdom explained, 147 sq, 211 sq; his mention of St Matthew's Gospel, 163, 167 sq, 181, 208; character of the original Hebrew, 170 sq, 207 sq; the Greek extant in his time, 168, 208; his mention of St Mark's Gospel, 8, 10, 19, 162 sq, 175 sq, 181, 205 sq; his acquaintance with St Luke's Gospel, 178 sq, 186; with the Fourth Gospel, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 178 sq; evidenced by his acquaintance with 1 John, 186 sq, 190 sq; by other indications, 192 sq, 203 sq; Eusebius' method illustrated upon, 34 sq, 151, 178 sq; his testimony to the Apocalypse, 34 n, 214; his testimony to the Canon supported by that of the Muratorian fragment, 205 sq; which perhaps borrowed from him, 207; obligations of Irenaeus to, 202; of Eusebius, 208; not the amanuensis of the Fourth Gospel, 210 sq, 213 sq; nor author of exoteric books, 210 sq; confusion of the name, 148 sq, 211; quotations in Irenaeus, 4 sq, 127, 194, 248 n; the pericope adulterae and other interpolations in the Gospels perhaps from his work, 203 sq; his position as an authority, 10, 218; his credulity considered, 269
Papias, the lexicographer, 211
Papylus, confused with Papias, 148 sq
Paraclete; the Montanist doctrine of the, 219, 267; in the Letter of the Gallican Churches, 255, 258
Parker, 66, 67
Paschal Chronicle; confuses Papias and Papylus, 148 sq; preserves quotations from Apollinaris, 238, 239 sq; from Melito, 241 n; sources of its information, 148 n, 260 n; on the date of Theodotion's version of the LXX, 260 n
Paschal controversy; silence of the Ignatian Epistles upon, 85; of the Epistle of Polycarp, 106; Asia Minor the scene of, 219; Polycarp's visit to Rome respecting, 99 sq, 121; the account in Eusebius, 17, 245; the treatise of Melito on, 223, 225, 241 n, 242 sq; of Apollinaris, 238 sq; of Clement of Alexandria, 243 sq; of Pierius of Alexandria, 241 n; of Irenaeus, 242, 244 sq, 267; action of the Gallican Churches with respect to, 253 sq; the attitude of Victor upon, 100, 244, 245, 248, 253 sq; remonstrance of Irenaeus, 100; of Polycrates, 248; the error of S.R. regarding its character, 17, 240 sq, 245; its relation to the Canon, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267
Paul (St); in Cyprus, 294 sq; at Ephesus, 299 sq; his attack on Gnosticism, 119 sq; his treatment as a prisoner, 75, 78; his claim to work miracles, 125; his directions as to idol-sacrifices, 14; his connexion with Gaul, 251; not aimed at in the Apocalypse, 13 sq; attitude of Clement of Rome towards, 40; of the Ignatian Epistles, 41, 42; of Polycarp, 42 sq, 95 sq, 101 sq; of Hegesippus, 12; of Papias, 151 sq; of Marcion, 117, 219, 225, 273; of the elders in Irenaeus, 248; of Melito, 237; of Tatian, 273; of the School of St John generally, 251; of the Churches in Gaul, 255; position of his writings in the Canon of Eusebius, 37, 38, 46 sq; see also Tuebingen School
Paul, Acts of, 37
Pearson, in the Ignatian controversy, 83, 86
Pella, 90, 91
Peregrinus Proteus, 76 sq
Pergamum, 147, 148
Pericope Adulterae, an insertion from Papias, 203 sq
Perpetua, 76, 83
Petau, 66, 67
Peter, Acts of, 37
Peter, Apocalypse of, 37, 47
Peter, Gospel of, 37
Peter, Preaching of, 37
Peter (St), the Epistles of; their position in the Canon of Eusebius, 36 sq, 46; Eusebius' method tested on, 43, 45, 47, 49; the First Epistle largely quoted by Polycarp, 43, 49 sq, 95, 109, 191 sq; employed by Papias, 186, 206 sq; by Irenaeus, 45
Peter of Alexandria, 241 n
Petermann, 63, 71, 86 sq
Philip (St), the Apostle; at Hierapolis, 91, 143, 149; his daughters, 91, 149, 153; his intercourse with Papias, 143, 146, 149, 193; his identity, 91 n
Philip, the Asiarch, 222 n
Philippi, the Church at; Ignatius' visit to, 93, 106; Polycarp's correspondence with, 93 sq, 101, 106 sq, 121 (see Polycarp, Epistle of); episcopacy at, 106, 108