Chapter XIV: Appendix (2)

[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe _Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2) considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenæus could hardly have expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._ 7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is too late for our purpose.

As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia (Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne, and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite, and Irenæus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the circumstances.

[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.

[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek: parechôrêse tên eucharistian.]

[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.

[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.

[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.

[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe_ p. 263.

[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.

[103:3] See his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ in the _Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202 sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_.

[104:1] _L'Antéchrist_ p. 566.

[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188 (1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.

[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.

[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiæ conventu legitur.'

[108:1] _Phil._ § 5.

[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in the ordinary theological language of the two writers.

[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]

[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid on the occurrence of these few obvious words.

[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).

[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]

[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]

[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must have been [Greek: tôn met' autou].

[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.

[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq. [See also below, p. 189.]

[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 3.

[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]

[115:2] The words of Irenæus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos Markiôni pote eis opsin autô elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496) remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.

[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.

[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 7.

[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.

[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.

[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.

[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come ([Greek: elêluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be [Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: mê homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of Irenæus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32) says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of Irenæus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to conceive that the very simple [Greek: mê homologei] would be altered into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in Irenæus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere eos praecepit dicens' etc.

[119:1] Die ältesten Zeugnisse p. 41.

[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.

[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.

[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.

[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.

[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.

[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Præscr. Hær._ 33.

[120:5] See Neander _Church History_ ii. p. 147; and to the references there given add Iren. iii. 25. 2 'Alterum quidem _judicare_ et alterum quidem salvare dixerunt,' and sect. 3, 'Marcion igitur ipse dividens Deum in duo, alterum quidem bonum et alterum _judicialem_ dicens,' with the context.

[121:1] I might add also that it is directly stated in the account of his martyrdom (§ 13), that he was treated with every honour, [Greek: kai pro tês polias], 'even before his grey hairs,' as the words ran in Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 15. The common texts substitute [Greek: kai pro tês marturias].

[122:1] Hilgenfeld (_Apost. Väter_ p. 273) evidently feels this difficulty, and apologises for it.

[123:1] This reference to 1 Tim. ii. 2 is pointed out in Jacobson's note.

[123:2] See above, p. 15 sq.

[124:1] See above, p. 20.

[124:2] See above, p. 17 sq.

[124:3] _S.R._ 1. p. 423.

[124:4] Credner _Einleitung_ p. 209 sq.

[125:1] The author, in his reply, calls attention to the fact that the language of the other writers to whom he gives references in his footnote is too clear to be misunderstood.

[125:2] I do not think I can have misapprehended our author's meaning, but it is best to give his own words: 'Now even Tischendorf does not pretend that this [a saying cited in the Epistle of Barnabas] is a quotation of Matt. xx. 16, "Thus the last shall be first, and the first last" ([Greek: outôs esontai oi eschatoi prôtoi kai oi prôtoi eschatoi]), the sense of which is quite different. The application of the saying in this place in the first Synoptic Gospel is evidently quite false, and depends merely on the ring of words and not of ideas. Strange to say, _it is not found in either of the other Gospels_; but, like the famous phrase which we have been considering, it nevertheless appears twice quite irrelevantly, in two places of the first Gospel. In xix. 30, it is quoted again with slight variation: "But many first shall be last, and last first,"' etc. _S.R._ I. p. 247. The italics are my own.

[125:3] _S.R._ I. p. 200 sq.

[125:4] Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The point to be observed is, that St Paul treats the fact of his working miracles as a matter of course, to which a passing reference is sufficient.

[125:5] [See above, p. 9.]

[126:1] _S.R._ I. p. 113.

[126:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9 sq.

[126:3] [See above, p. 3 sq.]

[126:4] See above, p. 53 sq.

[127:1] [See below, p. 194 sq.]

[127:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 5. The author states that he 'actually inserted in the text the opening words, [Greek: einai de tên diastolên tautên tês oikêseôs], for the express purpose of showing the construction.' The impression however which his own language left on my mind was quite different. It suggested that he inserted the words not for this purpose, but for quite another, namely, to show that there was nothing corresponding to Tischendorf's 'they say,' or Dr Westcott's 'they taught,' in the original, and so to justify his charge of 'falsification.' If the reader will refer to the context, and more especially to note 4 on p. 328 of the second volume of _Supernatural Religion_ (in the editions before the fourth), he will see what strong justification I had for taking this view.

[127:3] _S.R._ II. p. 330.

[128:1] I ought to add that these alterations do not appear to have been made in all copies of the fourth edition. I am informed by a correspondent that in his copy the whole passage stands as in the earlier editions.

[128:2] _Inquirer_, Nov. 7, 1874. 'Elsewhere a blunder on the part of the writer is made the occasion of a grave charge against Dr Tischendorf and Canon Westcott. They are accused of deliberately falsifying etc.... His own translation however overlooks the important fact that at the critical point in question Irenæus passes from the direct to the indirect speech. This is made obvious by the employment of the infinitive in place of the indicative. The English language affords no means of indicating this change except by the introduction of some such phrases as those employed by Tischendorf and Westcott, which simply denote the transition to the _obliqua oratio_. To neglect this is to throw the whole passage into confusion; and the writer's attempt to fasten a suspicion of dishonesty on the critics whose views he is combating recoils in the shape of a suggestion of imperfect scholarship upon himself.'

This occurs in a highly favourable review of the book.

[128:3] See above, p. 3 sq.

[128:4] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 9.

[128:5] [Corresponding to about a page in this reprint, pp. 7, 8 'These two examples ... Commentaries of Cæsar.']

[129:1] _S.R._ i. p. 336. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]

[129:2] _S.R._ ii. p. 23. [Tacitly corrected in ed. 6.]

[129:3] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 7 sq. I need not stop to inquire whether Tischendorf's 'nicht geschrieben hat' conveys exactly the same idea which is conveyed in English, 'has not written,' as our author assumes in his reply.

[129:4] [See above, p. 8.]

[129:5] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 9, note.

[131:1] _Fortnightly Review, l.c._ p. 18.

[131:2] [See above, p. 16 sq.]

[131:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5. The passover of the Passion cannot have been later than A.D. 36, because before the next passover Pilate had been superseded. This is the only _terminus ad quem_, so far as I am aware, which is absolutely decisive; and it would allow of a ministry of eight years. The probability is that it was actually much shorter, but it is only a probability.

[131:4] [See above, p. 14 sq.]

[132:1] I am afraid however that our author would not agree with me in regarding it as plainly the language of a man accustomed to think in Hebrew. He himself says (_S.R._ II. p. 413), 'Its Hebraisms are not on the whole greater than was almost invariably the case with Hellenic Greek.' Though the word is printed 'Hellenic,' not only in the four editions, but likewise in the author's own extract in the _Fortnightly Review_ (p. 19), I infer from the context, that it ought to be read 'Hellenistic,' [which word is tacitly substituted in ed. 6]. By 'Hellenic' would be meant the common language, as ordinarily spoken by the mass of the Greeks, and as distinguished from a literary dialect like the Attic; by 'Hellenistic,' the language of Hellenists, _i.e._, Greek-speaking Jews. The two things are quite different.

[132:2] _S.R._ II. p. 395.

[133:1] [See above, p. 17 sq.]

[133:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 20.

[134:1] _S.R._ I. p. 469; II. pp. 56, 59, 73, 326. [The last reference should be omitted: the words had been already withdrawn (ed. 4) before this Essay was written; but the language in the other references remains unaltered through six editions, and is only slightly modified in the Complete Edition.]

[134:2] [_S.R._ II. p. 421; and so ed. 6. The Complete Edition substitutes 'evident' for 'admitted.']

[136:1] Stanley _Sinai and Palestine_ p. 229.

[136:2] John iv. 35.

[137:1] [See above, p. 20 sq.]

[137:2] _Fortnightly Review_, _l.c._ p. 13.

[138:1] [See above, pp. 5, 55, 128.]

[138:2] [See above, p. 26.]

[139:1] _S.R._ I. p. 210. The italics are mine.

[139:2] Towards the close of his Reply the author makes some remarks on a 'Personal God,' in which he accuses me of misunderstanding him. It may be so, but then I venture to think that he does not quite understand himself, as he certainly does not understand me. I do not remember that he has anywhere defined the terms 'Personal' and 'Anthropomorphic,' as applied to Deity; and without definition, so many various conceptions may be included under the terms as to entangle a discussion hopelessly. No educated Christian, I imagine, believes in an anthropomorphic Deity in the sense in which this anthropomorphism is condemned in the noble passage of Xenophanes which he quotes in the first part of his work. In another sense, our author himself in his concluding chapter betrays his anthropomorphism; for he attributes to the Divine Being wisdom and beneficence and forethought, which are conceptions derived by man from the study of himself. Indeed, I do not see how it is possible to conceive of Deity except through some sort of anthropomorphism in this wider sense of the term, and certainly our author has not disengaged himself from it.

In spite of our author's repudiation in his reply, I boldly claim the writer of the concluding chapter of _Supernatural Religion_ as a believer in a Personal God, in the only sense in which I understand Personality as applied to the Divine Being. He distinctly attributes will and mind to the Divine Being, and this is the very idea of personality, as I conceive the term. He not only commits himself to a belief in a Personal God, but also in a wise and beneficent Personal God who cares for man. On the other hand, the writer of the first part of the work seemed to me to use arguments which were inconsistent with these beliefs.

[142:1] Iren. v. 33. 4 [Greek: Iôannou men akoustês, Polukarpou de hetairos gegonôs].

[143:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: Ouk oknêsô de soi kai hosa pote para tôn presbuterôn kalôs emathon kai kalôs emnêmoneusa sunkatataxai] [v.l. [Greek: suntaxai]] [Greek: tais hermêneiais, diabebaioumenos huper autôn alêtheian, k.t.l.] This same reference will hold for all the notices from Eusebius which are quoted in this article, unless otherwise stated.

[144:1] See above, p. 96 sq.

[145:1] _Hær._ iv. 27. 1, 3; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; v. 5. 1; v. 33. 3; v. 36. 1, 2.

[145:2] _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55, 'The blessed elder Irenæus.' Clement of Alexandria uses the same phrase of Pantænus; Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 14.

[145:3] _H.E._ iii. 3; v. 8; vi. 13.

[145:4] Heb. xi. 2.

[146:1] Weiffenbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ (Giessen, 1874) has advocated at great length the view that Papias uses the term as a title of office throughout, p. 34 sq; but he has not succeeded in convincing subsequent writers. His conclusions are opposed by Hilgenfeld _Papias von Hierapolis_ p. 245 sq (in his _Zeitschrift_, 1875), and by Leimbach _Das Papias-Fragment_ p. 63 sq. Weiffenbach supposes that the elders are distinguished from the Apostles and personal disciples whose sayings Papias sets himself to collect. This view demands such a violent wresting of the grammatical connection in the passage of _Papias_ that it is not likely to find much favour.

[146:2] In illustration of this use, it may be mentioned that in the Letter of the Gallican Churches (Euseb. _H.E._ v. 1) the term is applied to the Zacharias of Luke i. 5 sq.

[146:3] 1 Tim. v. 1, 2, 17, 19.

[147:1] See above, p. 103 sq.

[147:2] See Clinton, _Fast. Rom._ II. p. 385.

[147:3] This difficulty however cannot be regarded as serious. At the last (the sixtieth) anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, the _Times_ gave the names of no fewer than seventy-six Waterloo officers as still living.

[148:1] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 481 sq (ed. Bonn.); Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 15.

[148:2] There is no indication that the author of this Chronicle used any other document in this part besides the History of Eusebius and the extant Martyrology of Polycarp which Eusebius here quotes.

[149:1] The martyrdom of Papias is combined with that of Polycarp in the Syriac Epitome of the _Chronicon of Eusebius_ (p. 216, ed. Schöne). The source of the error is doubtless the same in both cases.

[149:2] _S.R._ i. p. 448.

[149:3] I had taken the latter view in an article on Papias which I wrote for the _Contemporary Review_ some years before these Essays; but I think now that the Apostle is meant, as the most ancient testimony points to him. I have given my reasons for this change of opinion in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.

[149:4] Acts xxi. 9.

[150:1] See above, p. 90.

[150:2] The chapter relating to Papias is the thirty-ninth of the third book; those relating to Polycarp are the fourteenth and fifteenth of the fourth book, where they interpose between chapters assigned to Justin Martyr and events connected with him.

[150:3] It is true that he uses the present tense once, [Greek: ha te Aristiôn kai ho presbuteros Iôannês ... _legousin_] [see above, p. 143], and hence it has been inferred that these two persons were still living when the inquiries were instituted. But this would involve a chronological difficulty; and the tense should probably be regarded as a historic present introduced for the sake of variety.

[150:4] _S.R._ I. p. 444, 'About the middle of the second century.' Elsewhere (II. p. 320) he speaks of Papias as 'flourishing in the second half of the second century.'

[151:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ 51 sq (p. 271 sq), 80 sq (p. 307); Irenæus _Hær._ v. 81 sq; Tertullian _adv. Marc._ iii. 24, _de Resurr. Carn._ 24.

[151:2] _Ep. Barn._ § 15.

[151:3] See above, p. 32 sq.

[152:1] See above, p. 41 sq.

[152:2] These are the expressions employed elsewhere of this Gospel; _H.E._ iii. 25, 27; iv. 22.

[152:3] _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: hên to kat' Hebraious euangelion periechei].

[152:4] Clem. _Strom._ ii. 9 (p. 453). Our author says, 'Clement of Alexandria quotes it [the Gospel according to the Hebrews] with quite the same respect as the other Gospels' (_S.R._ i. p. 422). He cannot have remembered, when he wrote this, that Clement elsewhere refuses authority to a saying in an Apocryphal Gospel because 'we do not find it in the four Gospels handed down to us' (_Strom._ iii. 13, p. 553). 'Origen,' writes our author again, 'frequently made use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews' (_l.c._). Yes; but Origen draws an absolute line of demarcation between our four Gospels and the rest. He even illustrates the relation of these Canonical Gospels to the Apocryphal by that of the true prophets to the false under the Jewish dispensation. _Hom. I. in Luc._ (III. p. 932). Any reader unacquainted with the facts would carry away a wholly false impression from our author's account of the use made of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

[152:5] _S.R._ I. pp. 272 sq, 332 sq. The fact that Eusebius did not know the source of this quotation (_H.E._ iii. 36), though he was well acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews, seems to me to render this very doubtful.

[153:1] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3817, [Greek: Papia Dii sôtêri].

[153:2] Boeckh 3930, 3912a App.: Mionnet iv. p. 301.

[153:3] Boeckh 3817.

[153:4] Galen _Op._ xii. p. 799 (ed. Kühn).

[153:5] One Rabbi Papias is mentioned in the Mishna _Shekalim_ iv. 7; _Edaioth_ vii. 6. I owe these references to Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.

[153:6] See above, p. 142.

[153:7] See above, p. 89 sq.

[154:1] [Greek: ho panu, ho polus]. The first passage will be found in the original Greek in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15 (comp. Migne _Patr. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 860, where only the Latin 'clarissimus' is given); the second in Migne _ib._ p. 961 (comp. Routh _l.c._ p. 16, where again only the Latin 'celebris' is given).

[155:1] Whether the first word should be singular or plural, 'Exposition' ([Greek: exêgêsis]) or 'Expositions' ([Greek: exêgêseis]), I need not stop to inquire. The important points are (1) that Papias uses [Greek: logiôn], not [Greek: logôn], 'oracles,' not 'words' or 'sayings'; (2) that he has [Greek: kuriakôn logiôn], not [Greek: logiôn tou Kuriou]--'Dominical Oracles,' not 'Oracles of the Lord.' I shall have occasion hereafter to call attention to both these facts, which are significant, as they give a much wider range to his subject-matter than if he had used the alternative expressions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[158:2] Hær. v. 33. 1 sq.

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

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

[160:1] _Hær._ Præf. 1; see also i. 3. 6: 'Not only do they attempt to make their demonstrations from the Evangelical and Apostolic [writings] by perverting the interpretations and falsifying the expositions [Greek: exêgêseis], but also from the law and the prophets; as ... being able to wrest what is ambiguous into many [senses] by their exposition' [Greek: dia tês exêgêseôs].

[161:1] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 898.

[161:2] Compare also the language of Hippolytus respecting the books of the Naassenes; _Hær._ v. 7, 'These are the heads of very numerous discourses ([Greek: pollôn panu logôn]), which they say that James,' etc.

[161:3] This same epithet 'foreign' ([Greek: allotrios]) is applied several times in the Ignatian Epistles to the Gnostic teaching which the writer is combating; _Rom._ inscr., _Trall._ 6, _Philad._ 3.

[161:4] Reasons are given by Dr Westcott in the fourth edition of his _History of the Canon_ p. 288.

[Footnote 5] _Strom._ iv. 12, p. 599.

[162:1] The following passage in _Supernatural Religion_ is highly instructive, as showing the inconsistencies involved in the author's view (I. p. 485): 'It is not possible that he [Papias] could have found it better to inquire "what John or Matthew, or what any other of the disciples of the Lord ... say," if he had known of Gospels such as ours,' ['and believed them to have been' inserted in the Complete Edition] 'actually written by them, deliberately telling him what they had to say. The work of Matthew which he mentions being, however, a mere collection of discourses of Jesus, he might naturally inquire what the Apostle himself said of the history of the Master.' Here the author practically concedes the point for which I am contending, and which elsewhere he resists; for he states that Papias as a sane man must, and as a matter of fact did, prefer _a book_ to oral tradition. In other words, he allows that when Papias disparages books (meaning Evangelical records, such as the St Matthew of Papias was on _any_ showing), he cannot intend all books of this class, but only such as our author himself arbitrarily determines that he shall mean. This point is not at all affected by the question whether the St Matthew of Papias did or did not contain doings, as well as sayings, of Christ. The only escape from these perplexities lies in supposing that a wholly different class of books is intended, as I have explained in the text.

[163:1] _S.R._ I. p. 445. It is not likely that our author would appreciate the bearing of these references to St Mark, because, as I pointed out in my first article [see above, p. 8], he mistranslated [Greek: ouden hêmarte] 'did no wrong,' instead of 'made no mistake,' thus obscuring the testimony of Papias to the perfect accuracy of the result of St Mark's conscientious labours. The translation is altered in the last edition, but the new rendering, 'committed no error in thus writing,' is ambiguous, though not incorrect.

[165:1] I. p. 456.

[165:2] I. p. 460. [So too ed. 6; but struck out in the Complete Edition.]

[166:1] I. p. 459.

[167:1] I. p. 460. [So also ed. 6; the word 'ever' disappears in the Complete Edition.]

[167:2] I. p. 447. This criticism is given above, p. 143 sq.

[167:3] I. p. 447.

[168:1] The manner in which Eusebius will tear a part of a passage from its context is well illustrated by his quotation from Irenæus, ii. 22. 5:--'A quadragesimo autem et quinquagesimo anno declinat jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus noster docebat, sicut Evangelium [et omnes seniores testantur, qui in Asiâ apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt] id ipsum [tradidisse eis Joannem. Permansit autem cum eis usque ad Trajani tempora]. Quidam autem eorum non solum Joannem, sed et alios Apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt et testantur de hujusmodi relatione.' Eusebius gives only the part which I have enclosed in brackets: _H.E._ iii. 23.

[169:1] I. p. 474.

[169:2] [I. p. 475. So also ed. 6; modified in the Complete Edition.]

[171:1] I. p. 465.

[171:2] _Introduction to the New Testament_, I. p. 109 sq (Eng. Transl.), where there is more to the same effect.

[171:3] _Einleitung in das Neue Testament_, p. 456 sq. 'An eine blosse Aufzeichnung der Reden Jesu hat er nicht einmal gedacht.... Nicht eine blosse Redensammlung, sondern ein vollständiges Evangelium lässt schon Papias den Matthäus hebräisch geschrieben haben.' See also pp. 54 sq, 454 sq.

[172:1] I. p. 470 sq, 'That Irenæus did not derive his information solely from Papias maybe inferred,' etc.... 'The evidence furnished by Pantænus in certainly independent of Papias.'

[172:2] _Einleitung_ pp. 54 sq, 456 sq.

[172:3] Photius _Bibl._ 228.

[173:1] I. p. 464. [And so all later editions.]

[174:1] _De Conj. erud. grat._ 24 (p. 538); _de Profug._ 11 (p. 555). Elsewhere he says that all things which are written in the sacred books (of Moses) are oracles ([Greek: chrêsmoi]) pronounced ([Greek: chrêsthentes]) through him; and he proceeds to distinguish different kinds of [Greek: logia] (_Vit. Moys._ iii. 23, p. 163).

[174:2] Clem. Rom. 53 [Greek: enkekuphate eis ta _logia_ tou [Theou].] Elsewhere (§ 45) he uses the expression [Greek: enkuptein eis tas graphas].

[174:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.

[174:4] Iren. _Hær._ i. 8. 1.

[174:5] Clem. Alex. _Coh. ad Gent._ p. 84 (ed. Potter), _Strom._ i. p. 392.

[175:1] _De Princ_. iv. 11 (I. p. 168, Delarue), _in Matth._ x. § 6 (III. p. 447).

[175:2] _Hom._ xi. 5 (II. p. 96); _ib._ xii. 1 (p. 97).

[175:3] See p. 163.

[176:1] I. p. 466.

[176:2] Our author has not mentioned the various reading [Greek: logôn] for [Greek: logiôn] here, though Hilgenfeld speaks of it as the reading of the 'best editions.' If it were correct, it would upset his argument; but the most recent critical editor, Laemmer, has adopted [Greek: logiôn].

[177:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 20. 2; Dion. Cor. in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.

[177:2] _Ep. Barn._ 4, 5. The bearing of this fact on the testimony of Papias is pointed out in an able and scholarly article on _Supernatural Religion_ in the April [1875] number of the _Dublin Review_, p. 403.

[177:3] [The Essay on the Epistle of Barnabas was never written; see the Preface to this Reprint.]

[178:1] See above, p. 34 sq.

[178:2] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46 sq.]

[179:1] [Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, pp. xi--xxiii.]

[179:2] [The passage quoted occurs above, p. 38 'Eusebius therefore proposes--however precise.']

[179:3] Preface to _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xv.

[180:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]

[180:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi.

[182:1] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 11. 1.

[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,' etc.

[182:3] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 1. 1.

[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.

[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.

[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.

[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]

[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]

[184:3] II. p. 166.

[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]

[184:5] I. p. 483.

[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]

[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]

[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.

[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me) unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June [1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of _Supernatural Religion_.

[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.

[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514 sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_, that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.

[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert 'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek: kai autos, kathôs hêdunato parakolouthein, outôs ethêke, k.t.l.]), 'And he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage is quite independent of any textual conjectures.

[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek tôn mathêtôn], where [Greek: mathêtês], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and Irenæus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who had been taught directly by Christ.

[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legôn eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former part of the sentence.

[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this Gospel was composed.

[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II. p. 323.

[191:2] See above, p. 49.

[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]

[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.

[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note is omitted in the Complete Edition.]

[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]

[194:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 36. 1, 2.

[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]

[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly, though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other, in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek: en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making [Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from [Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.

A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after (p. 332), I find the work of Irenæus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenæus and Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed. II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_ was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page to be 'carefully revised.'

[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).

[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).

[196:1] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1. Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures of Irenæus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed. Kühn). The discourses which Irenæus reports from the lips of this anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate, that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to account for them.

[197:1] See above, p. 143.

[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.

[198:1] See above, p. 158.

[198:2] Iren. _Hær._ v. 6. 1.

[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.

[199:2] See above, p. 143.

[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]

[200:2] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).

[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a philosophical allegory, and Irenæus, who regards it as a supramundane abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main point which he has in view.

[201:1] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.

[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.

[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse, emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p. 186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).

[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.

[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55.

[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.

[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.

[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.

[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.

[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]

[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.

[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.

[208:1] Euseb. _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome, who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist. 120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam _sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non _sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'

[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.

[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.

[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis anapempsantes _anankaiôs_ nun prosthêsomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek: tauta d' hêmin _anankaiôs_ pros tois ektetheisin epitetêrêsthô].

[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7 sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._

[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.

[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).

[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.

[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._ (1875), p. 258.

[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6 (III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepôkasi de potêrion kai to baptisma ebaptisthêsan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Hêrôdês men apekteinen Iakôbon ton Iôannou machaira, ho de Rhômaiôn basileus, hôs hê paradosis didaskei, katedikase ton Iôannên marturounta dia ton tês alêtheias logon eis Patmon tên nêson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).

[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237 (1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in _Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.

[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's suggestion of the spurious Papias.

[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by the Palæographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.

[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Græc. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder), [Greek: haireseôn anaphueisôn deinôn hupêgoreuse to euangelion tô heautou mathêtê Papia eubiôtô] (_sic_) [Greek: tô hierapolitê, k.t.l.].

[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsâ (apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].

[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]

[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]

[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Cæsarea will be found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name. Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was said by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en hupodeigmasi].

[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]

[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius (_Hær._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with special reference to the Gospel, by Irenæus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.

[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.

[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868); and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq, 1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.]

[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.

[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.

[218:1] See above, p. 189.

[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tês Hellados, ho Iônikos].

[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.

[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.

[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.

[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.

[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.

[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.

[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.

[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.

[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.

[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 1.

[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 6 [Greek: ho keklêrômenos to auto onoma, Hêrôdês epilegomenos], where [Greek: keklêrômenos] (not [Greek: kai klêronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,' _i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.

[221:2] _ib._ § 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.

[221:3] _ib._ § 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi hupêrchon].

[221:4] _ib._ § 8.

[221:5] _ib._ § 7 [Greek: hos epi lêstên]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.

[221:6] _ib._ § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.

[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are not serious. See above, p. 103.

[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.

[222:1] John xii. 28.

[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. § 5.

[222:3] _ib._ § 12 [Greek: edei gar to tês ... optasias plêrôthênai hote ... eipen, k.t.l.]

[222:4] John xii. 33.

[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iêsou plêrôthê, hon eipen sêmainôn k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch says (§ 12), [Greek: _mê einai exon_ autô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case, the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hêmin ouk exestin_ apokteinai oudena.]

[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16 [Greek: exêlthe [peristera kai] plêthos haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words [Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka] according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted altogether as in the text of Eusebius.

[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.

[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 15.

[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.

[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16.

[223:2] _ib._ § 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.

[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.

[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p. 507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.

[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.

[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antôninon biblidion]. The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.

[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[224:2] See above, p. 218.

[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_ speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete Edition].

[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences are not important enough to be considered here.

[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the Syriac fragments.

[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.

[227:1] See above, p. 177.

[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.

[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' autôn apomnêmoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].

[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.

[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.

[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.

[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.

[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.

[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.

[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Græc._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.

[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.

[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.

[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction between [Greek: phonê] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek: phonê boôntos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].

[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.] 'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the early Church bearing the name of Melito.

[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 61 (p. 284).

[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 34 (p. 251).

[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).

[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).

[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.

[237:1] See above, p. 202.

[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.

[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.

[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.

[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.

[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.

[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.

[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollôn para pollois sôzomenôn, ta eis hêmas elthonta esti tade.]

[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.]

[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).

[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.

[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius, _l.c._

[240:1] [See above, p. 17].