Chapter IV: Preface (3)

The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the
neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain,
_Carura_ (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the _twelve cities_,
_Sardis_ being the worst sufferer (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 7, Plin. _N.H._ ii.
86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 _Cibyra_
(Tac. _Ann._ iv. 13); A.D. 53 _Apamea_ (Tac. _Ann._ xii. 58): about
A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et _Asiæ_ oppida’ (Capitol.
_Anton. Pius_ 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, _Smyrna_ and other
cities (_Chron. Pasch._ I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. _Or._ xx, xxi,
xli; see Clinton _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg _Griechenland_
etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell.
_Gallien._ 5 ‘Malum tristius in _Asiæ_ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terræ
plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,’ ib. 6
‘vastatam _Asiam_ ... elementorum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p.
579) that _Philadelphia_ is more or less shaken daily (καθ’ ἡμέραν),
and that _Apamea_ has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

Footnote 126:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27 ‘Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asiæ urbibus Laodicea,
tremore terræ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus
revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv.
20). Two different writers, in _Smith’s Dictionary of Geography_ and
_Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_, s.v. Laodicea, place the
destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this
earthquake with an earlier one (_Ann._ ii. 47). By this earlier
earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asiæ urbes conlapsæ,’ but their names
are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 127:

Euseb. _Chron._ Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. Schöne) ‘In Asia tres
urbes terræ motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis Colossæ.’ The
Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in
order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference
of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to
this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that
Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. _ib._ v. 289.

Footnote 128:

This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

Footnote 129:

I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign
of Tiberius. Tacitus (_Ann._ ii. 47) states that _twelve_ cities were
ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions
this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (_N.H._ ii.
86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, _Chron._ Ol. 198 (II. p.
146 sq., ed. Schöne), names _thirteen_ cities, coinciding with Tacitus
as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was
found at Puteoli (see Gronov. _Thes._ _Græc. Ant._ VII. p. 433 sq.),
and is now in the Museum at Naples (_Museo Borbonico_ XV, Tav. iv, v),
dedicated to Tiberius and representing _fourteen_ female figures with
the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the
same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and
Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments
mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (_Fragm._ 42, Müller’s
_Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the
liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the
ruined cities (see Eckhel _Doct. Num. Vet._ VI. 192 sq.). But no
earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of
such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (_Ann._ iv. 13) six years
later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief
which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But
we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously
injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same
night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain
the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. _Ann._ ii.
47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the
lost portion of the fifth book of the _Annals_ which comprised the
years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct
testimony of Eusebius.

Footnote 130:

Hertzberg (_Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer_,
II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different
events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a
few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

Footnote 131:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact
allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107
Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν
πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt
rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was
written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned
above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

Footnote 132:

See below, p. 43.

[Sidenote: St Mark’s intended visit.]

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Colossæ.] that in the interval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between this place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.

Footnote 133:

Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion
with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this
reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends
a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to
Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark
and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ
σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit
to Colossæ was paid.

Footnote 134:

2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (_Oriens Christ._ I. p. 833)
substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from
the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.

Footnote 135:

It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first
captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches
of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited
personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St
Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely,
but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters
would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of
Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces
mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

Footnote 136:

Rev. iii. 14–21.

[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul’s
Epistles.]

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these Churches. Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied.

[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, the _completeness_, of the Person of Christ.

Footnote 137:

Col. i. 15–18.

Footnote 138:

Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord
(ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language
of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other
six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

Footnote 139:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 140:

Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 141:

Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be
noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the
promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double
coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the
whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be
fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the
earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As with the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.

Footnote 142:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 143:

Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its
chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very
probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be
still more striking; see Trench’s _Epistles to the Seven Churches in
Asia_, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197
sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again with more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of Laodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the concessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit[145].’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of nothing.’

Footnote 144:

Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the
definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the
embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

Footnote 145:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Footnote 146:

In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as
happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities),
iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their
obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier
occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar
circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p.
579.

[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve their wants[151].

Footnote 147:

See the next chapter of this introduction.

Footnote 148:

Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 149:

i. 27.

Footnote 150:

ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 151:

Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The _eyes of your understanding being enlightened_,
that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the _riches of
the glory of his inheritance_ in the saints.’

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early disciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip among the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.

Footnote 152:

_Canon Murator._ fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s
_Ancient Syriac Documents_ pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. _H.E._
iii. 39.

Footnote 153:

Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later Church.

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote: Philip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and here after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote: Their traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who resided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his work[157].

Footnote 154:

Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] _τῶν
δώδεκα ἀποστόλων_, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες
αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι
πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the
statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common
looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. _H.E._ iii.
30), ἣ καὶ _τοὺς ἀποστόλους_ ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ
Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν
ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the _Dialogue between Caius and
Proclus_, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at
Hierapolis (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες
αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν
ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the _four_
daughters _prophesying_ identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8).
Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the
Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are
appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to
relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After
Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are
sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the
presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his
companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the
Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member
of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many
days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be
questioned. Yet Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 31) assumes the identity of the
Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the _Dialogue
of Caius and Proclus_ as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the
language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (_H.E._
iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias
with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be
the same who are mentioned in the Acts.

My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was
not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is
distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop
of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed
to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early
traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of
Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of
information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an
Ionian Greek (_Strom._ I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends
solely on the authority of the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_. I have
given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the
Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was
written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (_Journal of Philology_ I. p.
98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a
Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at
least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is
inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four
daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents
them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the
particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates
is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would
naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also
drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly
resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had
a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also
for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9).
Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as
inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting
the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who
heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles τί
Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip
the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with
the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip
intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It
should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such
channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at
Hierapolis; Tischendorf, _Act. Apost. Apocr._ p. 75 sq.

On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the
Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the
tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their
spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the
phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of
Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality.
There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were
married and had daughters.

Footnote 155:

John xii. 20.

Footnote 156:

See above p. 45, note 154.

Footnote 157:

Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those
particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books, entitled _An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord_, using the information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects[159].

Footnote 158:

See Westcott, _Canon_ p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the
nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in
the _Contemporary Review_ Aug. 1867, where I have collected and
investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias’
work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and
illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor
points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the
Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was
written.

Footnote 159:

Euseb. l.c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν
παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπο]; τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων
μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν
γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν
ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός κ.τ.λ. The information respecting the
raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip,
as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened
in Papias’ own time (κατ’ αὐτόν). It will be remembered that even
Irenæus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (_Hær._
ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of
Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.

[Sidenote: Life and teaching of PAPIAS.]

If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first century. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161]. Otherwise [Sidenote: Account of Eusebius.]he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character.

Footnote 160:

Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias,
is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis,
not only in inscriptions (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3930, 3912 a add.)
but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact
that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 Παπίᾳ Διῒ
σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (Lobeck
_Aglaoph._ p. 1048; see Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1051). Hence as
the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g.
Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. In
an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious
conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) Παππίας
Τροφίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κ.τ.λ. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no.
718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian
names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which
with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology,
and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins
are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of
Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since
elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in
Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.

Footnote 161:

_Chron. Pasch._ sub ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ’ ἀπὸ
Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ· καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς
ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια.
See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. _Chron._ (II. p. 216 ed. Schöne)
‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias,
quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version
of the _Chronicon_ mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says
‘Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15)
Eusebius, after quoting the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_ at length, adds ἐν
τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ _ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο_ ... μεθ’
ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται· τῶν γε μὴν τὸτε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων
εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο _Πιόνιος_ ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ
πόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ
_Παπύλου_ καὶ γυναικὸς Ἀγαθονίκης κ.τ.λ. He here falls into the
serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus,
and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from
their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For
the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see _Act. SS. Bolland._ Feb.
1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, _ib._ April 13. The
Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (_Act. Sinc. Mart._
p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius.
Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were
probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition
of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been
perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in
the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them
through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the
same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this
passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names
Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement
respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome,
as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the
martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death
at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his
longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp’s martyrdom is fixed by
various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton’s _Fast. Rom._ I. p.
157).

Footnote 162:

_H E._ iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36),
as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling
him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, but
this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see
_Contemporary Review_ l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one
who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him
justice.

Footnote 163:

Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.

Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however, which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.

Footnote 164:

See on this subject Westcott _Canon_ p. 64 sq.; _Contemporary Review_
l.c. p. 12 sq.

[Sidenote: A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor
stated and discussed.]

It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important representative[165].

Footnote 165:

The theory of the Tübingen school may be studied in Baur’s
_Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_ or in Schwegler’s
_Nachapostolisches Zeitalter_. It has been reproduced (at least as far
as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 366 sq.

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line.

[Sidenote: The position of St John]

Of St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case is not different. [Sidenote: and of Papias.]The advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings. Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.

Footnote 166:

See above p. 41 sq.

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.

[Sidenote: 1. The traditions collected by Papias.]

(1) The range of _personal testimony_ which Papias would be able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St Paul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes.

[Sidenote: 2. His references to the Canonical writings.]

(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or references to the _Canonical writings_ the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not [Sidenote: No weight to be attached to the silence of Eusebius.] even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘employs some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence in the case of Papias[170].

Footnote 167:

§ 3.

Footnote 168:

_H.E._ iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους
αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου
προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to
Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in
an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in
which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to
illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there
is purely accidental.

Footnote 169:

_H.E._ v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ
αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.

Footnote 170:

It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never
been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet
thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the Tübingen views of early
Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of
Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the
omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and
Irenæus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his
silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of
the epistle of the Roman Clement (_H.E._ iii. 38), he alludes to the
coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the
direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which
is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and
patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.

[Sidenote: The views of Papias inferred from his associates.]

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenæus ample evidence lies before us. _Noscitur a sociis_ is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenæus[171]. Is it probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affecting the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doctrinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian views.

Footnote 171:

Iren. _Hær._ v. 33. 4.

[Sidenote: Millennarian views consistent with the recognition of St
Paul.]

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and conscious rejection is all important for the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Neither in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found inconsistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the early Church Irenæus and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been commonly associated with the staunchest adherence to the fundamental doctrines of St Paul.

[Sidenote: ABERCIUS probably his successor.]

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name ABERCIUS or AVIRCIUS[172]. His legendary Acts assign his episcopate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one [Sidenote: His journeys.] visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without parallels in the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may have influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may assume the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.

Footnote 172:

The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist _Acta
Sanctorum_ Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other
incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla,
the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling
the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the
air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves,
contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems
to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts.
This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by
Pitra, _Spicil. Solesm._ III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one
Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his
life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who
taught him trustworthy writings (γράμματα πιστά) and sent him to visit
queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of
baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he
crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a
banquet the ιχθυς from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He
states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening
with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of
this inscription to others found _in situ_ in the cemetery at
Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very
striking. The commencement Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως closely resembles the form
of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3906; the
enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one
Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages
round the promontory of Malea to Italy (_ib._ 3920); and lastly, the
prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition
of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is
violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on
tombstones in this city (_ib._ 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of
this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he
himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the
legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by
which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the
empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an
interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German
campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the
Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (_Civiltà Cattolica_ 1856, I. p.
683, II. p. 84, quoted in the _Acta Sanct._ l.c.), whose criticisms
however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every
mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some
interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.

The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius
held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of
Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. _Conc._
IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor
of the Church at this late date would have declared his office
plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the
expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of
Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of
Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts
than elsewhere. Already the word χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ is found on
tombstones of the third century; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3857 g, 3857 p,
3865 l; see Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault
unless we accept the statement in the Acts.

And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date
and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some
adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether
without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name
lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An
unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his
work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written.
Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates
that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in
Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day
with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He
then goes on to say; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς _τῶν
εἰρημένων δή τις_ ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ
πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε,
ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘One of the
aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them
(the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the
Abercius of the epitaph?

But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live?
Some MSS omit δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, thus making
Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have
been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if
they are omitted, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν,
where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously;
and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the
authority of the original text of the historian himself.

But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though
Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession
three συγγράμματα or treatises, speaking of them as though they
emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the
address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been
composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius
himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris,
iv. 27 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); but
the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time
after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a
volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by
Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the
several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would
explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also
account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the
omission of δή τις in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly
substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus,
Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information,
ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how
Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several
martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were
collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have
endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which
was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (_Caius or
Hippolytus?_ in the _Journal of Philology_ I. p. 98 sq.).

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the
author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have
been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his
bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see
of Hierapolis.

If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first
treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have
written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus
to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during
the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161–180); and, if he was ever bishop of
this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius
Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the
identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the
same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his
episcopate in this reign.

The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of
Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this
earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of
sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in
primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one
of several examples which might be produced.

There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris,
Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands
an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this
Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes
as ‘apostolicum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his
Annals (_Martyr. Rom._ Oct. 22). To his great grief however he
afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam
nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise
(_Annal._ s. a. 163, n. 15). A βίβλος διδασκαλίας by Abercius is
mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was
doubtless spurious.

[Sidenote: CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS bishop of Hierapolis.]

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS. His surname, which seems to have been common in these parts[173], may have been derived from the patron deity of Hierapolis[174] and suggests a Gentile origin. His intimate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].

Footnote 173: