[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 exonautô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case, the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek:hêmin ouk exestinapokteinai 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 Asiatiquesp. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington'sVoyage Archéologique etc.Borghesi (Oeuvresviii. p. 507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.
[223:5] Euseb.l.c.See OttoCorp. 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 ofSupernatural Religionspeaks 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 MartyrApol.i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared withib.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 OttoCorp. 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 JeromeVir. Ill.24.
[230:1] Euseb.H.E.v. 28.
[230:2] Migne'sPatrol. Græc.xxxix. p. 228 sq.
[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.
[232:1] Given in Pitra'sSpicil. Solesm.ii. p. lix. sq, and in Cureton'sSpicil. 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 theribui, 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 IgnatiusRom.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 MartyrDial.§ 61 (p. 284).
[235:2] Justin MartyrDial.§ 34 (p. 251).
[235:3] Justin MartyrDial.§ 100 (p. 327).
[236:1] Justin MartyrDial.§ 100 (p. 327).
[236:2] SeeSpicil. Solesm.I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences in the same way. Seeib.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 OttoCorp. 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] PhotiusBibl.14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.]
[238:6]Chron. Pasch.p. 13 (ed. Dind.).
[238:7] Theodoret,H.F.i. 21.
[239:1] Serapion,l.c.; Eusebius,H.E.iv. 21; Jerome,Ep.70 (I. p. 428); Theodoret,H.F.iii. 2; Socrates,H.E.iii. 7; Photius,l.c.
[240:1] [See above, p. 17].
[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh, apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (Rel. Sacr.I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont, where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p. 91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because thisPeterof Alexandria is likewise quoted in the preface of theChronicon Paschale, and the question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (ib.p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see PhotiusBibl.cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the text.]
Our author also by way of discrediting theChronicon Paschaleas a witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without hesitation.
[242:1]Die ält. Zeugn.p. 105, quoted by Otto.
[242:2]S.R.II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
[243:1] TheodoretH. F.i. 21; iii. 2.
[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'
[243:3] JeromeVir. Ill.26.
[243:4] Euseb.H.E.iv. 26.
[244:1] Euseb.H.E.vi. 13.
[244:2] Euseb.H.E.v. 24.
[244:3]S.R.II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris ([Greek: to alêthinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself taking the opposite view.
[245:2] Iren.Hær.ii. 22.
[247:1] See above, p. 131.
[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]
[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not [Greek: neos], at the time of the Passion, as if he too had some adversary in view;Fragm.12 (p. 418). This is an incidental confirmation of the statement of Irenæus respecting the Asiatic elders.
[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this elder with Papias.
[248:3] Iren.Hær.iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.
[248:4] Iren.Hær.iv. 27 sq.
[248:5] Euseb.H.E.v. 24.
[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.
[249:2] Acts v. 29.
[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards.
[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid.Etym.xv. 1.
[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius,H.E.v. 1, and may be read conveniently in RouthRel. Sacr.I. p. 295 sq.
[253:1] See the references in TillemontMémoiresII. p. 343.
[253:2] Euseb.H.E.v. 3.
[253:3] Euseb.H.E.v. 4.
[254:1] Euseb.H.E.v. 24.
[255:1]S.R.II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated 'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find substituted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition (II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is substituted for the above, and defended at some length.]
[256:1]Protev.23. See TischendorfEvang. Apocr.p. 44.
[257:1]S.R.II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom,which Luke does not mention.' I have already had occasion to point out instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues throughout on the assumption that the memory of early Christian writers was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]
TheProtevangeliumbears all the characteristics of a romance founded partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some passages certainly are borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken (e.g.§§ 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51, the writer assuming the identity of this Zacharias with the Baptist's father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes assigned to theProtevangelium(though it may have been written somewhere about the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of § 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx. 25. This, as it so happens, is the part of theProtevangeliumto which Clement of Alexandria (Strom.vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other portion of the work.
[258:1]S.R.II. p. 381.
[259:1]S.R.II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons] some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events which had occurred…. This Epistle has in great part been preserved by Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenæus] was deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenæus is made the bearer of the Epistle.
This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters—the letter to the Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution, which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenæus was certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which Irenæus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence recommending Irenæus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb.H.E.v. 3, 4.
[260:1] Iren. iii. 3. 3.
[260:2] Iren. iii. 21. 1.
[260:3]De Pond. et Mens.16, 17. Epiphanius states that Antoninus Pius was succeeded by Caracalla, who also bore the names of Geta and M. Aurelius Verus, and who reigned seven years; that L. Aurelius Commodus likewise reigned these same seven years; that Pertinax succeeded next, and was followed by Severus; that in the time of Severus Symmachus translated the LXX; that 'immediately after him, that is, in the reign of the second Commodus, who reigned for thirteen years after the before-mentioned L. Aurelius Commodus,' Theodotion published his translation; with more of the same kind. TheChronicon Paschalealso assigns this version to the reign of Commodus, and even names the year A.D. 184; but the compiler's testimony is invalidated by the fact that he repeats the words of Epiphanius, from whom he has obviously borrowed.
I should be sorry to say (without thoroughly sifting the matter), that even in this mass of confusion there may not be an element of truth; but it is strange to see how our author's habitual scepticism deserts him just where it would be most in place.
[261:1]S.R.II. p. 213, 'We are therefore brought towards the end of the episcopate of Eleutherus as the earliest date at which thefirst three booksof his work against Heresies can well have been written, and the restmustbe assigned to a later period under the episcopate of Victor (+198-199).' [So also in the Complete Edition.] The italics are my own.
[262:1] Our author sums up thus (II. p. 203 sq); 'The state of the case, then, is as follows: We find a coincidence in a few words in connection with Zacharias between the Epistle [of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons] and our Third Gospel; but so far from the Gospel being in any way indicated as their source, the words in question are, on the contrary, in association with' ['connected with' Compl. Ed.] 'a reference to events unknown to our Gospel, but which were indubitably chronicled elsewhere. It follows clearly, andfew venture to doubt the fact, that the allusion in the Epistle is to a Gospel different from ours, and not to our third Synoptic at all.' Of 'the events unknown to our Gospel' I have disposed in the text. But the statement which I have italicized is still more extraordinary. I am altogether unable to put any interpretation upon the words which is not directly contradictory to the facts, and must therefore suppose that we have here again one of those extraordinary misprints, which our author has pleaded on former occasions. As a matter of fact, the references to the Third and Fourth Gospels in this letter are all but universally allowed, even by critics the least conservative. They are expressly affirmed, for instance, by Hilgenfeld (Einleitungp. 73) and by Scholten (Die ältesten Zeugnissep. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the passage in the Epistle, therefore, could not have been derived from our third Synoptic, the natural inference is that the whole emanates from a Gospel, different from ours, which likewise contained that part.']
[263:1]S.R.II. p. 474.
[264:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4, 'Whom we also saw in early life ([Greek: en tê prôtê hêmôn hêlikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu gêraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This passage suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, Irenæus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenæus saw him, since the words [Greek: panu gêraleos] refer, not to the period of their intercourse, but to the time of his martyrdom. A comparison with a parallel expression relating to St John in ii. 22. 5, [Greek: paremeine gar autois mechri k.t.l], will show that the inference, even when thus limited, is precarious, and that the [Greek: gar] does not necessarily imply as much. Extreme views with respect to the bearing of this passage are taken on the one hand by ZieglerIrenæus der Bischof von Lyonp. 15 sq, and on the other by LeimbachWann ist Irenäus geborenp. 622 sq (inStud. u. Krit.1873), in answer to Ziegler.
[264:2] See above, p. 103 sq.
[265:1] See above, p. 98, note 1.
[265:2] See above, p. 96 sq.
[265:3] See the last reference, where the passage is given in full.
[265:4] See above, p. 253.
[266:1] Iren. iv. 27. 1 sq.
[266:2] See above, p. 196, note.
[266:3] See above, p. 247 sq.
[267:1] See above, p. 253. The author ofSupernatural Religionhimself (II. p. 211) writes: 'It is not known how long Irenæus remained in Rome, but there is every probability that he must have made a somewhat protracted stay, for the purpose of making himself acquainted with the various tenets of Gnostic and other heretics,' etc.
There is reason to think that this was not his first visit to Rome. The notice at the end of the Moscow MS of theMartyrium Polycarpi, recently collated by Gebhardt (seeZeitschr. f. Hist. Theol.1875, p. 362 sq), states that Irenæus, 'being in Rome at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp, taught many,' and that it was recorded in his writings how at the precise time of his master's death he heard a voice announcing the occurrence. This story is not unlikely to have had some foundation in fact.
[267:2] PhotiusBibl.121; see above, p. 196. It is not stated where these lectures were delivered; but inasmuch as we know Hippolytus only as the Bishop of Portus and as dwelling in Rome and the neighbourhood, the metropolis is the most likely place, in the absence of direct evidence.
[267:3] [See above, p. 219.]
[268:1] It is only necessary to refer to the account of Jews given by an intelligent author like Tacitus (Hist.v. 1. sq). It is related, he says, that the Jews migrated to Libya from Ida in Crete, about the time when Saturn was expelled from his kingdom by Jupiter, and were thence calledIudæi, i.e. Idæi. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being over-populated in the reign of Isis, a multitude, led by their chieftains Hierosolymus and Judas, settled in the neighbouring lands. He states it, moreover, as an account in which 'plurimi auctores consentiunt,' that the Jews consecrated an image of an ass in their temple, because a herd of these animals had disclosed to them copious springs of water in their wanderings; these wanderings lasted six days continuously; on the seventh they obtained possession of the land, where they built their city and temple; with more to the same effect. All this he writes, though at the time the Jews in Rome counted by tens of thousands, any one of whom would have set him right. The comparatively venial error of Justin, who mistook the Sabine deitySemo SancusforSimo Sanctus, cannot be judged harshly in the face of these facts.
[270:1] Clem. Alex.Strom.iii. 13, p. 553.
[272:1] [See the note at the close of this Essay.]
[273:1] The principal ancient authorities for the life of Tatian are the following:—TatianOrat. ad Græc.19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1; Rhodon, in Euseb.H.E.v. 13; Clement of AlexandriaStrom.iii. 12, p. 547;Exc. Theod.38, p. 999; EusebiusH.E.iv. 16, 28, 29; EpiphaniusHær.xlvi.; TheodoretHær. Fab.i. 20. The statements in the text are justified by one or other of these references.
[273:2] All the references toSupernatural Religionin this article will be found in II. pp. 148 sq, 374 sq.
[273:3]e.g.Clement of Alexandria (l.c.p. 547) gives Tatian's comment on 1 Cor. vii. 5; and Jerome writes (Pref. ad Tit.vii. p. 686), 'Tatianus, Encratitarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit.'
[274:1] Hort (Journal of Philology, iii. p. 155 sq,On the date of Justin Martyr) places it as early as A.D. 148.
[274:2] Iren. i. 28. 1.
[274:3] See above, p. 260 sq.
[274:4] Clem. Alex.Strom. i. 1 (p. 322).
[275:1] See WestcottHistory of Canonp. 116 sq, where this point is brought out. Many erroneous deductions have been drawn from the reserve of the Apologists by writers who have overlooked it.
[277:1] Euseb.H.E.v. 29.
[278:1] [This sentence is omitted in the Complete Edition, where see I. p. 150.]
[278:2] The references are: Pref. 1; i. 14, 38, 42, 49, 50, 58; ii. 15, 44, 48, 49; iii. 35; iv. 14, 68, 86, 98; v. 8, 58; vi. 65, 81; vii. 8, 56; viii. 42, 45, 48, 59.
[278:3] This work first appeared in a mutilated form in Cureton's posthumous volume,Ancient Syriac Documentsp. 6 sq (London, 1864), from MSS in the British Museum, and has recently been published entire by Dr Phillips,The Doctrine of Addai(London, 1876), from a St Petersburgh MS. In the British Museum MS which contains this part, the word is corrupted intoDitornon, which has no meaning; but Cureton conjectured that the reading wasDiatessaron(see pp. 15; 158), and his conjecture is confirmed by the St Petersburgh MS, which distinctly so reads (see Phillips, p. 94). In the Armenian version (Lettre d'Abgare, Venise, 1868, p, 41), a mention of theTrinityis substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if so, it presents a parallel to theDiapentein the text of Victor of Capua, mentioned below.
[279:1] Wright'sCataloguepp. 1082, 1083.
[279:2] Euseb.H.E.i. 13.
[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in theGötting. Gelehrte Anzeigen, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this document I am unable to accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work itself is a much earlier and authentic document, and that the passages containing these anachronisms are interpolations.
[280:1] The exact date of his death is given in a Syriac MS in the British Museum (Wright'sCataloguep. 947) as 'Ann. Græc. 684.'
[280:2] Assem.Bibl. Orient.ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should be warned that Assemani's translations are loose and often misleading. More correct renderings are given here.
[281:1] Euseb.Op.iv. p. 1276 (ed. Migne) [Greek: Ammônios men ho Alexandreus … to dia tessarôn hêmin kataleloipen euangelion, tô kata Matthaion tas homophônous tôn loipôn euangelistôn perikopas paratheis, hos ex anankês sumbênai ton tês akolouthias heirmon tôn triôn diaphtharânai, hoson epi tô huphei anagnôseôs]—i.e.'He placed side by side with the Gospel according to Matthew the corresponding passages of the other Evangelists, so that as a necessary result the connection of sequence in the three was destroyed, so far as regards the order (texture) of reading.'
[281:2] Assem.Bibl. Orient.ii. p. 158. See HilgenfeldEinleitungp. 77.
[281:3] The confusion of later Syrian writers may be explained without difficulty:—
(i) Bar-Hebræus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem.Bibl. Orient.i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Cæsarea, seeing the corruptions which Ammonius of Alexandria introduced into the Gospel of theDiatessaron, that isMiscellanies, which commenced,In the beginning was the Word, and which Mar Ephraem expounded, kept the Four Gospels in their integrity, etc.' It is tolerably plain, I think, from the language of this writer, that he had before him the passage of Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding passage), and that he misunderstood him, as if he were speaking of the same work throughout. From the coincidence in the strange interpretation of Diatessaron, it is clear that the two passages are not independent. Assemani has omitted this interpretation in his translation in both cases, and has thus obliterated the resemblance.
(ii) To the same source also we may refer the error of Ebed-Jesu in the beginning of the fourteenth century, who not only confuses the books but the men. He writes (Assem.Bibl. Orient.iii. p. 12): 'A Gospel which was compiled by a man of Alexandria, Ammonius, who is also Tatian; and he called itDiatessaron.' He too supposed the two independent sentences of Bar-Salibi to refer to the same thing. In the preface to his collection of canons however, he gives a description of Tatian's work which is substantially correct: 'Tatianus quidam philosophus cum evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cepisset, et scopum scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo cum cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta fuere, servasset, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (MaiScript. Vet. Nov. Coll.x. pp. 23, 191).
(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon,s.v.(see Payne SmithThes. Syr.p. 870),Diatessaronis defined as 'the compiled Gospel (made) from the four Evangelists,' and it is added: 'This was composed in Alexandria, and was written by Tatian the Bishop.' The mention of Alexandria suggests that here also there is some confusion with Ammonius, though neither Ammonius nor Tatian was a bishop. Bar-Bahlul flourished in the latter half of the tenth century; and if this notice were really his, we should have an example (doubtful however) of this confusion, earlier than Bar-Salibi. But these Syrian Lexicons have grown by accretion; the MSS, I am informed, vary considerably; and we can never be sure that any word or statement emanated from the original compiler.
Since writing the above, I am able to say, through the kindness of Dr Hoffmann, that in the oldest known MS of Bar-Bahlul, dated A.H. 611,i.e., A.D. 1214, this additional sentence about Tatian is wanting, as it is also in another MS of which he sends me an account through Professor Wright. It is no part therefore of the original Bar-Bahlul. Thus all the instances of confusion in Syriac writers are later than Bar-Salibi, and can be traced to a misunderstanding of his language.
[282:1]H.E.i. 20. The Syrian lexicographer Bar Ali also, who flourished about the end of the ninth century, mentions that Tatian omitted both the genealogies: see Payne Smith'sThes. Syr. s.v.p. 869 sq.
[283:1] TheodoretEpist.113 (iv. p. 1190, ed. Schulze).
[283:2] Zahn (Gött. Gel. Anz.p. 184) points out that Aphraates also, a somewhat older Syrian father than Ephraem, appears to have used thisDiatessaron. In his first Homily (p. 13, ed. Wright) he says, 'And Christ is also the Word and the Speech of the Lord, as it is written in the beginning of the Gospel of our Saviour—In the beginning was the Word.' The date of this Homily is A.D. 337.
[284:1] Epiphan.Hær.xlvi. 1.
[284:2] See the reference in the last note.
[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the passages of Jerome relating to it, will be found in Westcott'sIntroduction to the Gospelsp. 462 sq.
[285:2] See above, p. 260, where this specimen of his blundering is given.
[285:3] See above, p. 79 sq.
[286:1]Patrol. Lat.lxviii. p. 253 (ed. Migne). An old Frankish translation of this Harmony is also extant. It has been published more than once;e.g.by Schmeller (Vienna, 1841).
[287:1] The Syriac version is not yet published, but I have ascertained this by inquiry.
[287:2] This seems to be Hilgenfeld's opinion also (Einleitungp. 79); and curious as the result is, I do not see how any other explanation is consistent with the facts.
[287:3] [An important monograph on Tatian'sDiatessaronby Zahn has been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]
[291:1]Les Apôtresp. xviii.
[291:2]Les Évangilesp. 436.
[292:1] xvii. p. 840.
[293:1] Sub ann. 46.
[293:2] See Becker u. MarquardtRöm. Alterth.III. i. p. 294 sq. Even De Wette has not escaped the pitfall, for he states that 'according to Strabo Cyprus was governed by proprætors,' and he therefore supposes that Strabo and Dion Cassius are at variance. De Wette's error stands uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.
[293:3] Dion Cassius liii. 12.
[294:1] Dion Cassius liv. 4.
[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus in BoeckhCorp. Inscr. Græc.2631, 2632.
[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman'sNumismatic Illustrations of the New Testamentp. 39.
[294:4]Corp. Inscr. Lat.iii. 6072, an Ephesian inscription discovered by Mr Wood.
[294:5]Corp. Inscr. Lat.iii. 218.
[294:6] Cesnola'sCyprusp. 425.
[295:1] Dean Alford indeed (on Acts xiii. 7), following some previous writers, mentions a Sergius Paulus, intermediate in date between the two others—the authority of Pliny and the friend of Galen—whom he describes as 'one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94.' This however is a mistake. A certain inscription, mentioning L. Sergius Paullus as consul, is placed by Muratori (p. cccxiv. 3) and others under the year 94; but there is good reason to believe that it refers to the friend of Galen, and must be assigned to the year when he was consul for the first time, as suffectus,i.e.about A.D. 150. See MariniAtti e Monumenti de' Fratelli Arvalip. 198; WaddingtonFastes des Provinces Asiatiquesp. 731.
[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galende Anat. Admin.i. 1 (Op.ii. p. 218, ed. Kühn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tês Rhômaiôn poleôs, andros ta panta prôteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]:de Prænot. 2 (Op.ii. p. 612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tês poleôs, kai Phlabios, hupatikos men ôn êdê kai autos, espeukôs de peri tên Aristotelous philosophian, hôsper kai ho Paulos, hois diêgêsamenos, k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho Paulos] in Kühn and other earlier printed editions which I have consulted, but they are quoted [Greek: Sergios te ho kai Paulos] by Wetstein and others. I do not know on what authority this latter reading rests, but the change in order is absolutely necessary for the sense; for (1) in this passage nothing more is said about Sergius as distinct from Paulus, whereas Paulus is again and again mentioned, so that plainly one person alone is intended. (2) In the parallel passage Sergius Paulus is mentioned, and the same description is given of him as of Paulus here. The alternative would be to omit [Greek: kai ho] altogether, as the passage is tacitly quoted in BorghesiOeuvresviii. p. 504.
[296:2] Melito in Euseb.H.E.iv. 26: see WaddingtonFastes des Provinces Asiatiquesp. 731. [See above, p. 223.]
[297:1] BoeckhCorp. Inscr. Græc.2954. The first sentence which I have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The document bears only too close a resemblance to the utterances of Lourdes in our own day.
[299:1] Acts xix. 37, where [Greek: hierosulous] is oddly translated 'robbers of churches.'
[300:1]Inscr.vi. 1, p. 14.
[300:2] BoeckhCorp. Inscr.2972, [Greek: t[ois neôkorôn tôn Sebastôn, monô]n hapa[sôn] de tês Artemidos.]
[300:3] EckhelDoctr. Num.ii. p. 520. The legend is—[Greek: EPHESIÔN TRIS NEÔKORÔN KAI TÊS ARTEMIDOS.]
[300:4] Mionnet, iii. p. 153,Suppl.vi. pp. 245, 247, 250, 253.
[300:5] Xen.Anab.v. 3, 6.
[301:1]Inscr.vi. 6, p. 50.
[301:2] Acts xix. 38, [Greek: agoraioi] [sc. [Greek: hêmerai]] [Greek: agontai kai anthupatoi eisin], translated 'the law is open, and there are deputies,' in the Authorised Version, but the margin, 'the court days are kept,' gives the right sense of the first clause. In the second clause 'proconsuls' is a rhetorical plural, just ase.g.in Euripides (Iph. Taur.1359) Orestes and Pylades are upbraided for 'stealing from the land its images and priestesses' ([Greek: kleptontes ek gês xoana kai thuêpolous]), though there was only one image and one priestess.
[301:3]Inscr.vi. 1, p. 38.
[302:1] Ign.Ephes.9.
[302:2]Inscr.vi. 1, p. 42.
Aberle, 210, 213 n
Abgarus, 279
Achaia, vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292
Acts of Peter, 37
Acts of the Apostles; Eusebius' method with regard to, 46; used by Polycarp, 95; by Polycrates, 249; ascribed by Irenæus to St Luke, 44; quoted in theLetter of the Gallican Churches, 257; Renan on its authorship, 291; recent discoveries illustrating, 291 sq
Addai; seeDoctrine of Addai
Ælian, credulity of, 269
Æsop, Hitzig's derivation of the name, 25 n
African martyrs, 76, 83
Agathonice, 148
Alcibiades, 254
Alexander, 253
Alford, 9, 294, 295 n
Alogi, 215 n
Ambrosius, the friend of Origen, 7
Ammonius of Alexandria;his date, 280;his Harmony of the Gospels, 280;Eusebius' account of it, 280;its scope distinct from Tatian'sDiatessaron, 280 sq;but confused with it by Syrian writers, 281 sq
Anastasius of Sinai; his high estimate of Papias, 154, 157, 200 sq; quotes Melito, 225 n, 230 sq
Andreas of Cæsarea, mentions Papias, 34 n, 214
Andrew (St), at Ephesus, 91, 143, 145, 146, 160, 189, 193
Anger, 165
Anicetus, 99, 100, 101, 102
Anthropomorphism, 139 n
Antinomianism, 119 sq
Antioch;Trajan at, 79;Antoninus Pius at, 98 n;earthquake at, 79 sq
Antoninus Pius;proconsul of Asia as T. Aurelius Fulvus, 98 n;his movements as emperor, 98 n
Aphraates, his acquaintance with Tatian'sDiatessaron, 283 n, [288]
Aphthonius, 280
Apion, as a critic, 269
Apocalypse;its date, 14 n, 132;its differences from the Fourth Gospel, 15, 131 sq, 214 sq;the term Logos in, 15, 123;supposed allusions to St Paul in, 13 sq;the form of Gnosticism denounced in, 14 n;its position in the Canon of Eusebius, 47;Eusebius' treatment of patristic notices of, 37 n, 39, 43, 47, 215 sq;Papias on its authorship, 34 n, 214;Justin Martyr, 43, 216;Irenæus, 45, 47, 216;Eusebius, 144;the Johannine authorship admitted by the early fathers, 214 sq;notices in Justin Martyr, 43,47, 216;in Melito, 47;his commentary on it, 216;in the Muratorian Canon, 216;in Theophilus, 44, 47, 52, 216;in Apollonius, 47
Apocalypse of Peter, 37, 47
Apollinaris, Claudius, of Hierapolis;a contemporary of Melito, 237;his date, 237 sq;his literary activity, 32, 102, 207, 238;his orthodoxy, 238 sq;his writings, 238, 242 sq;Eusebius' list of them incomplete, 238, 242 sq;hisApology, 237;his work against the Montanists, 238, 243;against the Severians, 243;on the Paschal Festival, 238 sq, 242 sq;the assumed silence of the fathers on this work considered, 242 sq;not an antagonist of Melito, 242, 244, 245;but a Quartodeciman, 244 sq;genuineness of the extant fragments of, 239 sq;references to the Gospels in them, 239, 240;to the Fourth Gospel, 240;follows the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, 248;mentions the miracle of the Thundering Legion, 237;his prominence in the School of St John, 218
Apollonius;notice of the Apocalypse in, 47;extracts in Eusebius from, 91 n
Apologies, absence of scriptural quotations in Christian, 33, 271, 275
Arethas, 201
Arianism, and the Ignatian controversy, 60, 62, 69
Aristides, the rhetorician, 98 n, 104, 270
Aristion, and Papias, 91, 143, 144 sq, 149, 150 n, 187, 266
Arnold, Matthew, 24, 190 n
Artemis, cultus of the Ephesian, 297 sq
Asia Minor;imperial visits to, 98;the proconsulate of, 293;the proconsular fasti of, 103 sq, 115, 121, 223, 295 n;its connexion with Southern Gaul, 105, 252
Asia Minor, the Churches of; importance of, 91 sq, 217 sq; Apostles resident in, 91, 217; episcopacy in, 84, 218; solidarity of, 102; the arena of controversy, 84, 219; literary activity of, 219, 249; testimony to the Fourth Gospel from, 249; the Church of Southern Gaul a colony of, 249; intimate relations between them, 105, 252 sq; Polycarp's Epistle publicly read in, 105 n
Asiarchs, 222 n, 299
Askar and Sychar, 17 n, 133 sq
Assemani, 280 n, 281 n
Athanasius, quotes the Ignatian Epistles, 80
Attalus, the Pergamene martyr, 253, 254
Aubertin, 66, 67
Augustus, the division of Roman provinces by, 291 sq
Balaam, as a type of St Paul, 13
Bar-Ali, the lexicographer;his date, 282 n;mentions Tatian, 282 n
Bar-Bahlul;his date, 282 n;Ammonius and Tatian confused in late MSS of his lexicon, 282 n
Bar-Hebræus;his date, 281 n;confuses Ammonius and Tatian, 281 n
Bar-Salibi;his date, 280;his testimony to Tatian'sDiatessaron, 280 sq
Barnabas, Epistle of;its date, 177;quotes St Matthew's Gospel as 'Scripture,' 177, 227;employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;Chiliasm in, 151
Baronio, 293
Basil (St), 175
Basilides;his date, 85, 161;his workOn the Gospel, 161;fragments preserved in Hippolytus, 161;his appeal to the Fourth Gospel, 52, 219;the Vossian Epistles silent on, 85;his allusion to Glaucias, 21, 123
Basnoge, 66, 67
Bassus, L. Annius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
Baumgarten-Crusius, 68, 69
Baur, 24, 61, 64, 70
Beausobre, 68, 69
Bethesda, the pool of, 9, 126
Bleek, 65, 66, 69, 171
Blondel, 66, 67
Bochart, 66, 67, 83
Böhringer, 65
Borghesi, 296 n
Bunsen, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66
Calvin, and the Ignatian controversy, 65, 66
Carpus, 148
Capitolinus, 98 n
Casaubon, 66, 67
Celsus, 6 sq, 25 n
Cerinthus;encountered by St John, 101, 212;his separationism, 118;attacked in St John's First Epistle, 118;according to Irenæus, the Fourth Gospel aimed at, 48, 182;the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse ascribed to, 215;the question of the Canon involved in the controversy with, 219;confused with Marcion, 210, 212
Cesnola's explorations in Cyprus, 294, 297
Chemnitz, 65, 66
Chiliasm;of Papias, 151 sq, 158 sq, 160, 197, 215 n;of the early Church generally, 151
Christian literature;compared with the classics as regards external evidence fordocuments, 82;plagiarisms in, 202
Christian martyrs;coincidence with the Passion of Christ in the sufferings of, 220;zeal for martyrdom exhibited by, 82 sq
Christian prisoners, the treatment of, 74 sq
Christology;of the Synoptists and Fourth Gospel, 15 sq;of Cerinthus, 118;of Ignatius, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;of Polycarp, 106, 108;of Justin Martyr, 235;of Melito, 230, 231, 234 sq
Christ's ministry, the duration of, 16 sq, 48, 131, 245 sq
Chronicon Paschale; seePaschal Chronicle
Chrysostom, the panegyric on Ignatius of, 80
[Ciasca, 288]
Claudius Apollinaris; seeApollinaris
Clemens, Flavius, cousin of Domitian, 94 n
Clement of Alexandria; coincidence in the name, 94 n; a pupil of Pantænus, 274; perhaps of Melito, 218, 224; perhaps also of Tatian, 274; quotes from Tatian, 273 n; his wide learning, 269; compared with his heathen contemporaries, 269; his travels, 270; his testimony to the Four Gospels, 270; to St Mark, 167; to the Fourth Gospel, 52; to the labours of St John, 218; accepts the identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216; employs the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 47; the Epistle of Barnabas, 47; theApocalypse of Peter, 47; theGospel according to the Hebrews, 152; quotes Basilides, 161; his treatise on the Paschal Festival, 243 sq; date of hisStromateis, 274; his use of the word 'oracles,' 174
Clement of Rome;his name, 94 n;probably a Hellenist Jew, 94;and a freedman, 94;his position compared with that of Polycarp, 89;scriptural quotations in his Epistle, 40, 105, 110;Eusebius' method tested on it, 40, 47, 179;its testimony to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 40, 47, 49;employed by Clement of Alexandria, 47;its date and that of the book of Judith, 25 n;his use of the Canon and that of Polycarp, 94, 105;his use of the word 'oracles,' 174;the story of the phoenix in, 268;his place in modern German theories, 24
Clementines;as a romance, 15;Gnostic fragments preserved in the, 40 n;quote and employ the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, 50, 52
Cook, 66, 67
Cordus, Q. Julius, proconsul of Cyprus, 294 n
Cramer'sCatena, 201
Credner, 12, 19, 124 sq, 186
Crescens, the Cynic, 148, 272
Cureton, 61, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71 sq, 81 n, 86, 232 n, 278 n, 279 n
Curetonian Epistles, 61 sq;see alsoIgnatian Epistles
Cyprian; his correspondence, 76;accepts identity of authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Apocalypse, 216
Cyprus;its vicissitudes as a Roman province, 292 sq;the evidence of inscriptions on this, 294;source of Pliny's information regarding, 295;proconsuls and proprætors of, 294;recent excavations at, 291 sq
Cyrrhestice, 282, 283
Dallæus, 65, 114
De Wette, 9, 293 n
Decian persecution, 76
Delitzsch, 17, 133, 135, 136
Demetrius, the silversmith of Ephesus, 298, 299, 301
Denzinger, 63, 71
Diapente, 279 n, 285 sq
Diatessaron; seeTatian
Dion Cassius, 293
Dionysius of Alexandria; his critical insight, 167; assigns the Fourth Gospel to St John, 216; but separates the authorship of the Apocalypse, 167, 216
Dionysius of Corinth; his evidence to the Canon, 156, 177, 227; the silence of Eusebius respecting, 35 sq, 39, 184
Docetism, attacked in the Ignatian Epistles, 118 n
Doctrine of Addai; discovery of the document, 278 n; its subject, 278; its date, 279; its country, 279; noticed in Eusebius, 279; mentions Tatian'sDiatessaron, 278; the Armenian version, 279
Dodwell, 98 n, 264
Dogma and morality, 27 sq
Donaldson, 241 n
Dressel, 80 n
Dutch school of criticism, 2, 9, 36
Ebionism;no trace in the Ignatian Epistles, 42;nor in Polycarp, 43, 102 sq, 153 sq;nor in Papias, 42, 43, 151 sq
Edessa, 278 sq
Elders;quoted by Papias, 4 sq, 143, 145, 159, 163, 168, 181, 194, 197 sq;by Irenæus, 4, 6, 48, 54, 58, 102, 145, 195 sq, 218, 233, 245, 247 sq;who both reports their conversations, and cites their works, 196 sq;identification of some of them, 194 sq, 196 n, 224, 248 n, 266
Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, 99, 261;Irenæus sent as delegate to, 253, 259 n
Elias of Salamia;hisDiatessaron, 280;his name Aphthonius, 280
Encratites;Apollinaris' treatises against the, 238, 243;Tatian's connexion with the, 272, 284
Ephesus;St John at, 91, 101, 142 sq, 217 sq;other Apostles at, 91;Wood's excavations at, 291, 294 n, 297 sq;cultus of Artemis at, 297 sq;the great theatre at, 298 sq;the designation of magistrates, 299;the title neocoros, 300;the lawful assemblies, 301;image-processions at, 301 sq;gates of, 302
Ephraem of Antioch, 172
Ephraem Syrus;date of his death, 280;his commentary on Tatian'sDiatessaron, 280 sq;[an Armenian version discovered, 287]
Epiphanius;date of his work onHeresies, 284;his treatise against the Alogi, 215 n;his obligations to Hippolytus, 216 n;his historical blunders, 260, 269, 285;confuses Tatian'sDiatessaronwith theGospel accordingto the Hebrews, 284
Episcopacy;in the time of St John, 218;in Asia Minor in the time of Ignatius, 84;stress laid upon it in the Ignatian Epistles, 107;especially in the Vossian Letters, 87;the Ignatian controversy centres round the question of, 61;not mentioned in the Epistle of Polycarp, 106, 107 sq, 122;prominent in the writings of Irenæus, 122
Ernesti, 68
Euodia and Syntyche, extravagant German theories respecting, 24 sq
Eusebius;sources of his history, 32 sq;his rule of procedure in dealing with the Canon, 36 sq, 46 sq, 178 sq,190 sq, 215 sq;tested on extant literature, 40 sq;what his silence means, 32 sq;its value as a direct testimony, 51;his trustworthiness and moderation, 49 sq, 209;his habit of incomplete and combined quotations, 168, 209;on the Ignatian Epistles, 72 sq, 80, 82;on Papias, 142 sq, 147, 151 sq, 154, 167, 186, 190 sq;his estimate of Papias, 209;on John the Presbyter, 143 sq;his lists of the works of Melito not exhaustive, 224 sq, 228;nor those of the works of Apollinaris, 238, 242;dependent upon Pamphilus' library, 225;on the Paschal controversy, 17, 245;attempts to harmonize the Gospel narrative, 208, 209;for this purpose perhaps borrows from Papias, 208
Evagrius, 80
Ewald, 63, 65, 136, 204
[Greek: epi Traïanou], 81
[Greek: epistolai], of a single letter, 114, 189
[Greek: exêgêsis], 155 n, 156, 160 n, 175 sq;and [Greek: diêgêsis], 157 n
Fathers, early;compared in historical accuracy with classical writers, 268 sq;considered as critics, 167, 229, 263, 268;the dearth of scriptural quotations in their worksaccounted for, 33, 271;explanation of their literary plagiarisms, 202, 237
Felicitas, 83
Florinus;a pupil of Polycarp, 96 sq;Irenæus' letter to, 96 sq, 195 n;date of his connexion with the royal court, 97 sq;his subsequent history, 98
Four Gospels;that number only recognized in the Muratorian Canon, 166, 270;in Irenæus, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq;in Eusebius, 39
Fourth Gospel;its spirit, 13;its Hebraic character, 14;the minuteness of its details, 14 sq;the narrative of an eye-witness, 14 sq;compared with the Apocalypse, in diction, 15, 34 n, 131 sq, 214 sq;in Christology, 15 sq;the bearing of Montanism on this question, 219, 238, 267;compared with the Synoptists in chronology andnarrative, 16, 48, 131, 240, 245 sq;the relation of the Paschal controversy to thisquestion, 17, 219, 225, 239 sq, 267;historical and geographical allusions considered, 17 sq;the personality of its author, 18 sq;association of others with him in the work, 187;anecdotes with regard to its composition, 48, 52, 187, 189 sq, 210, 217;probably dictated, 187, 214;its wide acceptance among orthodox and heretics, 52 sq;testimony given by the growth of various readingsand interpolations, 9 sq, 52;by the commentary of Heracleon, 52;the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles, 41;of Papias, 4 sq, 35, 54 sq, 186 sq;of theMartyrdom of Polycarp, 221 sq;of the elders in Irenæus, 48;of the Muratorian Canon, 52, 189 sq, 206 sq;of Claudius Apollinaris, 240;of the School of St John generally, 249 sq;of theLetter of the Gallican Churches, 258;of Tatian, 275 sq, 280 sq;of Origen, 216;of Gaius, 216 n;Irenæus on its purpose, 48, 182;quoted by Theophilus of Antioch, 44, 52, 179, 215, 216;significance of the silence of Eusebius, 33 sq, 51 sq;ascribed to Cerinthus, 215;its connexion with the First Epistle of St John, 186 sq, 190, 220
Gaius;on the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 47;of the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel, 216 n;his date, 216 n;his relation to Hippolytus considered, 91 n, 216 n
Galen, 83, 153, 196 n, 295 n, 296 sq
Gallican Churches;a colony from the Churches of Asia Minor, 249, 251 sq;intimate connexion between the two bodies, 105, 249, 252 sq;persecuted under M. Aurelius, 252 sq;their letter to the brethren in Asia andPhrygia, 146 n, 216, 252 sq, 259 n, 271;its date, 259;scriptural quotations in it, 254 sq;their letters on the Montanist controversy, 253;their letter to Victor on the Paschal controversy, 253 sq
Gaul, called Galatia, 251
Georgius Hamartolos, 211 sq
Gfrörer, 69
Glaucias, 21
Gnosticism;the development of antinomian, 119;the literature of, 160 sq;the exegesis of, 160 sq, 175, 202;the opponents of, 160 sq, 219, 268;the scene of the conflict with, 219;attacked in St Paul's Epistles, 119;in the Apocalypse, 14 n, 119;in the Epistle of Polycarp, 116 sq;not alluded to in the Ignatian Epistles, 85;an appeal to the Canon requisite in the conflict with, 219
Gobarus, 12
Gospel of Peter, 37
Gospel according to the Hebrews; seeHebrews, Gospel according to the
Gospels;seeMatthew's (St) Gospel,Mark's (St) Gospel,Luke's (St) Gospel,Fourth Gospel,Four Gospels
Grabe, 98 n
Griesbach, 68, 69
[Gwynn's (Prof.) discovery of a Gaius distinct from Hippolytus, 216 n]
Hadrian, 98
Hagenbach, 68
Harless, 69
Hase, 70
Hebrews, Gospel according to the; employed by Hegesippus, 47, 183; by other fathers, 152; perhaps quoted by Ignatius, 41 sq, 153; Papias not proved to have employed, 152, 203 sq; translated by Jerome, 203, 285; statements of Jerome about it, 42, 152; confused with the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 170, 285; with Tatian'sDiatessaron, 284; distinct scope of the last-named work, 285
Hebrews, Epistle to the; in the notices of Eusebius, 37, 46, 47, 49, 52; the testimony of Clement of Rome, 40, 47, 49; of Irenæus, 46, 47; of Gaius, 47
Hefele, 63
Hegesippus;his lost ecclesiastical history, 32, 39;the silence of Eusebius respecting, 34 sq, 183, 185;his attitude towards St Paul, 12;towards tradition, 155;employs theGospel according to the Hebrews, 47, 183
'Hellenic' and 'Hellenistic,' 132 n
[Hemphill, 287, 288]
Henke, 68
Heracleon's commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 52
Hermas, theShepherdof; its devotional character, 271; hence does not quote Scripture, 271; the citations in Eusebius, 37, 38, 47 sq; quoted by Irenæus, 45, 47, 184
Herodes, the magistrate, 220, 221
Heumann, 68
Hierapolis, 91, 102, 142, 153, 207, 218, 224
Hilgenfeld, 64, 71, 104, 116, 122, 146 n, 158 n, 159 n, 170, 171, 172,176 n, 186, 211, 216, 262 n, 287 n
Hippolytus;pupil of Irenæus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267;probably at Rome, 267 n;opposes Gnosticism, 216 n, 219;defends the Fourth Gospel against the Alogi, 216 n;plagiarisms of, 202;plagiarisms from, 216 n;Gnostic fragments preserved in, 40, 161;his relation to Gaius considered, 91 n, 216 n
Hitzig, 24 sq
Hoffmann, 282 n
Hort, on the elate of Justin Martyr, 274 n
Ignatian Epistles; date, place of writing and subject, 59, 93;three forms: (1) Long Recension, 60;documents, 60;date of the forgery, 60;(2) Vossian Epistles, 60 sq;MSS and Versions, 61;history of their discovery, 61;(3) Curetonian Epistles, 61;their discovery, 61;questions raised (A) whether the Vossian or Curetonian Epistlesare prior, 61;the view ofS.R., 63, 74;the real balance of modern authorities, 63 sq;arguments against the priority of the Curetonian Epistles from(i) the Armenian Version, 60;a translation from the Syriac Version of theCuretonian Epistles, 71, 86;(ii) the abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles, 77 n, 86;the counter-argument from the confessedly spurious lettersanswered, 60, 71, 72 sq;the argument from quotations considered, 73 sq;(B) whether any form is genuine, 61;denied byS.R., 62, 74;(i) internal evidence considered,(a) Ignatius' treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq;(b) the journey to Rome, 79 sq;(c) Ignatius' zeal for martyrdom, 82;(d) supposed anachronisms, 83;(e) evidence of style, 84;(ii) external evidence, 82;result, 84, 88;relation of the Vossian Epistles, 84 sq;argument from silence, 84 sq;limit of their date, 85;arguments for their genuineness, 86 sq;result, 88, [59 n];scriptural quotations in the, 41;Eusebius' method tested on the, 41;theological controversies which have centred round, 61 sq;Christology of, 42, 86 sq, 108, 231;a metaphor of image-processions illustrated, 302
Ignatius; the name Theophorus, 302; his letters (seeIgnatian Epistles); his journey to Rome, 59; its probability considered, 63, 79 sq, 111; his route, 93, 113; his treatment as a prisoner, 74 sq; his intercourse with Polycarp, 92 sq, 106 sq, 113; the notice in the Epistle of Polycarp, 11, 82, 113 sq; his zeal for martyrdom, 82; not martyred at Antioch, 79 sq, 212 n, 214; date of his martyrdom, 59; days of commemoration of, 79; extant martyrologies of, 73 n, 80
Irenæus; date of his birth, 98 n, 264; a pupil of Polycarp, date, 89, 97 sq; his letter to Florinus, 96 sq, 195 n; represents three Churches, 267; his connexion with theLetter of the Gallican Churches, 259; sent as delegate to Rome, 253, 259 n, 267; at Rome more than once, 267 n; his lectures there, 267; his pupil Hippolytus, 102, 145, 196 n, 267; date of his episcopate, 97; his remonstrance addressed to Victor, 100; his literary activity, 267; date of hisRefutation, 259, 260; the first great controversial treatise, 271; its importance as evidence to the Canon, 271; his profuse scriptural quotations, 44 sq, 180, 181, 228, 261; Eusebius' method illustrated, 45, 46, 184; importance of his testimony to the Canon, 53, 89, 99, 166, 264 sq; appeals to the elders (seeElders); his evidence to the Fourth Gospel, 3 sq, 52, 53, 54 sq; to the motive of the Fourth Gospel, 48, 182; to four Gospels, 45, 48, 166, 233, 263 sq; to the Ignatian Epistles, 80, 82; to the Epistle of Polycarp, 82, 101, 104 sq; his appeal to the Gospels against the Valentinians, 219, 245 sq, 262; his controversial treatises, 267; his conflict with Gnosticism, 160, 219; on the Paschal question, 242, 244 sq, 267; on the duration of Christ's ministry, 246; on His age at the time of the Passion, 246 sq; on the Apocalypse, 45, 47, 216; on the old age of St John, 48, 92, 101; on Polycarp, 96 sq, 115, 116; on Papias, 4 sq, 127, 142 sq, 154, 158 sq, 166, 194 sq, 248 n; on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 172; his Chiliasm, 151, 197; his evidence for episcopacy, 122; his use of the word 'oracles,' 174; his literary obligations to Papias, 202; to Melito, 236 sq; considered as a critic, 268 sq
Jacobson, 63, 66, 67 n, 69, 103 n, 123 n
Jerome;on the Hebrew original of St Matthew, 208 n, 285;on theGospel according to the Hebrews, 42, 152, 208, 285;on the public reading of Polycarp's Epistle, 105 n;on Tatian's treatment of St Paul's Epistles, 273 n;on Apollinaris, 242, 243