statement respecting the Apocalypse in the text with another which I
find elsewhere in this work (i. p. 483): 'Andrew, a Cappadocian bishop
of the fifth century, mentions that Papias, amongst others of the
Fathers, considered the Apocalypse inspired. _No reference is made to
this by Eusebius_; but although, from his Millenarian tendencies, it is
very probable that Papias regarded the Apocalypse with peculiar
veneration as a prophetic book, _this evidence is too vague and isolated
to be of much value_.' The difficulty is increased when we compare these
two passages with a third (II. p. 335): 'Andrew of Cæsarea, in the
preface to his Commentary on the Apocalypse, mentions that Papias
maintained 'the credibility' [Greek: to axiopiston] of that book, or in
other words, its Apostolic origin.... Apologists _admit the genuineness
of this statement_, nay, claim it as undoubted evidence of the
acquaintance of Papias with the Apocalypse.... Now _he must therefore
have recognised the book as the work of the Apostle John_.' The italics,
I ought to say, are my own, in all the three passages quoted.
[34:3] ['regarding the composition of the first two Gospels' ed. 6
(I. p. 433). The error is acknowledged in the preface to that edition
(p. xxi).]
[35:1] I. p. 435.
[35:2] ['so far as we know' inserted in ed. 6.]
[35:3] II. p. 320.
[35:4] ['said anything interesting about' Complete Edition (II. p.
318).]
[35:5] I. p. 483.
[35:6] ['to state what the Fathers say about' ed. 6. On the ambiguity of
this expression see below, p. 183 sq.]
[35:7] ['mention' ed. 6.]
[35:8] II. p. 322.
[35:9] ['said anything regarding the composition or authorship' ed. 6.]
[35:10] II. p. 323.
[35:11] [So also ed. 6. In the Complete Edition (II. p. 321) the
sentence ends 'did not find anything regarding the Fourth Gospel in the
work of Papias, and that Papias was not acquainted with it.']
[35:12] II. p. 164.
[35:13] [In ed. 6 the sentence ends here.]
[36:1] II. p. 166.
[36:2] ['said anything about' ed. 6. The whole sentence is omitted in
the Complete Edition.]
[37:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 3. The important words are [Greek: _tines_ tôn
kata chronous ekklêsiastikôn sungrapheôn _hopoiais kechrêntai_ tôn
antilegomenôn, _tina te peri_ tôn endiathêkôn kai homologoumenôn graphôn
kai _hosa peri_ tôn mê toioutôn autois eirêtai.] The words spaced will
show the two different modes of treatment; (1) The mention of references
or testimonies in the case of the disputed writings only; (2) The record
of anecdotes in the case of acknowledged and disputed writings alike.
The double relative in the first clause, [Greek: tines ... hopoiais], is
incapable of literal translation in English; but this does not affect
the question. The two modes are well illustrated in the case of
Irenæus. Eusebius gives from this Father _testimonies_ to the Epistle
to the Hebrews etc., and _anecdotes_ respecting the Gospel and
Apocalypse alike.
[38:1] [Quoted by _S.R._ ed. 6, p. xiv. For his criticism upon this
Essay see below, p. 178 sq.]
[39:1] _H.E._ iii. 24.
[40:1] See Lardner _Credibility_ II. p. 35 sq (1835). For the sake of
economising space I shall refer from time to time to this work, in which
the testimonies of ancient writers are collected and translated, so that
they are accessible to English readers. Any one, whose ideas have been
confused by reading _Supernatural Religion_, cannot fail to obtain a
clearer view of the real state of the case by referring to this book. It
must be remembered, however, that recent discovery has added to the
amount of evidence, more especially in reference to the Fourth Gospel. I
refer, of course, to the quotations in the Gnostic fragments preserved
by Hippolytus, and in the Clementine Homilies.
[40:2] Clem. Rom. 5.
[40:3] _S.R._ I. p. 223.
[40:4] Clem. Rom. 47. 'Take up the Epistle of the blessed Paul the
Apostle. What first did he write to you in the beginning of the Gospel?
Of a truth he gave injunctions to you in the Spirit [Greek: pneumatikôs]
concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then ye had made
parties ([Greek: proskliseis]).
[40:5] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 37.
[41:1] _Polyc._ 2; comp. Matt. x. 16.
[41:2] _Ephes._ 14; comp. Matt. xii. 33.
[41:3] _Smyrn._ 6; comp. Matt. xix. 12.
[41:4] _Philad._ 7; comp. John iii. 8.
[41:5] _Magn._ 8; comp. John viii. 29.
[41:6] _Rom._ 4.
[41:7] _Ephes._ 12.
[41:8] See Lardner II. p. 78 sq for the testimonies in Ignatius
generally.
[41:9] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 36.
[42:1] _De Vir. Illustr._ c. 16.
[42:2] _Ephes._ 12; comp. _Rom._ 4.
[42:3] _Ephes._ 7; comp. _Ephes._ 1, _Polyc._ 3, _Rom._ 6 etc.
[42:4] _Magn._ 8-10; comp. _Philad._ 6.
[42:5] See Lardner II. p. 99 sq for the passages.
[43:1] _H.E._ iv. 14.
[43:2] _H.E._ iii. 36.
[43:3] I. _Apol._ 66.
[43:4] See Semisch _Justin Martyr_ I.
[43:5] _H.E._ iv. 18.
[44:1] _H.E._ iv. 24.
[44:2] Lardner II. p. 208 sq.
[44:3] _Ad Autol._ ii. 22.
[44:4] _S.R._ II. p. 474.
[44:5] _H.E._ iv. 24.
[44:6] Lardner II. p. 176 sq.
[45:1] _H.E._ v. 6.
[45:2] _H.E._ v. 8.
[46:1] _H.E._ v. 26.
[47:1] _H.E._ iv. 26.
[47:2] _H.E._ v. 18.
[47:3] _H.E._ vi. 20.
[47:4] _H.E._ vi. 13, 14.
[48:1] Iren. iii. 1. 1.
[48:2] Iren. iii. 11. 1.
[48:3] Iren. ii. 25, cited in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
[49:1] Polyc. _Phil._ 7.
[49:2] _S.R._ I. p. 483.
[49:3] [The author's mode of dealing with this passage in his later
editions is commented upon below, p. 191 sq. In the Complete Edition
(1879) the words 'as elsewhere' still remain. The last sentence however,
which survived ed. 6, is at length withdrawn, and with it the offending
note.]
[50:1] _S.R._ II. pp. 374-379, 336-341.
[50:2] [On this matter see below, p. 191 sq.]
[51:1] _S.R._ II. p. 62.
[51:2] _S.R._ II. p. 66.
[52:1] [See below, p. 188 sq.]
[53:1] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 5 sq.]
[54:1] II. p. 328. In the quotations which follow, I have italicised
some portions to show the difference of interpretation in the earlier
and later editions.
[55:1] I see that it was pointed out in the _Inquirer_ of Nov. 7th
[1874].
[55:2] [_S.R._ (ed. 4) 11. p. 326.]
[56:1] [_S.R._ (ed. 2) 11. p. 327.]
[57:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 330.]
[58:1] [_S.R._ II. p. 334. See above, p. 6.]
[59:1] [The Essay on the Ignatian Epistles represents the writer's views
at the time when it was written. In the course of the Essay he has
stated that at one time he had entertained misgivings about the seven
Vossian letters. His maturer opinions establishing their genuineness
will be found in his volumes on the _Apostolic Fathers_ Part II. S.
Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 1885 (London, Macmillan and Co.), to which he
refers his readers.]
[60:1] _S.R._ i. p. 263.
[62:1] I. p. 269.
[62:2] I. p. 270.
[62:3] I. p. 274.
[63:1] I. p. 274.
[63:2] ['many' ed. 6 (I. p. 264); the reading 'most' is explained in the
preface to that edition (p. xxvi) as a misprint.]
[63:3] I. p. 263 sq.
[64:1] _Die Ignatianischen Briefe etc., Eine Streitschrift gegen Herrn
Bunsen_, Tübingen, 1848.
[64:2] _Apostelgeschichte_ p. 51. He declares himself 'ganz
einverstanden' with Baur's view.
[64:3] _Apostol. Väter_ p. 189; _Zeitschrift_ (1874) p. 96 sq.
[64:4] _Meletemata Ignatiana_ (1861).
[64:5] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 50.
[64:6] _Evangelien_ (1870) p. 636.
[64:7] Volkmar himself, in the passage to which the last note refers,
supposes that the seven Epistles date about A.D. 170.
[64:8] For the earlier opinion of Lipsius, see _Aechtheit d. Syr.
Recens. d. Ign. Briefe_ p. 159; for his later opinion, _Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschrift_ (1874), p. 211 sq.
[66:1] p. 142 (ed. 1862).
[66:2] The references in the case of Lipsius are to his earlier works,
where he still maintains the priority and genuineness of the Curetonian
letters.
[66:3] See Pearson's _Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 28 (ed. Churton).
[67:1] The reader will find the opinions of these writers given in
Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xxvii; or more fully in Pearson's
_Vindiciæ Ignatianæ_ p. 27 sq, from whom Russel's excerpts, reprinted
by Jacobson, are taken.
[67:2] [In his preface to ed. 6 (p. xxxiii) our author admits his error
in the case of Rivet, whose name is struck out from the note on I. p.
260 in that edition.]
[69:1] See Jacobson _Patres Apostolici_ I. p. xlvi, where the passage is
given.
[69:2] [Our author (ed. 6, p. xxxv sq) falls foul of my criticism of his
references. It is contrary to my purpose to reopen the question, but I
confidently leave it to those who will examine the passages for
themselves to say whether he is justified in his inferences. He however
'gives up' Wotton and Weismann.]
[70:1] p. xxxiv (Reprint of 1858).
[70:2] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 9.
[71:1] He mentions an earlier edition of this Version printed at
Constantinople in 1783, but had not seen it; _Corp. Ign._ p. xvi.
[72:1] I. p. 264.
[72:2] I. p. 265.
[73:1] The Roman Epistle indeed has been separated from its companions,
and is imbedded in the Martyrology which stands at the end of this
collection in the Latin Version, where doubtless it stood also in the
Greek, before the MS of this latter was mutilated. Otherwise the Vossian
Epistles come together, and are followed by the confessedly spurious
Epistles in the Greek and Latin MSS. In the Armenian all the Vossian
Epistles are together, and the confessedly spurious Epistles follow. See
Zahn _Ignatius von Antiochien_ p. 111.
[73:2] I. p. 262.
[73:3] p. 164.
[73:4] Ign. _Rom._ 5, where the words [Greek: egô ginôskô nun archomai
mathêtês einai] are found in Eusebius as in the Vossian Epistles, but
are wanting in the Curetonian. There are other smaller differences.
[74:1] _S.R._ I. p. 269.
[74:2] _S.R._ I. p. 267.
[75:1] This objection is well discussed by Zahn _Ignatius von
Antiochien_ p. 278 sq (1873), where our author's arguments are answered
by anticipation substantially as I have answered them in the text. I
venture to call attention to this work (which does not appear yet to
have attracted the notice of English writers) as the most important
contribution to the Ignatian literature which has appeared since
Cureton's publications introduced a new era in the controversy. Zahn
defends the genuineness of the Vossian Epistles.
[76:1] Ruinart _Acta Martyrum Sincera_ p. 134 sq. (Ratisbon, 1859.)
[76:2] Ruinart p. 141. 'Praepositus carceris, qui nos magni facere
coepit ... multos fratres ad nos admittebat, ut et nos et illi invicem
refrigeraremus,' p. 144. 'Tribunus ... jussit illos humanius haberi, ut
fratribus ejus et ceteris facultas fieret introeundi et refrigerandi cum
eis.'
[76:3] _De Morte Peregr._ 12.
[77:1] See Zahn _Ignatius_ p. 527. Lucian says of Peregrinus (now no
longer a Christian, but a Cynic), c. 41, [Greek: phasi de pasais schedon
tais endoxois polesin epistolas diapempsai auton, diathêkas tinas kai
paraineseis kai nomous; kai tinas epi toutô presbeutas tôn hetairôn
echeirotonêse nekrangelous kai _nerterodromous_ prosagoreusas.] This
description exactly corresponds to the letters and delegates of
Ignatius. See especially _Polyc._ 7, [Greek: _cheirotonêsai_ tina ...
hos dunêsetai _theodromous_ kaleisthai.] The Christian bystanders
reported that a dove had been seen to issue from the body of Polycarp
when he was martyred at the stake (_Martyr. Polyc._ c. 16). Similarly
Lucian represents himself as spreading a report, which was taken up and
believed by the Cynic's disciples, that a vulture was seen to rise from
the pyre of Peregrinus when he consigned himself to a voluntary death by
burning. It would seem that the satirist here is laughing at the
credulity of these simple Christians, with whose history he appears to
have had at least a superficial acquaintance.
[77:2] As a corollary to this argument, our author says that the
Epistles themselves bear none of the marks of composition under such
circumstances. It is sufficient to reply that even the Vossian Epistles
are more abrupt than the letters written by St Paul, when chained to a
soldier. The abruptness of the Curetonian Epistles is still
greater--indeed so great as to render them almost unintelligible in
parts. I write this notwithstanding that our author, following Cureton,
has expressed a different opinion respecting the style of the Curetonian
Letters.
Our author speaks also of the length of the letters. The Curetonian
Letters occupy five large octavo pages in Cureton's translation, p. 227.
Even the seven Vossian Letters might have been dictated in almost as
many hours; and it would be strange indeed if, by bribe or entreaty,
Ignatius could not have secured this indulgence from one or other of his
guards during a journey which must have occupied months rather than
weeks. He also describes the Epistles as purporting to be written 'at
every stage of his journey.' 'Every stage' must be interpreted 'two
stages,' for all the Seven Vossian Epistles profess to have been written
either at Smyrna or at Troas.
[78:1] This, as more than one writer has pointed out, seems to be the
meaning of [Greek: oi kai euergetoumenoi cheirous ginontai] Ign. _Rom._
5.
[78:2] _S.R._ I. p. 268.
[79:1] _A Few Words on Supernatural Religion_ p. xx sq, a preface to the
fourth edition of Dr Westcott's _History of the Canon_, but published
separately.
[79:2] _Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen_ I. pp. 49 sq, 121 sq.
[79:3] p. 276 (ed. Bonn.).
[79:4] In St Chrysostom's age it appears to have been kept at quite a
different time of the year--in June; see Zahn, p. 53.
[80:1] The one first published by Ruinart from a Colbert MS, and the
other by Dressel from a Vatican MS. The remaining Martyrologies, those
of the Metaphrast, of the Bollandists, and of the Armenian version, have
no independent value, being compacted from these two.
[80:2] The authorities for these statements will be found in Cureton's
_Corpus Ignatianum_, p. 158 sq.
[80:3] See Lipsius _Ueber das Verhältniss des Textes der drei Syrischen
Briefe etc._ p. 7.
[81:1] pp. 268, 279 (ed. Bonn.).
[81:2] The former explanation is suggested by Lipsius, _l.c._; the
latter by Zahn, p. 67.
[81:3] The testimonies to which I refer in this paragraph will be found
in Cureton's _Corpus Ignatianum_ p. 158 sq. [The question of the
credibility of Malalas, and of the meaning of [Greek: epi Traïanou], is
treated more fully in my _Apostolic Fathers_, Part II. S. Ignatius, S.
Polycarp, II. pp. 437-447 (ed. 2).]
[82:1] [This pledge is fulfilled below, p. 93 sq.]
[85:1] Ign. _Rom._ 7. In the Syriac version the expression is watered
down (perhaps to get rid of the Gnostic colouring), and becomes 'fire
for another love;' and similarly in the Long Greek [Greek: philoun ti]
is substituted for [Greek: philoülon]. Compare _Rom._ 6, 'neque per
materiam seducatis,' a passage which is found in the Latin translation,
but has accidentally dropped out, or been intentionally omitted, from
the Greek.
[85:2] _e.g._ Philippians p. 232 sq.
[86:1] Ign. Magn. 8. [Greek: hos estin autou logos [aïdios, ouk] apo
sigês proelthôn.]
[87:1] Cureton's _Corp. Ign._ p. 245.
[87:2] Euseb. _Eccl. Theol._ ii. 9, etc. See on this subject a paper in
the _Journal of Philology_, No. ii. p. 51 sq.
[90:1] See below, p. 103 sq.
[90:2] _Mart. Polyc._ 9. [Greek: ogdoêkonta kai hex etê echô douleuôn
autô]. This expression is somewhat ambiguous in itself, and for [Greek:
echô douleuôn] Eusebius reads [Greek: douleuô].
[91:1] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Iren. ii. 22. 5 (and elsewhere);
Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24; Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42 (p.
958); Apollonius in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 18.
[91:2] _Muratorian Fragment_ p. 33, ed. Tregelles (written about A.D.
170-180).
[91:3] John i. 44, xii. 21 sq.
[91:4] Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39; Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii.
31, v. 24; Caius (Hippolytus?) in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30. I have given
reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was the
Apostle and not the Evangelist in _Colossians_ p. 45 sq.
[91:5] Papias, _l.c._
[92:1] 1 Pet. i. 1.
[92:2] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[92:3] Iren. ii. 22. 5, iii. 3. 4.
[92:4] _e.g._ Tertull. _de Præscr. Hær._ 32.
[93:1] Ign. _Polyc._ 1-4.
[93:2] _ib._ § 8.
[93:3] Polyc. _Phil._ 13. See below, p. 111 sq.
[93:4] This supposition is quite consistent with his using certain
writings as authoritative. Thus he appeals to the _Oracles of the Lord_
(§ 7), and he treats St Paul as incomparably greater than himself or
others like him (§ 3).
[94:1] The question of the Jewish or Gentile origin of Clement has been
much disputed. My chief reason for the view adopted in the text is the
fact that he shows not only an extensive knowledge of the Old Testament,
but also an acquaintance with the traditional teaching of the Jews. I
find the name borne by a Jew in a sepulchral inscription (Orell. Inscr.
2899): D.M. CLEMETI. CAESARVM. N.N. SERVO. CASTELLARIO. AQVAE. CLAVDIAE.
FECIT. CLAVDIA. SABBATHIS. ET. SIBI. ET. SVIS. If a conjecture may be
hazarded, I venture to think that our Clement was a freedman or the son
of a freedman in the household of Flavius Clemens, the cousin of
Domitian, whom the Emperor put to death for his profession of
Christianity. It is a curious fact, that Clement of Alexandria bears the
name _T. Flavius Clemens_. He also was probably descended from some
dependent belonging to the household of one or other of the Flavian
princes.
[94:2] Lardner _Credibility_ Pt. ii. c. vi.
[94:3] _Phil._ §10. 'Eleemosyna de morte liberat,' from Tobit iv. 10,
xii. 9.
[95:1] _Phil._ § 12. 'Ut his scripturis dictum est; _Irascimini, et
nolite peccare_, et _Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram_,'
evidently taken from Ephes. iv. 26.
[95:2] _ib._ § 1. [Greek: hon êgeiren ho Theos lusas tas ôdinas tou
hadou], from Acts ii. 24.
[95:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[95:4] The unrepresented Epistles are Titus and Philemon. The reference
to Colossians is uncertain; and in one or two other cases the
coincidence is not so close as to remove all possibility of doubt.
[96:1] _Phil._ § 8.
[97:1] [Greek: tôn autoptôn tês zôês tou Logou.] I would gladly
translate this 'the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life' (comp. 1 John i.
1), as it is commonly taken; but I cannot get this out of the Greek
order. Possibly there is an accidental transposition in the common text.
The Syriac translator has 'those who saw with their eyes the living
Word.'
[97:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20.
[98:1] Dodwell and Grabe explain the reference by a visit of Hadrian to
Asia, which the former places A.D. 122, and the latter A.D. 129 (Grabe
_Proleg._ sect. 1); but both these dates seem too early, even if there
were no other objections. Massuet (_Diss. in Iren._ ii. sect. 2)
considers that the expression does not imply the presence of the
imperial court in Asia, but signifies merely that Florinus was a
courtier in high favour with the Emperor. But Irenæus could hardly have
expressed himself so, if he had meant nothing more than this. The
succeeding Emperor, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161), spent his time almost
entirely in Italy. Capitolinus says of him: 'Nec ullas expeditiones
obiit, nisi quod ad agros suos profectus et ad Campaniam,' _Vit. Anton._
7. He appears however to have gone to Egypt and Syria in the later years
of his reign (Aristid. _Op._ i. p. 453, ed. Dind.), and the account of
John Malalas would seem to imply that he visited Asia Minor on his
return (p. 280, ed. Bonn.). But M. Waddington (_Vie du Rhéteur Ælius
Aristide_ p. 259 sq) shows that he was still at Antioch in the early
part of the year 155; so that this visit, if it really took place, is
too late for our purpose.
As no known visit of a reigning Emperor will suit, I venture to offer a
conjecture. About the year 136, T. Aurelius Fulvus was proconsul of Asia
(Waddington _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ p. 724). Within two or
three years from his proconsulate he was raised to the imperial throne,
and is known as Antoninus Pius. Florinus may have belonged to his suite,
and Irenæus in after years might well call the proconsul's retinue, in
a loose way, the 'royal court' by anticipation. This explanation gives a
visit of sufficient length, and otherwise fits in with the
circumstances.
[98:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 15, 20.
[100:1] This at least seems to be the most probable meaning of [Greek:
parechôrêse tên eucharistian.]
[100:2] _H.E._ v. 24.
[101:1] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[102:1] Quoted anonymously in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
[103:1] Lipsius _Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe_ p. 263.
[103:2] See Jacobson's _Patres Apostolici_ ii. p. 604.
[103:3] See his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie de la Vie du Rhéteur Ælius
Aristide_ in the _Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_ xxvi. p. 202
sq; and his _Fastes des provinces Asiatiques_ in Le Bas and Waddington's
_Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_.
[104:1] _L'Antéchrist_ p. 566.
[104:2] Lipsius in the _Zeitsch. f. Wissensch. Theol._ xvii. p. 188
(1874); Hilgenfeld _ib._ p. 325 sq.
[105:1] _S.R._ I. p. 276.
[105:2] It should be mentioned also that we have another exceptional
guarantee in the fact that Polycarp's Epistle was read in the Church of
Asia; Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 17, 'Usque hodie in Asiæ conventu legitur.'
[108:1] _Phil._ § 5.
[108:2] I believe that the facts stated in the text are strictly
correct; but I may have overlooked some passages. At all events a
careful reader will, if I mistake not, observe a marked difference in
the ordinary theological language of the two writers.
[109:1] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[109:2] Ign. _Magn._ 13 is given by Lardner (p. 88) as a coincidence
with 1 Pet. v. 5. But the expression in question, 'to be subject one to
another,' occurs also in Ephes. v. 21, even if any stress could be laid
on the occurrence of these few obvious words.
[110:1] _Altkatholische Kirche_ p. 584 sq (ed. 2).
[111:1] [See above, p. 63 sq.]
[111:2] [See above, p. 11.]
[112:1] Ritschl (_l.c._ p. 586), though himself condemning the
thirteenth chapter as an interpolation, treats this objection as
worthless, and says very decidedly that the corresponding Greek must
have been [Greek: tôn met' autou].
[112:1] _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1875, p. 14.
[114:1] I have collected several instances in _Philippians_ p. 138 sq.
[See also below, p. 189.]
[114:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 3.
[115:1] [See above, pp. 98, 103 sq.]
[115:2] The words of Irenæus are, [Greek: kai autos de ho Polukarpos
Markiôni pote eis opsin autô elthonti k.t.l.] Zahn (_Ignatius_ p. 496)
remarks on this that the [Greek: pote] refers us to another point of
time than the sojourn of Polycarp in Rome mentioned in the preceding
sentence. I could not feel sure of this; but it separates this incident
from the others, and leaves the time indeterminate.
[116:1] In the _Letter to Florinus_, quoted above, p. 96 sq.
[116:2] Polyc. _Phil._ § 7.
[117:1] _e.g._ Iren. i. 27. 2, 3; iii. 12. 12.
[118:1] Iren. i. 26. 1.
[118:2] This seems to be the form of heresy attacked in the Ignatian
letters: _Magn._ 11; _Trall._ 9; _Smyrn._ 1.
[118:3] 1 John iv. 2, 3, 'Every spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ come
([Greek: elêluthota]) in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that
confesseth not Jesus is not of God.' I cannot refrain from expressing
the suspicion that the correct reading in this second clause may be
[Greek: luei], 'divideth' or 'dissolveth,' instead of [Greek: mê
homologei], 'confesseth not.' It is the reading of the Old Latin, of
Irenæus, of Tertullian, and of Origen; and Socrates (_H.E._ vii. 32)
says that it was found 'in the old copies.' Though the passages of
Irenæus and Origen are only extant in Latin versions, yet the contexts
clearly show that the authors themselves so read it. It is difficult to
conceive that the very simple [Greek: mê homologei] would be altered
into [Greek: luei], whereas the converse change would be easy. At all
events [Greek: luei] must represent a very early gloss, dating probably
from a time when the original reference of St John was obvious; and it
well describes the Christology of Cerinthus. See the application in
Irenæus, iii. 16, 8 'Sententia eorum homicidialis... _Comminuens et per
multa dividens_ Filium Dei; quos... Ioannes in praedicta epistola fugere
eos praecepit dicens' etc.
[119:1] Die ältesten Zeugnisse p. 41.
[119:2] _e.g._ 1 Cor. vi. 12-18, viii. 1 sq, etc.
[119:3] Rev. ii. 6, 14, 15, 20, 24.
[120:1] 1 Cor. xv. 12.
[120:2] 2 Tim. ii. 18.
[120:3] Iren. ii. 31. 2; Tertull. _de Resurr. Carn._ 19.
[120:4] Iren. i. 27. 3, Tertull. _adv. Marc._ v. 10, _de Præscr. Hær._
33.