scarcely probable that when Papias collected from the presbyter the
facts concerning Matthew and Mark he would not also have inquired about
the Gospel of John, if he had known it, and recorded what he had heard,'
etc.
[182:3] Iren. _Hær._ iii. 1. 1.
[183:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvi.
[183:2] Preface to ed. 5, p. xix.
[183:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22.
[184:1] [See above, p. 44 sq.]
[184:2] [Attention has been drawn to these passages above, p. 35 sq.]
[184:3] II. p. 166.
[184:4] [The Sixth Edition.]
[184:5] I. p. 483.
[185:1] II. p. 323. [See above, p. 35.]
[185:2] II. p. 320. [See above, p. 35.]
[186:1] The passage is given below, p. 200 sq.
[186:2] In justification of this statement, I must content myself for
the present with referring to an able and (as it seems to me)
unanswerable article on Marcion's Gospel by Mr Sanday, in the June
[1875] number of the _Fortnightly Review_, in reply to the author of
_Supernatural Religion_.
[187:1] John xix. 35; xx. 31.
[188:1] This fragment may be conveniently consulted in the edition of
Tregelles (Oxford, 1867), or in Westcott's _History of the Canon_ p. 514
sq (ed. 4). It must be remembered, _first_, that this document is an
unskilful Latin translation from a lost Greek original; and, _secondly_,
that the extant copy of this translation has been written by an
extremely careless scribe, and is full of clerical errors. These facts
however do not affect the question with which I am concerned, since on
all the points at issue the bearing of the document is clear.
[189:1] I venture to offer a conjectural emendation of the text, which
is obviously corrupt or defective. It runs--'et ide prout asequi potuit
ita et ad nativitate Johannis incipet dicere.' I propose to insert
'posuit ita' after 'potuit ita,' supposing that the words have dropped
out owing to the homoeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem,
prout assequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek:
kai autos, kathôs hêdunato parakolouthein, outôs ethêke, k.t.l.]), 'And
he too [like Mark] set down events according as he had opportunity of
following them' (see Luke i. 3). But the general meaning of the passage
is quite independent of any textual conjectures.
[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek tôn mathêtôn],
where [Greek: mathêtês], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and
Irenæus, in conformity with the language of the Gospels, to those who
had been taught directly by Christ.
[189:3] The plural appears to be used here, as not uncommonly, of a
single letter. See above, p.114. The sentence runs in the Latin (when
some obvious errors of transcription are corrected):--'Quid ergo mirum
si Johannes singula etiam in epistulis suis proferat dicens in semet
ipsum, _Quae vidimus_,' etc.; and so I have translated it. But I cannot
help suspecting that the order in the original was, [Greek: hekasta
propherei, kai en tais epistolais autou legôn eis heauton, k.t.l.] 'puts
forward each statement (_i.e._ in the Gospel), as he says in his epistle
also respecting himself,' etc.; and that the translator has wrongly
attached the words [Greek: kai en tais epistolais k.t.l] to the former
part of the sentence.
[190:1] I am glad to find that Mr Matthew Arnold recognizes the great
importance of this tradition in the Muratorian Fragment (_Contemporary
Review_, May, 1875, p. 977). Though I take a somewhat different view of
its bearing, it has always seemed to me to contain in itself a
substantially accurate account of the circumstances under which this
Gospel was composed.
[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another passage also, II.
p. 323.
[191:2] See above, p. 49.
[191:3] [See above, p. 49 sq.]
[192:1] Preface to ed. 6, p. xv.
[192:2] [_S.R._ I. p. 483 (ed. 6); the whole passage including the note
is omitted in the Complete Edition.]
[193:1] [The passage is quoted above, p. 143.]
[194:1] Iren. _Hær._ v. 36. 1, 2.
[194:2] [See above, pp. 3 sq, 52 sq, 124 sq.]
[194:3] After two successive alterations, our author has at length, in
his last [sixth] edition, translated the oblique infinitives correctly,
though from his reluctance to insert the words 'they say,' or 'they
teach,' which the English requires, his meaning is somewhat obscure. But
he has still left two strange errors, within four lines of each other,
in his translation of this passage, II. p. 328. (1) He renders [Greek:
en tois tou patros mou], 'In the (heavens) of my Father,' thus making
[Greek: tois] masculine, and understanding [Greek: ouranois] from
[Greek: ouranous] which occurs a few lines before. He seems not to be
aware that [Greek: ta tou patros mou] means 'my Father's _house_' (see
Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 100; Wetstein on Luke ii. 49). Thus he has made the
elders contradict themselves; for of the 'many mansions' which are
mentioned only the first is 'in the heavens,' the second being in
paradise, and the third on earth. [In the Complete Edition the passage
runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia
enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum
verbum ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things
are of God, who prepares for all the fitting habitation as His Word
says, _to be allotted_' ['that distribution is made,' Compl. Ed.] 'to
all by the Father,' etc. He can hardly plead that this is 'a
paraphrase,' for indeed it is too literal.
A few pages before (II. pp. 325, 326), I find, '_Mag sie_ aber daher
stammen,' translated 'Whether _they are_ derived from thence,' ['whether
this be its origin or not,' Compl. Ed. II. p. 323]. A few pages after
(p. 332), I find the work of Irenæus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of
the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenæus and
Polycarp. [This error is likewise tacitly corrected in the Compl. Ed.
II. p. 330.] It might have been supposed that any one who had looked
into the subject at all must have been aware that this _locus classicus_
was in the _Epistle to Florinus_. But Eusebius happens to quote the
treatise _de Ogdoade_ in the same chapter; and hence the mistake. Such
errors survive, though these pages have undergone at least two special
revisions, and though this 'sixth' edition is declared on the title page
to be 'carefully revised.'
[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).
[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).
[196:1] Iren. _Hær._ iv. 27. 1 sq; iv. 30. 1; iv. 31. 1; iv. 32. 1.
Even in this case there remains the possibility that we have a report of
lectures taken down at the time. The early work of Hippolytus on
Heresies was drawn up from a synopsis which he had made of the lectures
of Irenæus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils
taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed.
Kühn). The discourses which Irenæus reports from the lips of this
anonymous elder (perhaps Melito or Pothinus) are so long and elaborate,
that the hypothesis of lecture notes seems almost to be required to
account for them.
[197:1] See above, p. 143.
[197:2] See above, p. 158 sq.
[198:1] See above, p. 158.
[198:2] Iren. _Hær._ v. 6. 1.
[199:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333.
[199:2] See above, p. 143.
[200:1] [See above, p. 154.]
[200:2] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 962 (ed. Migne).
[200:3] Under this 'spiritual' interpretation, Anastasius includes views
as wide apart as those of Philo, who interprets paradise as a
philosophical allegory, and Irenæus, who regards it as a supramundane
abode; for both are named. But they have this in common, that they are
both opposed to a terrestrial region; and this is obviously the main
point which he has in view.
[201:1] _Patrol. Græc._ lxxxix. p. 964 sq.
[201:2] Cramer _Catena_ p. 358 sq.
[201:3] Routh (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 41) would end the quotation from
Papias at 'their array came to nought;' but the concluding sentence
seems to be required as part of the quotation, which otherwise would be
very meaningless. Papias, adopting the words of the Apocalypse,
emphasizes the fact that Satan was cast down to the earth, because this
shows that paradise was a supramundane region. As I have said before (p.
186), the only saying of our Lord to which we can conveniently assign
this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who
mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).
[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.
[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Hær._ vi. 42, 55.
[203:1] _Apost. Const._ ii. 24.
[204:1] J.S. Mill _Three Essays_ p. 254.
[204:2] Ewald _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ p. 271.
[205:1] See above, p. 158 sq.
[205:2] [See above, p. 165.]
[205:3] See above, p. 188 sq.
[207:1] Routh _Rel. Sacr._ i. p. 160.
[208:1] Euseb. _Quæst. ad Marin._ 2, iv. p. 941 (ed. Migne). Jerome,
who seems to have had Eusebius before him, says more plainly (Epist.
120, _ad Hedib._ I. p. 826):--'Mihi videtur evangelista Matthaeus qui
evangelium Hebraeo sermone conscripsit, non tam _vespere_ dixisse quam
_sero_, et eum qui interpretatus est, verbi ambiguitate deceptum, non
_sero_ interpretatum esse sed _vespere_.'
[209:1] Iren. ii. 22. 5; Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 23.
[209:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xvii.
[209:3] Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39 [Greek: eph' has tous philomatheis
anapempsantes _anankaiôs_ nun prosthêsomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek:
tauta d' hêmin _anankaiôs_ pros tois ektetheisin epitetêrêsthô].
[210:1] This argument to St John's Gospel was published long ago by
Cardinal Thomasius (_Op._ I. p. 344); but it lay neglected until
attention was called to it by Aberle _Theolog. Quartalschr._ xlvi. p. 7
sq (1864), and by Tischendorf _Wenn wurden etc._
[210:2] Overbeck's article is in Hilgenfeld's _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol._ p. 68 sq (1867). The notice relating to the four Maries will be
found in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 16.
[211:1] _Einleitung_ p. 63 (1875); comp. _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol._ xviii. p. 269 (1875).
[211:2] I verified this for myself ten years ago, and published the
result in the first edition of my _Galatians_, p. 459 sq (1865). About
the same time Dr. Westcott ascertained the fact from a friend, and
announced it in the second edition of his _History of the Canon_.
[211:3] This fragment was first published by Nolte _Theolog.
Quartalschr._ xliv. p. 466 (1862). It will be found in the collection of
fragments of Papias given by Hilgenfeld _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch. Theol._
(1875), p. 258.
[212:1] This solution of the difficulty by means of a lacuna was
suggested to me by a friend. In following up the suggestion, I have
inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which
Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6
(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepôkasi de potêrion kai to baptisma
ebaptisthêsan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Hêrôdês men apekteinen
Iakôbon ton Iôannou machaira, ho de Rhômaiôn basileus, hôs hê paradosis
didaskei, katedikase ton Iôannên marturounta dia ton tês alêtheias logon
eis Patmon tên nêson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this
passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus
mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error
which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John
Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).
[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237
(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes
Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in
the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a
later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of
the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in
_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.
[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly
substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's
suggestion of the spurious Papias.
[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by
the Palæographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.
[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Græc. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder),
[Greek: haireseôn anaphueisôn deinôn hupêgoreuse to euangelion tô
heautou mathêtê Papia eubiôtô] (_sic_) [Greek: tô hierapolitê, k.t.l.].
[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsâ
(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].
[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]
[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]
[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Cæsarea will be found in Routh _Rel.
Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the
Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name.
Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It
seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though
he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony
of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use
by Papias, as his practice elsewhere would demand. But I suppose that
Eusebius omitted any express mention of this use, because he had meant
his words to be understood of the Apocalypse, when, speaking of the
Chiliastic doctrine of Papias higher up, he said that this father 'had
mistaken the Apostolic statements,' and 'had not comprehended what was
said by them mystically and in figurative language' [Greek: en
hupodeigmasi].
[215:1] [See above, pp. 36 sq, 46.]
[215:2] These persons are discussed at great length by Epiphanius
(_Hær._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with
special reference to the Gospel, by Irenæus (iii. 11. 9). Hippolytus
wrote a work 'In defence of the Gospel and Apocalypse of John,' which
was apparently directed against them. It may be suspected that
Epiphanius is largely indebted to this work for his refutation of them.
[216:1] _Einleitung_ p. 67; comp. p. 733 sq.
[216:2] Euseb. _H.E._ vii. 25. Gaius the Roman Presbyter, who wrote
about A.D. 220, is often cited as an earlier instance. I gave reasons
some years ago for suspecting that the Dialogue bearing this name was
really written by Hippolytus (_Journal of Philology_, I. p. 98, 1868);
and I have not seen any cause since to change this opinion. But whether
this be so or not, the words of Gaius reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ iii.
28) seem to be wrongly interpreted as referring to the Apocalypse. [The
important discovery of Prof. Gwynn (_Hermathena_, vol. VI. p. 397 sq,
1888), showing as it does, that there was a Gaius different from
Hippolytus, does not allow me to speak now as I spoke in 1875 about the
identity of Gaius the Roman presbyter and Hippolytus.]
[217:1] See above, p. 89 sq.
[217:2] Iren. ii. 22. 5; iii. 3. 4.
[218:1] See above, p. 189.
[218:2] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 1 (p. 322) [Greek: ho men epi tês
Hellados, ho Iônikos].
[218:3] Clem. Alex. _Quis div. salv._ 42, p. 959.
[218:4] Iren. ii. 22. 5.
[218:5] Iren. iii. 3. 4.
[218:6] Iren. v. 30. 1.
[218:7] Iren. v. 33. 3.
[218:8] _Ep. ad Flor._ in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 20. See above, p. 96.
[218:9] Iren. iv. 26. 2.
[218:10] Iren. v. 5. 1.
[220:1] See above, pp. 89 sq, 142 sq.
[220:2] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 1.
[221:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 6 [Greek: ho keklêrômenos to auto onoma,
Hêrôdês epilegomenos], where [Greek: keklêrômenos] (not [Greek: kai
klêronomos]) is the right reading, 'who chanced to have the same name,'
_i.e._, with the tyrant of the Gospels.
[221:2] _ib._ § 8. It is right to add however, that the meaning of the
expression 'great sabbath' here has been questioned.
[221:3] _ib._ § 6 [Greek: oi prodidontes auton oikeioi hupêrchon].
[221:4] _ib._ § 8.
[221:5] _ib._ § 7 [Greek: hos epi lêstên]; comp. Matt. xxvi. 55; Mark
xiv. 48; Luke xxii. 52.
[221:6] _ib._ § 7; comp. Matt. xxvi. 42; Acts xxi. 14.
[221:7] The objections which have been urged against this narrative are
not serious. See above, p. 103.
[221:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 9. see Deut. xxxi. 7, 23.
[222:1] John xii. 28.
[222:2] _Martyr. Polyc_. § 5.
[222:3] _ib._ § 12 [Greek: edei gar to tês ... optasias plêrôthênai hote
... eipen, k.t.l.]
[222:4] John xii. 33.
[222:5] John xviii. 32 [Greek: hina ho logos tou 'Iêsou plêrôthê, hon
eipen sêmainôn k.t.l.] The coincidence extends to the language used when
the change is brought about. In Polycarp's case Philippus the Asiarch
says (§ 12), [Greek: _mê einai exon_ autô, k.t.l.]; in our Lord's case,
the language of the Jews is (xviii. 31), [Greek: _hêmin ouk exestin_
apokteinai oudena.]
[222:6] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16 [Greek: exêlthe [peristera kai] plêthos
haimatos]. It is unnecessary for my purpose to inquire whether the words
[Greek: peristera kai] should be altered into [Greek: peri sturaka]
according to Bishop Wordsworth's ingenious emendation, or omitted
altogether as in the text of Eusebius.
[222:7] John xix. 34 sq.
[222:8] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 15.
[222:9] John xix. 28, 30.
[223:1] _Martyr. Polyc._ § 16.
[223:2] _ib._ § 14; comp. John v. 29, xvii. 3.
[223:3] Quoted in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
[223:4] _Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and
Waddington's _Voyage Archéologique etc._ Borghesi (_Oeuvres_ viii. p.
507) had placed it between A.D. 163-68.
[223:5] Euseb. _l.c._ See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 377 sq.
[223:6] He writes--[Greek: epi pasi kai to pros Antôninon biblidion].
The meaning assigned in the text to [Greek: epi pasi] is generally
accepted, but cannot be considered quite certain.
[224:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[224:2] See above, p. 218.
[225:1] [Greek: peri tou pascha.] The author of _Supernatural Religion_
speaks of it as 'Melito's work on the Passion' (ii. p. 180). This error
survives to the sixth edition [but is tacitly corrected in the Complete
Edition].
[225:2] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26. This reference serves for all the facts
relating to Melito, which are derived from Eusebius, unless otherwise
stated. There is a little difficulty respecting the exact titles of the
works in one or two cases owing to various readings; but the differences
are not important enough to be considered here.
[225:3] These titles are taken from Anastasius of Sinai, and from the
Syriac fragments.
[226:1] _S.R._ II. p. 174 sq.
[227:1] See above, p. 177.
[227:2] See above, p. 104 sq, where the arguments of our author against
the genuineness of the Epistle are refuted.
[227:3] Justin Martyr _Apol._ i. 67 [Greek: ta apomnêmoneumata tôn
apostolôn ê ta sungrammata tôn prophêtôn anaginôsketia k.t.l.], compared
with _ib._ 66 [Greek: oi apostoloi en tois genomenois hup' autôn
apomnêmoneumasin ha kaletai euangelia].
[228:1] Quoted by Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 23.
[228:2] The only complete collection of the fragments of Melito is in
Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 374 sq.
[228:3] _S.R._ II. p. 180.
[229:1] For an account of these writings see Otto, p. 390 sq, p. 402 sq.
[229:2] Quoted by Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 24.
[230:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 28.
[230:2] Migne's _Patrol. Græc._ xxxix. p. 228 sq.
[231:1] St Luke iii. 23.
[232:1] Given in Pitra's _Spicil. Solesm._ ii. p. lix. sq, and in
Cureton's _Spicil. Syr._ p. 53 sq. See also Otto, p. 420.
[232:2] The translators hitherto (Renan, Cureton, Sachau) have rendered
this expression by the singular '_in voce_, in the voice.' But this
makes no sense; and I can hardly doubt that it should be translated as I
have given it, though the _ribui_, the sign of the plural, seems to have
disappeared in the existing Syriac text. We have here the distinction
between [Greek: phonê] and [Greek: logos], on which writers of the
second and third centuries delighted to dwell. It occurs as early as
Ignatius _Rom._ 2 (the correct reading). They discovered this
distinction in John i. 1, 14, 23, where the Baptist is called [Greek:
phonê boôntos], while Christ is [Greek: ho Logos].
[234:1] _S.R._ II. p. 184. Our author has stated just before: 'It is
well known that there were many writers' ['other writers' Compl. Ed.]
'in the early Church bearing the names of Melito and Miletius or
Meletius, which were frequently confounded.' It is dangerous always to
state a sweeping negative; but I am not aware of any other writer in the
early Church bearing the name of Melito.
[235:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 61 (p. 284).
[235:2] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 34 (p. 251).
[235:3] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).
[236:1] Justin Martyr _Dial._ § 100 (p. 327).
[236:2] See _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 4. The Syriac abridgment commences
in the same way. See _ib._ p. 3.
[237:1] See above, p. 202.
[237:2] _Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 1.
[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.
[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.
[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts
relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.
[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.
[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.
[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollôn para pollois sôzomenôn, ta
eis hêmas elthonta esti tade.]
[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera
sungrammata axiomnêmoneuta einai, ois oupô hêmeis enetuchomen.]
[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).
[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.
[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.
p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius,
_l.c._
[240:1] [See above, p. 17].
[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many
been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the
third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives
references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh,
apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to
reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel.
Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont,
where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of
Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p.
91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers
in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria
is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the
question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is
reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._
p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not
mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be
added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the
Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see
Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of
Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment
from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition
of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are
tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the
text.]
Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a
witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same
authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage
bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an
Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the
Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without
hesitation.
[242:1] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.
[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete
Edition.]
[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.
[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'
[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.
[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.
[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.
[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.
[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]
[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent
discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the
Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it
should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what
Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris
([Greek: to 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.]