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 Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.
[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Mémoires_ II. 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 Tischendorf _Evang. 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.]
The _Protevangelium_ bears 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 the _Protevangelium_ (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 the _Protevangelium_ to 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. The _Chronicon Paschale_ also
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 the _first
three books_ of his work against Heresies can well have been written,
and the rest _must_ be 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, and _few 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 (_Einleitung_ p. 73) and by Scholten (_Die ältesten
Zeugnisse_ p. 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 Ziegler _Irenæus der Bischof von Lyon_ p.
15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenäus geboren_ p. 622 sq
(in _Stud. 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 of _Supernatural Religion_ himself
(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 the _Martyrium Polycarpi_,
recently collated by Gebhardt (see _Zeitschr. 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] Photius _Bibl._ 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
called _Iudæi, 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 deity _Semo Sancus_ for
_Simo 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:--Tatian _Orat. ad Græc._ 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenæus i. 28. 1;
Rhodon, in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 13; Clement of Alexandria _Strom._ iii. 12,
p. 547; _Exc. Theod._ 38, p. 999; Eusebius _H.E._ iv. 16, 28, 29;
Epiphanius _Hær._ xlvi.; Theodoret _Hær. Fab._ i. 20. The statements
in the text are justified by one or other of these references.
[273:2] All the references to _Supernatural Religion_ in 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 Westcott _History of Canon_ p. 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 Documents_ p. 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 into _Ditornon_, which has no meaning; but Cureton
conjectured that the reading was _Diatessaron_ (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 the _Trinity_ is
substituted. This would seem to be a still further corruption; and, if
so, it presents a parallel to the _Diapente_ in the text of Victor of
Capua, mentioned below.
[279:1] Wright's _Catalogue_ pp. 1082, 1083.
[279:2] Euseb. _H.E._ i. 13.
[279:3] See a valuable article by Zahn in the _Götting. 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's _Catalogue_ p. 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 Hilgenfeld _Einleitung_
p. 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
the _Diatessaron_, that is _Miscellanies_, 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 it _Diatessaron_.' 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' (Mai _Script.
Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).
(iii) In Bar-Bahlul's Syriac Lexicon, _s.v._ (see Payne Smith _Thes.
Syr._ p. 870), _Diatessaron_ is 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's _Thes. Syr. s.v._ p. 869
sq.
[283:1] Theodoret _Epist._ 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 this
_Diatessaron_. 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's _Introduction to the
Gospels_ p. 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 (_Einleitung_ p. 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's _Diatessaron_ by Zahn has
been published since this Article was written (Erlangen, 1881).]
[291:1] _Les Apôtres_ p. xviii.
[291:2] _Les Évangiles_ p. 436.
[292:1] xvii. p. 840.
[293:1] Sub ann. 46.
[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Röm. 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 Boeckh _Corp. Inscr.
Græc._ 2631, 2632.
[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's
_Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament_ p. 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's _Cyprus_ p. 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 Marini _Atti e Monumenti
de' Fratelli Arvali_ p. 198; Waddington _Fastes des Provinces
Asiatiques_ p. 731.
[296:1] This person is twice mentioned by Galen _de 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 Borghesi _Oeuvres_ viii.
p. 504.
[296:2] Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26: see Waddington _Fastes des
Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731. [See above, p. 223.]
[297:1] Boeckh _Corp. 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] Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 2972, [Greek: t[ois neôkorôn tôn Sebastôn,
monô]n hapa[sôn] de tês Artemidos.]
[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. 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 as _e.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.
INDICES.
I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
II. INDEX OF PASSAGES.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Aberle, 210, 213 n
Abgarus, 279