[FOOTNOTES] (continued 2)

[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 Iudaei, i.e. Idaei. 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 Graec. 19, 29, 35, 42; Irenaeus 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 Haer. xlvi.; Theodoret Haer. 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 Goetting. 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. Graec. 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: Ammonios men ho Alexandreus … to dia tessaron hemin kataleloipen euangelion, to kata Matthaion tas homophonous ton loipon euangeliston perikopas paratheis, hos ex anankes sumbenai ton tes akolouthias heirmon ton trion diaphtharanai, hoson epi to huphei anagnoseos]—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-Hebraeus in the latter half of the thirteenth century (Assem. Bibl. Orient. i. p. 57 sq) writes: 'Eusebius of Caesarea, 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 (Goett. 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. Haer. 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 Apotres p. xviii.

[291:2] Les Evangiles p. 436.

[292:1] xvii. p. 840.

[293:1] Sub ann. 46.

[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt Roem. 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 propraetors,' 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. Graec. 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. Kuehn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tes Rhomaion poleos, andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: de Praenot. 2 (Op. ii. p. 612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tes poleos, kai Phlabios, hupatikos men on ede kai autos, espeukos de peri ten Aristotelous philosophian, hosper kai ho Paulos, hois diegesamenos, k.t.l.] In this latter passage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho Paulos] in Kuehn 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. Graec. 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 neokoron ton Sebaston, mono]n hapa[son] de tes Artemidos.]

[300:3] Eckhel Doctr. Num. ii. p. 520. The legend is—[Greek: EPHESION TRIS NEOKORON KAI TES 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: hemerai]] [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 ges xoana kai thuepolous]), 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.