[182:1] Iren. _Haer._ iii. 11. 1.

[182:2] Preface to ed. 6, p. xxi. So again he says (II. p. 323): It is 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. _Haer._ 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage 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 doc.u.ment 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 doc.u.ment 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 h.o.m.oeoteleuton. The text will then stand, 'et idem, prout a.s.sequi potuit, ita posuit. Ita et ab nativitate,' etc. ([Greek: kai autos, kathos hedunato parakolouthein, outos etheke, 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 pa.s.sage is quite independent of any textual conjectures.

[189:2] 'Johannis ex. discipulis, i.e. [Greek: tou ek ton matheton], where [Greek: mathetes], 'a disciple,' is applied, as in Papias and Irenaeus, 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 legon 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 circ.u.mstances under which this Gospel was composed.

[191:1] I. p. 483. He uses similar language in another pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage including the note is omitted in the Complete Edition.]

[193:1] [The pa.s.sage is quoted above, p. 143.]

[194:1] Iren. _Haer._ 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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage runs 'In the ... (plural) of my Father.'] (2) He has translated 'Omnia enim Dei sunt, qui omnibus aptam habitationem praestat, quemadmodum verb.u.m ejus ait, omnibus _divisum esse_ a Patre,' etc., 'For all things are of G.o.d, 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 Irenaeus, _de Ogdoade_, cited instead of the _Epistle to Florinus_, for the relations between Irenaeus 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 cla.s.sicus_ 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 t.i.tle page to be 'carefully revised.'

[195:1] _S.R._ II. p. 333 (334).

[195:2] _S.R._ II. p. 329 (330).

[196:1] Iren. _Haer._ 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 Irenaeus (Photius _Bibl._ 12 1). Galen again speaks of his pupils taking down his lectures as he delivered them (_Op._ xix. p. 11, ed.

Kuhn). The discourses which Irenaeus 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. _Haer._ 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. Graec._ lx.x.xix. 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 Irenaeus, 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. Graec._ lx.x.xix. 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 a.s.sign this exposition is Luke x. 18. St Luke is also the only Evangelist who mentions paradise (xxiii. 43).

[202:1] Anastasius _Hex_. p. 963.