[202:2] Hippolytus _Ref. Haer._ 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. _Quaest. 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 _anankaios_ nun prosthesomen, k.t.l.], and again, [Greek: tauta d' hemin _anankaios_ pros tois ektetheisin epiteterestho].

[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 pa.s.sage in Origen, to which Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6 (III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma ebaptisthesan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Herodes men apekteinen Iakobon ton Ioannou machaira, ho de Rhomaion basileus, hos he paradosis didaskei, katedikase ton Ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon eis Patmon ten neson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this pa.s.sage 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, a.s.signs him to a later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of the pa.s.sage 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 subst.i.tuted '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 Palaeographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.

[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Graec. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder), [Greek: haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to heautou mathete Papia eubioto] (_sic_) [Greek: to hierapolite, k.t.l.].

[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsa (apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].

[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]

[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]

[214:4] The pa.s.sage of Andreas of Caesarea 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 (_Haer._ li.), who calls them _Alogi_. They are mentioned also, with special reference to the Gospel, by Irenaeus (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 ident.i.ty 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 tes h.e.l.lados, ho Ionikos].

[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 kekleromenos to auto onoma, Herodes epilegomenos], where [Greek: kekleromenos] (not [Greek: kai kleronomos]) 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.