Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion" Part 31

[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 a.s.signs 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 ma.s.s 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 a.s.signed 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 a.s.sociation 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 altesten Zeugnisse_ p. 110 sq). [In the Complete Edition the last sentence is considerably modified and runs as follows; 'As part of the pa.s.sage 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 te prote hemon helikia)]; for he survived long ([Greek: epipolu gar paremeine]), and departed this life at a very great age ([Greek: panu geraleos]) by a glorious and most notable martyrdom.' This pa.s.sage suggests the inference that, if Polycarp had not had a long life, Irenaeus could not have been his hearer; but it cannot be pressed to mean that Polycarp was already in very advanced years when Irenaeus saw him, since the words [Greek: panu geraleos] 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 pa.s.sage are taken on the one hand by Ziegler _Irenaeus der Bischof von Lyon_ p.

15 sq, and on the other by Leimbach _Wann ist Irenaus 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 pa.s.sage 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 Irenaeus 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 Irenaeus, '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 _Iudaei, i.e. Idaei_. Some persons, he adds, say that Egypt being over-populated in the reign of Isis, a mult.i.tude, 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 a.s.s 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 princ.i.p.al 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 t.i.t._ vii. p.

686), 'Tatia.n.u.s, Encrat.i.tarum patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc est, ad t.i.tum, apostoli p.r.o.nuntiandam 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 Doc.u.ments_ 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 subst.i.tuted. 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 _Gotting. Gelehrte Anzeigen_, February 6, 1877, p. 161 sq. On this doc.u.ment I am unable to accept the conclusion of Cureton and of Dr Phillips, that the work itself is a much earlier and authentic doc.u.ment, and that the pa.s.sages 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] a.s.sem. _Bibl. Orient._ ii. p. 159 sq. The English reader should be warned that a.s.semani'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 h.o.m.ophonous 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 pa.s.sages 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] a.s.sem. _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 (a.s.sem.

_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 pa.s.sage of Bar-Salibi (or some corresponding pa.s.sage), 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 pa.s.sages are not independent. a.s.semani 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 (a.s.sem. _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: 'Tatia.n.u.s quidam philosophus c.u.m evangelistarum loquentium sensum suo intellectu cep.i.s.set, et scopum scriptionis illorum divinae in mente sua fixisset, unum ex quatuor illis admirabile collegit evangelium, quod et Diatessaron nominavit, in quo c.u.m cautissime seriem rectam eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta ac gesta fuere, serva.s.set, ne unam quidem dictionem e suo addidit' (Mai _Script.

Vet. Nov. Coll._ x. pp. 23, 191).