Chapter XV: Appendix (3)

[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh, apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any passage in Tillemont, where he assigns them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p. 91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._ p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be added that the title of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the Passover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai Ôsêe logos]; see Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' substituted for 'many' in the text.]

Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a passage of Melito quoted on the same authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The passage bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without hesitation.

[242:1] _Die ält. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.

[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete Edition.]

[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.

[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'

[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.

[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.

[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.

[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]

[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Passover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris ([Greek: to alêthinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the passage, though himself taking the opposite view.

[245:2] Iren. _Hær._ ii. 22.

[247:1] See above, p. 131.

[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]

[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of 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.