_ 123 Adv. Noel._ v.
124 See Migne"s edition, p. 689, &c.
125 Died after 171.
_ 126 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 26.
127 Died 254, A.D.
_ 128 Ap._ Euseb. H. E., lib. iv. ch. 25.
_ 129 Comment. in Joann._ tom. x.x.xii. ch. 14, ed. Huet. p, 409.
_ 130 Contra Cels._ iii. 72; vol. i. p. 494, ed. Delarue.
_ 131 In Exodus_, Hom. vi. i; Levit. Hom. v. 2.
_ 132 In Levit._, Hom. xii. 4.
_ 133 In Lukam_, Hom. 21.
_ 134 De Oratione_, ii. p. 215.
_ 135 Opp. ed_ Delarue, vol. i. p. 12.
136 Died 311.
_ 137 Convivium decem virginum_, in Combefis"s Auctarium bibliothecae Graecorum patrum, p. 69.
_ 138 Ibid._, p. 69.
_ 139 Ibid._, p. 109.
140 t? ????a. _Ap._ Euseb. H. E. iii. 39.
141 Davidson"s _Introduction to the Study of the N. Testam._ vol. x. p.
388.
_ 142 Explanatio in Epist. ad t.i.tum_, vol. iv. p. 407, ed. Benedict.
_ 143 Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift_, p. 75.
144 A good deal of manipulation has been needlessly employed for the purpose of placing these heretics as early as possible; but nothing definite can be extracted from Irenaeus"s notices of them.
Hippolytus"s use of the present tense, in speaking of them, renders it probable that they were nearly his contemporaries.
145 See the Indexes to Duncker and Schneidewin"s edition.
_ 146 Bibliotheca_, cod. 232.
147 It is an unfounded a.s.sumption that Paul cited the pa.s.sage by "mere accident;" on the contrary, he gives it as canonical, with "as it is written" (1 Corinth. ii. 9). It may be that the Gnostics are referred to as using the objectionable pa.s.sage; but it is special pleading _to limit_ it to them, when Paul has expressly used the same, deriving it either from Isaiah lxiv. 4, or some unknown doc.u.ment; just as it is special pleading to identify ? ??????
standing beside ???? ?a? p??f?ta?, with _the New Testament_. The word excludes Paul"s Epistles from the canon; nor is there any evidence to the contrary, as has been alleged, in the two Syriac epistles attributed to Clement, which Wetstein published. Comp.
_Eusebius"s H. E._ iv. 22, _Photius"s Bibliotheca_, 232. Apologists have labored to prove Hegesippus an orthodox Catholic Christian, like Irenaeus; but in vain. He was a Jewish Christian of moderate type, holding intercourse with Pauline Christians at the time when the Catholic Church was being formed.
148 See _Hilgenfeld"s Zeitschrift_ for 1875-1878.
149 There is ?pest?? instead of the Septuagint"s and Mark"s (Tischend.) ?p??e?.
_ 150 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_, vol. 1, p. 144.
151 See Vision ii, 3, 4, with the prolegomena of De Gebhardt: and Harnack, p. lxxiii.
152 See Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld"s _Zeitschrift_ for 1875, p. 40, &c.
153 Epist. ch. iv.
154 Chapter xii. pp. 30, 31, ed. 2, Hilgenfeld.
155 See Chapter xv. end, with Hilgenfeld"s note, _Barnabae epistula ed._ _altera_, pp. 118, 119.
_ 156 Epis._ p. 13 ed. Hilgenfeld.
_ 157 Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1871, P. 336, etc.
158 Chapters xvi. and iv. In the former the reference is to Enoch lx.x.xix. 56, 66, 67, but the latter is not in the present book of Enoch, though Hilgenfeld thinks he has discovered it in lx.x.xix.
61-64 and xc. 17. (_Dillmann"s Das Buch Henoch_, pp. 61, 63). Was another apocryphal Jewish book current in the time of Barnabas, under the name of Enoch; or did he confound one doc.u.ment with another, misled by the Greek translation of an apocalyptic work which had fallen into discredit? See Hilgenfeld"s _Barnabae Epistula_, ed. 2 pp. 77, 78.
159 Chapter xi.
_ 160 Hist. Eccles._ iii. 39.
161 A small body of literature originating in the fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39, 1-4) has appeared; though it is difficult to obtain satisfactory conclusions. Not only have Weiffenbach and Leimbach written treatises on the subject, but other scholars have entered into it more or less fully,-Zahn, Steitz, Riggenbach, Hilgenfeld, Lipsius, Keim, Martens, Loman, Holtzmann, Hausrath, Tietz, and Lightfoot. The fragment is not of great weight in settling the authenticity of the four gospels.
Indirectly indeed it throws some light on the connection of two evangelists with written memoirs of the life of Jesus; but it rather suggests than solves various matters of importance. It is tolerably clear that the gospels, if such they may be called, of which he speaks as written by Matthew and Mark, were not identical with the works now existing under the names of these evangelists; and that no safe conclusion can be drawn from Papias"s silence about John"s and Luke"s as not then in existence. Neither the present gospels nor any other had been converted into _Scripture_; since he regarded oral traditions as more credible than written memoirs. Those who hold that the presbyter John was none other than the apostle, Eusebius having misunderstood the fragment and made a different John from the apostle, as well as the critics who deduce from the fragment the fact that John suffered martyrdom in Palestine, have not established these conclusions. Papias refers to the material he got for explaining the ????a, rather than the source whence they were drawn.
But whether he learnt directly from the elders, or indirectly as the preposition (pa??) would seem to indicate, and whether the sentence beginning with "What Andrew," &c., (t? ??d??a? ?. t. ?.) stands in apposition to the "words of the elders," (t??? t?? p?es?t????
??????) or not, are things uncertain.
_ 162 Epist. ad Philadelph._, ch. 5 See Hefele"s note on the pa.s.sage. The other well-known pa.s.sage in chapter viii. is too uncertain in reading and meaning to be adduced here.
163 Chapter iii.
164 To the Ephesians, chapter xii.
_ 165 Epist. ad Romanos_, iv.
_ 166 Testam. Benj._ 11, p. 201, ed. Sinker.
_ 167 Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_, 1875, p. 490, _et seq._
168 ?? t??? ?p???????asa?, ? f?? ?p? t?? ?p?st???? a?t?? ?a? t??