Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion" Part 32

(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 (_Gott. 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. _Haer._ xlvi. 1.

[284:2] See the reference in the last note.

[285:1] All the remains of the Hebrew Gospel, and the pa.s.sages 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 Apotres_ p. xviii.

[291:2] _Les evangiles_ p. 436.

[292:1] xvii. p. 840.

[293:1] Sub ann. 46.

[293:2] See Becker u. Marquardt _Rom. 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 propraetors,' and he therefore supposes that Strabo and Dion Ca.s.sius are at variance. De Wette's error stands uncorrected by his editor, Overbeck.

[293:3] Dion Ca.s.sius liii. 12.

[294:1] Dion Ca.s.sius liv. 4.

[294:2] Q. Julius Cordus and L. Annius Ba.s.sus in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr.

Graec._ 2631, 2632.

[294:3] Cominius Proclus, and perhaps Quadratus: see Akerman's _Numismatic Ill.u.s.trations 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 a.s.signed 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. Kuhn): [Greek: toude tou nun eparchou tes Rhomaion poleos, andros ta panta proteuontos ergois te kai logois tois en philosophia, Sergiou Paulou hupatou]: _de Praenot_. 2 (_Op._ ii. p.

612), [Greek: aphikonto Sergios te ho kai Paulos, hos ou meta polun chronon huparchos] (l. [Greek: eparchos) egeneto tes poleos, kai Phlabios, hupatikos men on ede kai autos, espeukos de peri ten Aristotelous philosophian, hosper kai ho Paulos, hois diegesamenos, k.t.l.] In this latter pa.s.sage the words stand [Greek: Sergios te kai ho Paulos] in Kuhn 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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. Graec._ 2954. The first sentence which I have quoted is slightly mutilated; but the sense is clear. The doc.u.ment 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 neokoron ton Sebaston, mono]n hapa[son] de tes Artemidos.]

[300:3] Eckhel _Doctr. Num._ ii. p. 520. The legend is--[Greek: EPHESIoN TRIS NEoKORoN KAI TeS 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: hemerai]] [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 ges xoana kai thuepolous]), 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.