133. Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossæ was paid.
134. 2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (Oriens Christ. I. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.
135. It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.
136. Rev. iii. 14–21.
137. Col. i. 15–18.
138. Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.
139. Col. iii. 1.
140. Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.
141. Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.
142. Col. iv. 17.
143. Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.
144. Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.
145. Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.
146. In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.
147. See the next chapter of this introduction.
148. Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.
149. i. 27.
150. ii. 2, 3.
151. Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.’
152. Canon Murator. fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s Ancient Syriac Documents pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.
153. Papias in Euseb. H.E. iii. 39.
154. Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων , ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. H.E. iii. 30), ἣ καὶ τοὺς ἀποστόλους ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the Dialogue between Caius and Proclus, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Euseb. H.E. iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the four daughters prophesying identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (H.E. iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (H.E. iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be the same who are mentioned in the Acts.
My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an Ionian Greek (Strom. I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends solely on the authority of the Dialogue of Caius and Proclus. I have given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles τί Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, Act. Apost. Apocr. p. 75 sq.
On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality. There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.
155. John xii. 20.
157. Euseb. H.E. iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.
158. See Westcott, Canon p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in the Contemporary Review Aug. 1867, where I have collected and investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias’ work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was written.
159. Euseb. l.c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπο]; τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός κ.τ.λ. The information respecting the raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip, as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened in Papias’ own time (κατ’ αὐτόν). It will be remembered that even Irenæus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (Hær. ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.
160. Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh Corp. Inscr. no. 3930, 3912 a add.) but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 Παπίᾳ Διῒ σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (Lobeck Aglaoph. p. 1048; see Boeckh Corp. Inscr. III. p. 1051). Hence as the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g. Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. In an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) Παππίας Τροφίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κ.τ.λ. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no. 718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.
Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology, and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in Zunz Namen der Juden p. 16.
161. Chron. Pasch. sub ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ’ ἀπὸ Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ· καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια. See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. Chron. (II. p. 216 ed. Schöne) ‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version of the Chronicon mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says ‘Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp at length, adds ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο ... μεθ’ ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται· τῶν γε μὴν τὸτε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο Πιόνιος ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ πόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ Παπύλου καὶ γυναικὸς Ἀγαθονίκης κ.τ.λ. He here falls into the serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see Act. SS. Bolland. Feb. 1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, ib. April 13. The Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (Act. Sinc. Mart. p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius. Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome, as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp’s martyrdom is fixed by various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton’s Fast. Rom. I. p. 157).
162. H E. iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, but this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see Contemporary Review l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him justice.
163. Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.
164. See on this subject Westcott Canon p. 64 sq.; Contemporary Review l.c. p. 12 sq.
165. The theory of the Tübingen school may be studied in Baur’s Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte or in Schwegler’s Nachapostolisches Zeitalter. It has been reproduced (at least as far as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan Saint Paul p. 366 sq.
167. § 3.
168. H.E. iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there is purely accidental.
169. H.E. v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.
170. It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the Tübingen views of early Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and Irenæus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of the epistle of the Roman Clement (H.E. iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.
171. Iren. Hær. v. 33. 4.
172. The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves, contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts. This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who taught him trustworthy writings (γράμματα πιστά) and sent him to visit queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a banquet the ιχθυς from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of this inscription to others found in situ in the cemetery at Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very striking. The commencement Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως closely resembles the form of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3906; the enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages round the promontory of Malea to Italy (ib. 3920); and lastly, the prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on tombstones in this city (ib. 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (Civiltà Cattolica 1856, I. p. 683, II. p. 84, quoted in the Acta Sanct. l.c.), whose criticisms however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.
The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. Conc. IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor of the Church at this late date would have declared his office plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts than elsewhere. Already the word χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ is found on tombstones of the third century; Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 l; see Renan Saint Paul p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault unless we accept the statement in the Acts.
And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written. Eusebius (H.E. v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He then goes on to say; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς τῶν εἰρημένων δή τις ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε, ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them (the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the Abercius of the epitaph?
But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live? Some MSS omit δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, thus making Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if they are omitted, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν, where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously; and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the authority of the original text of the historian himself.
But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession three συγγράμματα or treatises, speaking of them as though they emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris, iv. 27 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); but the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the omission of δή τις in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus, Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information, ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (Caius or Hippolytus? in the Journal of Philology I. p. 98 sq.).
On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see of Hierapolis.
If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161–180); and, if he was ever bishop of this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his episcopate in this reign.
The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one of several examples which might be produced.
There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris, Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes as ‘apostolicum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his Annals (Martyr. Rom. Oct. 22). To his great grief however he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise (Annal. s. a. 163, n. 15). A βίβλος διδασκαλίας by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was doubtless spurious.
173. Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high position in another Phrygian town. On a tablet at Æzani, on which is inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the congratulations of the people at the elevation of Caracalla to the rank of Augustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of κλαυδιοϲ . απολλιναριοϲ . αυρηλιανοϲ, Boeckh 3837 (see III. p. 1066 add.). In another inscription at the same place, the same or another member of the family is commemorated as holding the office of prætor for the second time, ϲτρατηγουντοϲ . το . β . κλ . απολλιναριου; Boeckh 3840, ib. p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 c, 3846 z (ib. pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (ib. p. 1086). At an earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman fleet at Misenum (Tac. Hist. iii. 57, 76, 77). The name occurs also at Hierapolis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915. π . αιλιοϲ . π . αιλιου . απολλιναριου . ιουλιανο[υ] . υιοϲ . ϲε[...] . απολλιναριϲ . μακεδων . κ.τ.λ., which shows that both the forms, Apollinaris and Apollinarius, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter being the Greek adaptation.
More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to Africanus (Op. I. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop bearing this name (τὸν καλὸν ἡμῶν πάπαν Ἀπολινάριον), of whom nothing more is known.
175. Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, Chron. s. a. 171, 172, ‘Apollinaris Asianus, Hierapolitanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’
176. Collected in Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ I. p. 159 sq., and quite recently in Otto’s Corp. Apol. Christ. IX. p. 479 sq.
179. The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should be observed, as the Quartodecimans maintained, irrespective of the day of the week. The fragment of Apollinaris (preserved in the Chron. Pasch. p. 13) relates to a discrepancy which some had found in the accounts of St Matthew and St John.
180. Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; H.E. v. 23 τῆς Ασίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, v. 24 τῆς Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας. ‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, ib.
181. See Polycrates of Ephesus in Euseb. H.E. v. 24.
182. In Euseb. H.E. v. 19.
183. Eusebius (H.E. iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apollinarius gives καὶ ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα συνέγραψε κατὰ τῆς [τῶν] Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως μετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτομηθείσης χρόνον, τότε γε μὴν ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅμα ταῖς αὐτοῦ ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκτροπῆς ποιουμένου, i.e. the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.
184. Included in the Libellus Synodicus published by Pappus; see Labb. Conc. I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for questioning its authenticity. The important part taken by Apollinaris against the Montanists is recognised by Eusebius H.E. v. 16, πρὸς τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας ἅιρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱεραπόλεως τὸν Ἀπολινάριον.
After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets; οἳ καὶ βλασφήμως, ἤτοι δαιμονῶντες, καθώς φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ [i.e. Ἀπολινάριος], τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν, σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. He evidently has before him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Eusebius (H.E. v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments shew: ὡς ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ δαιμονῶντι ... βλασφημεῖν διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος ... τὸν βιὸν καταστρέψαι Ἰούδα προδότου δίκην ... οἶον ἐπίτροπόν τινα Θεόδοτον πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος ... τετελευτήκασι Μοντανός τε καὶ Θεόδοτος και ἡ προειρημένη γυνή. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words δή τις at the commencement, as they are omitted in some existing MSS (see above, p. 56, note); and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to Apollinaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the second was certainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later events (see above, p. 56).
Hefele (Conciliengeschichte I. p. 71) places the date of this council before A.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of Claudius Apollinaris against the Montanists were later than his Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, note 183), and this Apology was not written till after A.D. 174 (see p. 61, note 187). The chronology of Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too early. The Chronicon of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under A.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been smouldering within the Church for some time before they broke out.
It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. H.E. v. 3) with Theodotus the leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no authority for this identification in Eusebius.
185. Theodoret. H.E. i. 21.
186. Socr. H.E. iii. 7.
187. Euseb. H.E. iv. 26, 27. He referred in this Apology to the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened A.D. 174; and as reported by Eusebius (H.E. v. 5), he stated that the legion was thus named by the emperor in commemoration of this miraculous thunderstorm. As a contemporary however, he must probably have known that the title Legio Fulminata existed long before; and we may conjecture that he used some ambiguous expression implying that it was fitly so named (e.g. ἐπώνυμον τῆς συντυχίας), which Eusebius and later writers misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of Irenæus as φερώνυμός τις ὢν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνοποίος. Of the words used by Eusebius, οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι προσηγορίαν, we may suspect that οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι προσηγορίαν is an expression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι gives Eusebius’ own erroneous interpretation of his author’s meaning.
The name of this legion was Fulminata, not Fulminatrix, as it is often carelessly written out, where the inscriptions have merely FVLM.; see Becker and Marquardt Röm. Alterth. III. 2, p. 353.