But the passage as a whole gives the three points which Hippolytus seems to have derived from Papias. It gives Sunday, the first day of Creation and the day of the Resurrection, as the day of the Annunciation. It applies to the growth of the humanity of Christ in His mother's womb the seven days of creation, thus suggesting, though not stating, that the period of gestation was seven months. Thirdly, as to the four days in the two lines of Dom Morin's fragment, it explicitly gives the right weekdays for the Annunciation, Nativity, and Passion, though it omits to mention the Baptism.

Now it cannot but seem remarkable, not to say startling, to find just these very points given in a single passage, when we remember that the weekday ascribed to the Nativity is unique, and that the seven months of gestation are only found (so far as I know) in Epiphanius. If we can find sufficient reason for believing that Victorinus is reproducing a passage of Papias, we shall have found an ample explanation of the mysterious appeals to the Apostles which we found apparently attributed to Hippolytus.1

§ 2. Victorinus borrowed from Papias.

It is certain that Victorinus in his Commentary on the Apocalypse borrowed largely from Papias. Indeed his millenarian conclusion to

1 It seems hardly necessary to point out that this passage of Victorinus and the other tiny fragment which cites Alexander are quite independent of one another, though the former seems to quote directly the source to which the latter goes back indirectly.

This is seen in the pre-Hieronymian form of the Commentary, as yet unpublished. Haussleiter (Theol. Literaturblatt April 26, 1895, p. 199) pointed out that Victorinus quotes Papias about St Mark. Prof. Rendel Harris (Expositor 1895, 5th series, vol. i, 'A new Patristic fragment,' p. 453) has said: 'The proof of the borrowing must be left until Prof. Haussleiter's edition comes out; but in the meantime he has published sufficient text to enable us to recognize that the writer was following a biblical argument for Chiliasm which made the same quotations as Irenaeus, and was in harmony with the interpretations given by that Father. At the same time it is pretty certain that he is not retailing Irenaeus, of whom he shews himself, as far as we can judge at present, quite independent.' I have transcribed the Vatican MS Ottobon. lat. 3288 A from a photograph; it contains the Commentary on the Apocalypse in a form as yet unaltered by Jerome. An elaborate comparison with Irenaeus has convinced me that Prof. Harris is certainly right. That Irenaeus is using Papias in Bk. v ch. 25-36 is obvious, not only from the chiliastic matter, but from his actual citations of 'the presbyters' from time to time (30, 1; 33, 3; 36, 1), while he appeals to Papias by name in 33, 3. Besides, Eusebius iii 39 implies that Irenaeus followed Papias, while the fragment of Philip of Side (?) published by De Boor asserts it (καὶ Παπίας δὲ περὶ τὴν χιλιονταετηρίδα opáλλerai, éf où xaì Eipηvaîos), and perhaps so does Photius (Bibl. 232). The latter seems to be quoting Maximus Confessor, or the source used by him (Schol. in Dionys. Areop. 'de eccl. hier.' 7).

that work (omitted in St Jerome's revised edition of it) was clearly based upon Papias, just as was the similar disquisition in the fifth book of St Irenaeus. Detailed resemblances are not wanting in other points. Victorinus-in the original form of his work-quoted Papias on Mark: 'Marcus interpres Petri ea quae imminere (= in munere) docebat commemoratus conscripsit sed non ordine[m] et incipit prophetae per Esaiam praedicatio.' Again Victorinus makes the 24 elders mean the 24 books of the O. T.; and this is expressly attributed by Mommsen's catalogue (Cheltenham list') to the Presbyters' (of Papias, no doubt). Again St Victorinus's comparison of the four beasts with the four Gospels, before St Jerome altered it, was parallel to that of St Irenaeus, and yet a detailed comparison prevents us from supposing it to be borrowed from St Irenaeus ; at least so it has seemed to me after very careful study. There are other reasons for attributing this to Papias. It is not necessary to shew at length how the twenty-four books of the

1 Mommsen's list has: 'Sed ut in apocalypsi Iohannis dictum est: "vidi xxiiii seniores mittentes coronas suas ante thronum," maiores nostri probant hos libros esse canonicos et hoc dixisse seniores.' I cannot agree with the ingenious translation of the last words, proposed independently by Zahn and Turner: 'that the 24 elders signify this.' I doubt whether dixisse (why not dicere?) could mean this, and I feel no difficulty in taking seniores in two different senses, in the first place as 'the Elders of the Apocalypse', in the second place as the Presbyters of Papias'. I translate: 'But as it was said in the Apocalypse of John "I saw 24 elders casting their crowns before the throne", our predecessors prove these books to be canonical, and that the Presbyters said this.' We have here two stages of tradition: maiores nostri, and behind them seniores, which was well understood to mean men who had known the Apostles. Dom Morin has called attention to Victorinus's remark (J. T. S. 1906, April, p. 456), but not to all the three passages. They read thus in the pre-Hieronymian version (I cite from a photograph of MS Vat. Ottobon. lat. 3288 A): 'xxiiii seniores habentes tribunalia xxiiii libri prophetarum et legis referentes testimonia iudicio. sunt autem xxiiii patres xii apostoli duodecim patriarchae ' ( fol. 6v. and 7 r.), and ‘alae testimonia *· veteris testamenti sunt librorum ideoque xxiiii sunt tot numero quidet (i. e. quot et) seniores super tribunalia' (fol. 7 v.), and 'sunt autem libri veteris testamenti qui excipiunt xxiiii quos in epithomis Theodori invenimus'. For excipiunt (the sign for ur has been accidentally omitted) the Bibl. Cassin. (v 1 p. 7) gives excipiuntur, no doubt the right reading, whereas the text in Bibl. Max. PP. has accipiuntur, and that of Migne (Gallandi) has recipiuntur. All these printed texts have invenies, which probably represents St Jerome's text. Is it possible that Jerome, not knowing any more than we do what were the epitomae Theodori, changed invenimus to invenies? I daresay Zahn is right in thinking the excerpta ex Theodoto to be meant (Forschungen iii p. 129), and Sanday (Stud. Bibl. iii p. 238) has agreed with him. Now Dom Morin has arrived independently at the same view. I do not accept Zahn's argument that there must have been a list in a lost portion of the excerpta ex Theodoto, but it is possible. And I am ready to accept as quite possibly true Dom Morin's suggestion that the Muratorian fragment is a portion of that work, rather than of the Hypotyposes, as I formerly tried to shew, Rev. Bén. July, 1904.

O. T., the four Gospels and the seven Epistles of Paul are mystical numbers likely to be borrowed from a common source. We saw the seven Epistles taken by Cyprian and by the De fabrica mundi from a common source, and in the Commentary on the Apocalypse Victorinus enlarges upon the same point. (Of the Muratorian fragment I wish to say nothing here.) The four Gospels and the four beasts occur together in the earlier part of De fabrica mundi.

So far I have been summarizing at length an argument which implies that Victorinus and Irenaeus have in many places copied Papias independently. This will be admitted as fairly certain in the case of the chiliastic passages; as to the other points a longer disquisition would be needed. It must be added that it is probable that Victorinus, if he used Papias, would sometimes copy him word for word; at least we know that he treated Origen in this way :

'Taceo de Victorino Petabionensi et ceteris, qui Origenem in explanatione dumtaxat Scripturarum secuti sunt et expresserunt' (Jerome Ep. 71, 2).

'Nec disertiores sumus Hilario, nec fideliores Victorino, qui eius (sc. Origenis) tractatus non ut interpretes, sed ut auctores proprii operis transtulerunt' (id. Ep. 84, 7). Now there is much in the De fabrica mundi which it is impossible to suppose borrowed from Papias, but there is much which seems most likely to come from him. Not only the long list of sevens, which St Cyprian also gave, but the preceding list of fours may well be his. The proof rests upon the fact that Papias was the first of the long line of Greek fathers who occupied themselves with the seven days of Creation, as we learn from Anastasius of Mount Sinai :

λαβόντες τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἐκ Παπίου τοῦ πάνυ τοῦ Ἱεραπολίτου, τοῦ ἐν τῷ ἐπιστηθίῳ φοιτήσαντος, καὶ Κλήμεντος, Πανταίνου τῆς ̓Αλεξανδρέων ἱερέως, καὶ ̓Αμμωνίου σοφωτάτου, τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ πρώτων συνῳδῶν ἐξηγητῶν, εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν zâσav Thν ¿§ańμepov vonσávtwv (in Hexaëm. i, the Latin only, in P.G. 89, col. 860). οἱ μὲν οὖν ἀρχαιότεροι τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἐξηγητῶν, λέγω δὴ Φίλων ὁ φιλόσοφος καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὁμόχρονος, καὶ Παπίας ὁ πολὺς ὁ Ἰωάννου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ φοιτητής, ὁ Ιεραπολίτης . . . καὶ οἱ ἀμφ' αὐτοὺς πνευματικῶς τὰ περὶ παραδείσου ἐθεώρησαν εἰς τὴν Χριστοῦ ἐκκλησίαν ἀναφερόμενοι (ibid. vii).

It does not seem clear (or even very likely) that Anastasius had read Papias, though his contemporary and fellow fighter against Monothelitism, St Maximus Confessor, had the book. It may be that he took this information from Clement (whose dissertation on the subject will have been in the first book of his Hypotyposes1), or from some other early writer. The application of the seven days to the Church will doubtless have made the seventh day the millennium, proving the

In the Hypotyposes Papias was used; at least the story of the writing of St Mark's Gospel is mediately if not immediately from him. Pantaenus was cited by name (Euseb. H. E. v 11).

identity by the familiar saying that 'one day with the Lord is as a thousand years',' which we find thus cited by Justin and Irenaeus (who both evidently founded their chiliastic theories on Papias) and by Hippolytus.

We must now look at the whole passage from De fabrica mundi, quoted above, and detail the reasons for believing it to be founded on Papias.

1. It has been shewn to give exactly the information which Annianus, Epiphanius, and Alexander led us to believe was ascribed by Hippolytus to 'one who knew the Apostles', apparently Papias.

2. The De fabrica mundi does interpret the seven days as referring to the Church, precisely in the way we should expect from Papias, according to the account of Anastasius, the seventh day being the millennium. The passage is corrupt, as usual: we are told of Old Testament worthies who broke the Sabbath :—

'Ut verum illum et iustum sabbatum septimo milliario annorum observaretur. Quamobrem septem diebus istis Dominus singula millia annorum adsignavit, sic enim cautum est: "in oculis tuis, Domine, mille anni ut dies una" (Ps. 89). Ergo in oculis Dei singula millia annorum constituta sunt, septem enim Thabet oculos Dominus11 (Zech. iv 10). Quapropter, ut memoravi, verum illud sabbatum erit septimo milliario annorum in quo Christus cum electis suis regnaturus est' (Apoc. xx 4).

3

Here we find the obvious citation of Psalm 89, and of the locus classicus from the Apocalypse, and all that a priori Papias should have said. The parallel with Irenaeus is very close.*

3. But Anastasius says 'of Christ and His Church'. How can the seven days be interpreted of Christ? The fragment will tell us.

1 From Ps. lxxxix 4, not from 2 Peter iii 8.

2 The MS has habeo oculos Domini'.

The

So Routh for the manuscript reading 'et septem milia anni in quo xps'. Migne (following other edd. ?) omits in, which is in the MS.

6

* Haer. v 28, 3 ὅσαις ἡμέραις ἐγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησὶν ἡ γραφή· · καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν. καὶ συνετέλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ σ' τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ ἃ ἐποίησε, καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζ' ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ (Gen. i 1, 2). τοῦτο δ ̓ ἔστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία. Ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς α ἔτη ἐν ἐξ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετέλεσται τὰ γεγονότα· φανερὸν οὖν ὅτι ἡ συντέλεια αὐτῶν τὸς ETOS EOTív. Cp. Justin Dial. 81 p. 295, where the Psalm is quoted and then the text of the Apoc. is referred to. In a fragment of Methodius (ap. Pitra Anal. iii 610) which Zahn (G. K. i 313 note) thinks genuine, the citation is from 2 Peter, and the reference to Apoc. follows as usual. The thousand years as one day' is also found in Barnabas 15, in Iren. v 23, 2, in Hippolytus on Daniel, in the fragments of Hippolytus against Caius, &c. What Victorinus has to say on Apoc. xx 4 will be found given by Haussleiter, in the Theolog. Literaturblatt, 26 April 1895, col. 196, from the Ottob. MS.

same passage goes on to say that 'the seven heavens agree with the seven days', and so do the seven spirits with the seven heavens.

"Auctor autem totius creaturae Iesus,11 verbo cognomen est ei . . . Hoc igitur verbum, cum lucem fecit, sapientia vocatur; cum caelum, intellectus; cum terram et mare, consilium; cum solem et lunam caeteraque clara, virtus; [cum] terram 2 et mare excitat, scientia; cum hominem finxit, pietas; cum hominem benedicit et sanctificat, timor Dei nomen habet.'

If this is not thought to be a direct application to Christ, we shall find a better one in the passage already cited, emendated, and discussed; we saw the growth of His human Body in the womb applied to the seven days of the week; we saw that His 'humanity was consummated' by seven stages of life, from birth through childhood to manhood and death; that it operated in seven kinds of divine works and seven kinds of human works. And all this was in illustration of the hexaëmeron of creation, thus exactly corresponding to the statement of the monk of Sinai.

4. The reference to Eve will need a longer handling: 'ea die Gabrihel angelum Mariae virgini evangelizasse qua die draco Aevam seduxit.' The doctrine that Mary corresponds to Eve is found in Justin Dial. 101 p. 327 c (he knew and used Papias's work, I think), in Irenaeus iii 22 and v 19 (he made great use of it), in Tertullian De carne Christi 17 (where Irenaeus is certainly the authority), and in Epiphanius and the later Fathers. Now Irenaeus may have elaborated what he found in Justin, or we may simply say that it was already a preacher's commonplace, or we may think that both used a common source. But in any case what we find elaborated by Justin may very well have been hinted at by Papias. One point, however, is of itself interesting; it is the use both by Justin and by Victorinus of the 'Western interpolation in Luke i 28 kai eiσeλov πρòs avτηv å ἄγγελος Γεὐαγγελίσατο αὐτὴν καὶ 1 εἶπεν. The authorities for this variant are A 229 262 * 2pе 6pе syrp Justin; b Ado, Victorinus (evangelisavit); ae ff 1 (benedixit). Remark how varied is the evidence: Greek-Western, African and European Latin, Syriac. It is impossible to doubt that D has here, as often, lost the original Western reading of its parent.

1 The MS has 'auctoritatem totius creaturae iustus'; the correction is Walker's. 1 cũ is added by the second hand; the first hand wrote terrae, the second hand changed e to m.

'This would have made a good excerpt for the Fathers of the seventh century to quote against the Monothelites. St Maximus seems to have known Papias's book (though perhaps Anastasius of Sinai did not), and one is surprised he did not notice this passage.

⚫ I do not know that the readings of Justin and Victorinus have been chronicled until now, at all events the latter. That of Ado (viii id. Octobr.) was given by my friend and confrère Dom Quentin in his most interesting paper on Codex Bezae in Revue Bénéd. Jan. 1906.