Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
1. p.vi 1 tw~n a0pokritik~wn pro_j Ellhnaj lo&gwn. But the full title of the work is first given as The Apocriticus or Monogenes to the Greeks of Macarius Magnes, concerning the questions and solutions in the Gospel.
2. pvii. n.1 The full title is again first given, in somewhat different form, as The Apocriticus or Monogenes to the Greeks of Macarius Magnes, concerning the questions and answers in dispute in the New Testament.
3. p.viii n.1 Macarius replies to two questions in one answer.
4. p.viii n.2 The heading gives it thus as two separate chapters, although there is but one chapter in the text in the case of both question and answer.
5. 1 See Nicephorus, Antirrhetici Libri, ap. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, tom. i. p. 303 et seq.
6. 2 Turrianus, Dogmaticus de Justificatione ad Germanos adversus Luteranos, Romae, 1557, p. 37 et seq.
9. 1 See F. Turrianus, Adversus Magdeburgenses, Colon. 1573, ii. 3, p. 165; i. 5, p. 21, and ii. 13, p, 208.
10. 2 See Migne, Patr, Graec. X. p. 1343 et seq. His opinions are summarised by Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. p. 545.
11. 3 Macarii Magnetis quae supersunt, ex inedito codice edidit, C. Blondel, Klincksieck, Paris, 1876. It is this which has been used in the translation which follows, and reference is occasionally made to its pages.
12. 4 De Macario Magnete et scriptis ejus, Klincksieck, Paris, 1877.
13. 1 Lactantius, Div. Instit. v. 2.
14. 2 Möller, Schürers Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1877, p. 521 ; Zahn, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, B. ii. p. 450 et seq., 1878; Wagenmann, Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theol. B. xxii. p. 141, 1878. On such authority, Dr. Salmon simply states it as a fact in the article on Macarius in the Dict. Christ. Biog.
15. 3 See J.T.S. of April 1907 (vol. viii. No. 31), p. 404 et seq., Macarius Magnes, a Neglected Apologist, and July 1907 (vol. viii. No, 33, p. 546 et seq.).
16. 1 Kritik des Neues Testaments von einen griechischen Philosophen der 3 Jahrhunderts, etc. (Texte und Untersuchungen, etc. xxxvii. 4, Leipzig, 1911).
17. 2 J.T.S. April and July 1914 (vol. xv. Nos. 59 and 60), The work of Porphyry against the Christians, and its reconstruction.
18. 3 Georg Schalkhausser, Zu der Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia, Leipzig, 1907.
21. 2 Corpus Inscript. Lat. t. 3, No. 133, ap. Duch. p. 20.
23. 2 Euseb., In Hieroclem, in Gottfriedus Alearius's edition of Philostratus, Lipsiae, 1709, p. 459. a0fanisqh~nai fhsi\n au0to&n should be compared with a0fanh_j e0ge/neto of the Apocriticus.
25. 4 Migne, Patr. Graec. xxii. pp. 797-800, ch. 2.
26. 5 For details, and for further points in this connexion, see J.T.S. of April 1911, p. 377 et seq.
27. 1 e.g. Apocr. iii. 30, p. 125, 1. 6, and iii. 36, p. 131, 1. 9. It is argued that such remarks are merely interpolations, but sometimes (as in iv. 19) the personal introduction gradually shades off into the words of the objection.
28. 2 Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum, xvi.
29. 3 See e.g. Apocr. ii. 12, and the Preface to iii. for the heathen's attitude, and iii. 10 for his own.
30. 4 Apocr. iv. 3, p. 160, l. 6, and iv. 5, p. 163, l. 4.
33. 3 Ibid. iv. 25 : i3na triw~n u9posta&sewn e0n ou0si/a| mia~| gnwrisqh~| to_ u2noma ; but this is not identical with the later stereotyped phrase mi/a ou0si/a e0n trisi\n u9posta&sesin.
34. 4 For a discussion of the whole subject, see J.T.S. of July 1907, p. 553 et seq. See also below, pp. xxviii, 141, 142, and 155.
35. 1 Apocr. iii. 9; Greg. Nyss., Or. Cat. chs. xxi.-xxvi.
36. 2 Rufinus, Comment, in Symb. Apost. § 14.
37. 3 Holl., Amphil. p. 91 et seq.
38. 4 J. T.S. April and July 1907.
39. 5 Some scholars have regarded "The Blessed Magnesian" as simply a nom deguerre, or as suggesting an anonymous author, while others have simply written of him as Magnetes.
40. 1 He is condemned, particularly with regard to the non-eternity of punishment, of being a follower tou~ dussebou~j kai\ a0poplh&ktou 'Wrige/nouj, Nic., op. cit. ; cf. Apocr. iv. 16, p. 187, 1. 32.
41. 2 Apocr. iii. 16, p. 96, and iii. 24, p. 108 et seq.
42. 3 Nic., op. cit., stolh_n i9ere/wj a0mpexo&menon.
43. 4 Lumper (ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. v. p. 343) suggests that our author was confused with the Macarius of the Oak, and "hinc fortasse sive fraude, sive ignorantia, Episcopi titulum addiderit librarius, Magnetis vetustioris opus exscribens."
45. 2 Apocr. iii. 40, p. 138, 11. 21, 22
46. 3 Ibid. v. 15, and iii. 43, p. 151
47. 4 Ibid. v. 17, p. 191, I. 17
48. 5 Ibid. ii. 8, p. 66, 1. 19.
51. 8 Ibid. i. 17, p. 29, 1. 12.
52. 1 No less than twenty-four of that name are given in the Diet. Christ. Biog.
53. 2 His outlook is more Alexandrian than Antiochene, but had he belonged to Egypt, it is to that part of the world, and not to Syria, that he would have pointed for an example of the growth of monasticism.
55. 1 C. I. Neumann, Jul. Imp. Lib. contra Christ, quae supersunt, pp. 14-23, Lips. 1880.
56. 2 Patrologie, 1894, p. 550.
57. 3 Lactantius, Div. Instit. v. 2.
58. 1 e. g. Apocr. iv. 24, p. 204, 1. 21.
59. 2 M. R. James, Two Lectures on the Newly-discovered Fragments, Camb. 1892.
60. 3 Of Apocryphal books, Macarius quotes Bel and the Dragon (Daniel xii. 34) in iv. 12, p. 174, and refers to 2 Esdras xiv. 21-25
61. 1 See J.T.S. of July 1907, pp. 561-562.
62. 2 See Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, vol. i. p. 449.
63. 3 Apocr. iv. 15, pp. 126 and 127, n. 1.
64. 4 Duchesne, op. cit. p. 37. Also D.C.B., art. "Linus."
65. 5 For a discussion of the question, I must refer to what I have written in J.T.S. of April 1907, pp. 408-409. He certainly does not follow Origen's resolve not to use allegorical explanations in answering a pagan (Contra Cels. ii. 37).
66. 1 See p. 19, and J.T.S, of July 1907, pp. 550-551.
67. 2 J.T.S. of July 1907, pp. 548-549.
68. 3 See J.T.S. of Jufy 1907, pp. 569-571.
69. 1 Georg Schalkhausser, Zu der Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia, Leipzig, 1907, being No. 4 of vol. xxxi. in Texte und Untersuchungen, etc.
71. 1 Or Beronice, which is equivalent to Veronica. Her name is also recorded in the Acta Pilati (see ch. vii. in Tischendorf, Evang. Apocryph. p. 277).
72. 2 All the other records, viz. Euschius, Sozomen, Philostorgius, and Joannes Malalas, say that the statue was at Paneas. Nor is this contradicted by Macarius.
73. 3 kato&rqwma, one of the favourite words of Macarius, thus linking this fragment of Book I with the rest.
74. 4 swthri/ou kraspe/dou, perhaps "The hem of the Saviour's garment."
75. 5 The statue is minutely described by Eusebius, H.E. vii. 18. Sozomen (H. E. v. 21) savs that Julian took it down and put up his own instead, but the Chronicle of Malalas (ed. Dindorf, p. 329) says it was still in existence in a church at Paneas, in about A. D. 600.
76. 1 For the well-known story, see the Acts of Paul and Thecla.
77. 1 It is remarkable that a writer apparently connected with Asia Minor should thus refer to Syria. For the suggestion that it is a reference to his opponent's connexion with it, see Introd. p. xv.
78. 2 With the reference to Antioch, compare the mention of Edessa, another city of Syria, in Bk. I, ch. vi.
79. 3 The contrast is expressed thus: a1lloi tai~j e9tai/raij sunei~nai spouda&zausin, e3teroi tai~j monhri/aij qe/lousi sunauli/zesqai.
80. 4 This passage scarcely justifies the argument which has been drawn from it, that a development of monasticism is here implied, such as only took place in the latter part of the fourth century. For there is no actual mention of the developed coenobitic life.
81. 5 Macarius, as a faithful follower of Origen, frequently adds to his first explanation a mystical one of this kind. Indeed, when in difficulty for a plain answer, he resorts to it at once, e.g. in Bk. III, ch. xxv.
82. 6 Monogenh&j, the alternative title of Macarius' book, appears here for the first time, and is used three times in the chapter. See Introd. p. xxiv.
83. 1 ou0k e0n u9posta&sei ou0si/aj geno&menoj. In the light of other passages in Macarius, there is a special interest in his use of these words. See Introd., p. xviii.
84. 1 neani/skoj tij eu0prosw&pw| sxh&mati tou~ Swth~roj e1mprosqen dikaiopragi/aj e0zwgra&fei poli/teuma. Or does eu0prosw&pw| sxh&mati mean "in specious form"?
85. 2 Reading e0nedoi/asaj instead of e0nedoi/asa.
86. 3 " Literally, good by nature ( fu&sei ) and good by position ( qe&sei ).
87. 1 The same illustration is used in iv. 26, of the relation of God to the gods of heathenism.
88. 2 Reading a0gaqo&j instead of a0gaqo&n.
89. 1 skeu~oj ou]n mesto_n. In the Christian's answer the reading is similar but not identical.
90. 2 paraqh&somai, as some MSS.
91. 3 w0nei/disa&j; This is the reading of Codex Bezae.
92. 1 dusqanatou~nta. The point of the saying is not quite plain. It would be more in keeping with the sentence to read di\j qanatou~nta, i. e, "one who died twice."
93. 1 The Hellenic point of view is remarkable, which classes the Romans with the Jews as ba&rbaron e2qnoj.
94. 2 Reading u9poge/iwn instead of u9perge/iwn.
95. 1 th_n a0pokleisqei~san ei2sodon tw~n peribo&lwn la&bh| th~j ka&qarsewj.
96. 2 Blondel here suspects the omission of a whole line in the MS.
97. 3 There is a play on the words plhgh&, a blow, phgh&, a spring.
98. 1 These words seem to suggest a time of persecution as then present. See Introct., p. xvii.
99. 2 This is a literal translation of the puzzling words ouswphqei\j liparw~j pro_j au0to_n a3per filo~i polla&kij gi/nesqai par' o0fqalmo&n toiau~ta.
100. 1 This statement is one of the indications that these words were written when Diocletian had subdivided the Empire, and there was an Augustus and a Caesar both of East and West.
101. 2 The argument varies strangely according as first one reading is taken, "cast outside" ( e1cw ), and then the alternative, "cast down" ( ka&tw ). Macarius in his answer at once notices the variation of reading, and argues, like his opponent, from both.
102. 1 lit. "a single windfall."
103. 2 Man is termed o9 ko&smoj tou~ ko&smou.
104. 1 This is the favourite patristic translation of the words Yeusth&j e0sti kai\ o9 path_r au0tou~. (He is a liar and the father of it.) The whole argument turns on this questionable interpretation.
105. 1 u9mei~j e0k tou~ patro_j tou~ diabo&lou e0ste. This is another ambiguity, and Macarius makes it fit with his argument by a translation which cannot now be accepted.
107. 1 This is the friend to whom the book is dedicated. In the Proem to Book IV he is said to have helped to win the victory for Macarius by his support.
108. 2 The style of the questions is quite different from that of the answers. But whereas in the latter it is sometimes diffuse and somewhat turgid, the questions are in simpler and more direct language. The diction is, however, not without a strength of its own. Harnack says that this mixed style is modelled on Plato, Plutarch and Diodorus (op. cit. p. 97).
109. 1 Apollonius of Tyana is said by Eusebius to have been the hero whom Hierocles set up in opposition to the claims of Christ. Born at the beginning of the Christian era, he became a philosopher of the Neo-Pythagorean School. He was an ascetic, and after travelling in the East and studying Oriental mysticism, he returned to Europe as a magician. He set up a school at Ephesus. His life, written by Philostratus, is full of fictitious stories. He was accused of treason by both Nero and Domitian, but is said to have escaped in each case by miraculous means. Further details of his escape from Domitian are given in the answer of Macarius in ch. viii. p. 66, 1. 19. See p. 55. That his opponent regarded him as a hero is plain from Bk. iv. 25. (See p. 127.)
110. 1 Reading kako&n instead of kalo&n.
112. 1 MS. kefa&laioj. Some word like kepa&taioj is what seems to be wanted.
115. 1 a0paqh&j. Cp. II, xvi. p. 27.
117. 2 o9 dokw~n peponqe/nai. This expresses one side of the Christological views then current, but not the side which recommended itself to later theology. See iii. 9 for a fuller treatment of the current theory of the Atonement which explained the humility of the Passion as a cheating of the devil, by concealing the real power of the Redeemer, and luring him to do his worst.
118. 3 The MS. gives ti/ ga_r mei~zon ; katelqei~n k.t.l. The use of this last word for returning from below is so unexpected that the correct emendation may perhaps be ti/ ga_r mei~zon ; katelqei~n h1 a0pelqei~n k.t.l.
119. 1 Reading i3na mh_ pare/lqh| u9ma~j (MS. h9ma~j ) o9 peirasmo&j. Possibly pare/lqh| is to be translated "overcome you," but it looks as if the sentence had been confused with the parelqei~n in the previous one. Macarius in his answer only faces the general issue, and so does not mention this strangely incorrect quotation, which should of course have been i3na mh_ ei0se/lqhte ei0j peirasmo&n.
120. 1 The same simile is found in Gregory of Nyssa, but it is not peculiar to him, for it is also in Rufinus and Amphilochius. See Introd., p. xix, for a discussion of the bearing of this on the date of Macarius.
121. 1 monogenh&j, the alternative title of the Apocriticus, In this same answer Christ has already been referred to as o9 Monogenh_j kai\ mo&noj a0gwnisth&j.
123. 3 Job xli. 1 : "Canst them draw out leviathan with a hook ? "
124. 1 It is curious that Macarius offers examples from the prophets and Psalms, but not from the law.
125. 1 The Synoptic criticism is interesting, but he should of course have said "two demoniacs."
126. 2 Such passages are quoted freely, and not much stress can be made on the omission of the word " Legion."
127. 1 There is no negative in the MS. A mh_ seems to be required, unless ou0 ga_r is omitted before e0xrhn, as Harnack does. (Op. cit., p. 36.)
128. 2 It seems best to read this sentence as a question.
129. 3 Blondel suggests th~j e0nori/ion e0la&sai to_n dai/mona instead of MS, th_n e0nori/an e0la&sai tou~ dai/monoj.
130. 1 It is interesting to find that Macarius falls into the same mistake as his opponent, without seeming to discover it.
131. 1 Macarius here uses the fourth-century word to express "person," viz. u9po&stasij, keeping ou0si/a for "nature." This passage naturally has some bearing on the one in which the words are given their technical use in speaking of the Trinity. See Introd. p. xviii.
132. 2 Viz "human nature," as he explains further on.
133. 3 This explanation has been translated in full, not for its intrinsic value, but as indicating an interesting line of synoptic criticism.
134. 4 MS. xoneuo&menoi. Blondel reads xwneuo&menoi.
135. 1 However far-fetched such a suggestion may sound, recent researches into the spirit world make it impossible to dogmatise on the impossibility of such happenings.
136. 2 sedeton. MS. sedeqron, evidently formed from the Latin "sedeo."
137. 1 to_ xai~ron. This can scarcely be right. Probably the right reading is to_n xoi~ron, i.e. "we seek the swine."
138. 1 He omits the word for "eye."
139. 1 Macarius follows his opponent in omitting the word "eye." But he does not follow him in using S. Mark's and S. Matthew's word for needle ( p9afi/j ), but quotes S. Luke's ( belo&nh ).
140. 2 There is a gap in the MS., and a later hand suggests the insertion of "abundant wealth" ( plou~toj o9 po&luj ), which would therefore be the subiect of the verb "casts."
141. 1 These were called in by the parties in a suit to support their case, and gave their services without fee.
142. 2 The word is a technical one, connected with legal procedure.
143. 3 The word e9sti/a signifies hearth or altar, but the allusion seems to be to the public table ( koinh_ e9sti/a ) at which ambassadors and others were entertained.
144. 4 The word used in Hebrews xii. 23.
145. 1 The MS. reads deka&th|, but this is plainly a confusion with the following sentence.
147. 1 This would mean 10 p.m. instead of after 3 a.m. This is a somewhat unfortunate concession to the objector.
148. 1 He here follows the Septuagint.
149. 1 The quotation is abbreviated, and "always" is omitted. Macarius gives it correctly in his answer.
150. 2 a3pacaplw~j to_n a1nqrwpon qeo_n e0rgasa&menoj.
151. 1 He compares them to Christomachi, for whom see Introd. p. xviii.
152. 2 Monogenh&j, the alternative title of the Apocriticus, occurs four times in a few sentences.
153. 1 Macarius speaks of His death as o9 mustiko_j qa&natoj th~j oi0konomi\aj.
154. 2 The following paragraph introduces the next seven questions which are given in sequence.
156. 1 The following paragraph introduces the answers to a sequence of seven questions. It should be noticed that the introduction shades off into the actual answer; cf. iv. 19.
157. 1 lo&gw| th~j a0rxaio&thtoj. This can mean "in the language of simplicity," for it is difficult to see the reference to "the language of antiquity." Is it "by His ancient word," as parallel to "His creative word " in the clause that follows, viz. lo&gw| dhmiourgi/aj?
158. 2 The MS omits the words for "corn and."
159. 1 klh~sin, which one would like to translate "invocation." but the phrase in the previous paragraph, "which is named the body of God" ( qeou~ sw~ma xrhmati/san ), suggests the translation given in the text.
160. 1 He inserts the word fa&rmakon into the text, which Macarius accepts without comment. The whole quotation is a loose one, and the clauses are in their wrong order.
161. 1 Macarius, as belonging to the East himself, only gives details of Polycarp in the list of fathers he mentions, as the others were of the Western Church. The facts here recorded are to be found in the Vita Polycarpi.
162. 1 There is little doubt that this is the right reading, for it accords with what is related in the Vita Polycarpi. The MS. reading is not xh&raj but xei~raj, before which dia_ must be inserted if it is to be translated, i.e. "supporting his life by means of his hands."
164. 3 The use of the singular suggests that the subject is "God" rather than "the faithful."
165. 1 This is another case of a text apparently quoted from memory, which Macarius in his answer accepts as it stands, though he still further alters its last words. The truth is that two passages are combined. 1Arqhti kai\ blh&qhti ei0j th&n qa&lassan is from Matt. xxi. 21, which is substituted for Meta&bhqi e0nteu~qen e0kei~, kai\ metabh&setai of Matt. xix. 20.
166. 1 The addition to the text of "from the temple" is by way of explanation.
167. 1 A series of four attacks on S. Peter begins here.
168. 2 Reading Ti/ ga&r in place of the MS. ei0 ga&r. It may be noted that the next sentence begins with ei0 ga&r, and there may have been some confusion.
169. 3 As a matter of fact, the blessing upon Peter comes a few verses before the rebuke.
170. 4 Qume&lh is properly the platform where the leader of the chorus stood, but here it is evidently a spectator's seat.
171. 1 Contrary to his custom elsewhere, Macarius does not deal separately with this objection, but answers it along with the preceding one, by a very brief paragraph at the end of chapter xxvii. The fact that his opponent again alludes to the saying about "seventy times seven" in the next objection (chapter xxi.), may have made Macarius postpone mention of it until he dealt with that objection. But if so, he forgot it when the time came. It is one of the few instances in his book of his passing over one of his opponent's points.
172. 1 Macarius echoes the word which his opponent had used at the beginning of his objection.
173. 2 In thus laying stress on the difference between pe/troj and pe/tra, Macarius supports the view that Peter is not here identified with the rock of the Church. It appears yet more plainly at the end of this chapter that the "rock" was the truth of Christ's divinity, on which the Church is founded.
174. 1 Such is the sane and reasonable explanation which Macarius gives of this highly controversial question.
175. 2 See note on the earlier part of the chapter. The interpretation of the whole paragraph by Macarius is a valuable contribution to the literature of the subject.
176. 1 Thus briefly does he answer another objection of his opponent, as contained in chapter xx.
177. 2 It is at this point that the attack on S. Peter begins. Harnack (op. cit. p. 103 et seq.) considers that the opponent's work was here divided into two, a division which Macarius has quite obscured. He does not show why a book of excerpts from the fifteen books of Porphyry should have been thus divided, but he affords valuable though unintentional support to the theory that the work is the two books of the Philalethes of Hierocles. In this case this might well mark the beginning of the Second Book. As the beginning and end are lost, Harnack reconstruct? the two parts as follows : the first part as containing x + 10 + 13 questions, and the second part 9+16 + x (p. 105 n. 1).
178. 1 Thus briefly and in parenthesis does he answer what his opponent had said about the injunction of "seventy times seven." See note on the heading of chapter xx. This answer is excellent as far as it goes, but scarcely covers all the objection.
179. 2 The quotation, as often, seems to be from memory, as the reading is ti/ o3ti e1docen u9mi~n instead of sunefwnh&qh.
180. 1 The opponent here shows considerable knowledge both of Christian methods of exegesis, and of the language of the Epistles.
181. 2 This is mentioned again in Bk. IV. ch. iv when he says, "Peter, though he received authority to feed the iambs, was nailed to the cross and impaled." Macarius in his answer accepts the fact.
182. 3 This seems to have been a Christian tradition, as he states it unhesitatingly. Macarius tacitly refutes it by saying that the crucifixion was at Rome.
183. 4 It will be noticed that he puts a new and impossible sense in the words, necessitating the change of au0th~j (i. e. the church) into au0tou~.
184. 1 This was a favourite subject of attack, and it will be remembered that the theory of a permanent cleavage between Peter and Paul has been built upon it.
185. 2 It is strangely unfair thus to imply that one passage follows after the other. The objector scarcely ever resorts to such subterfuges.
186. 1 In his anxiety to whitewash S. Peter from all charges, Macarius here may be said to overstate his case, for he fails to consider S. Paul's point of view.
187. 2 He misses the chance of scoring a point, for he might have pointed out the unfairness of the objection.
188. 3 The text adds the curious suggestion that they were consequently called sto&loi (expeditions) : ouj e0caposte/llonte sto&louj e0ka&loun.
189. 1 Before the next sentence the MS. has 3Ellhn in the margin, as a new heading, in order to mark the place where the actual objection begins. For the support thus claimed for the theory that Macarius is merely borrowing from a book, and himself turning it into a discussion, see Introd., p. xvii.
190. 2 Phil. iii. 2, i.e. a mere meaningless cutting.
192. 4 The MS. gives kaqhkeu&wn, which must be corrupt. The word, oddly enough, has just occurred in the previous answer of Macarius (ch. xxix. p. 122, 1. 2, kai/per kaqhkeu&wn toi~j 'Ioudai/oij polla&. Foucart suggested piqhkeu&wn in both places, as equivalent to piqhki/zw (to play the ape), Arist. Vesp. 1290). But this requires the further emendation of pa&ntaj to pa~si in the present instance. pa&ntaj has just occurred in the same line, which may have caused the mistake.
193. 5 The speaker takes this in the moral sense, as meaning " lawless," as is clear from what follows.
194. 1 The MS. u9popu&roj may be altered to u9poph&ron.
195. 2 After all, he only deals with seven objections instead of eight at the previous bout, but only four of them were against S. Peter, and all the eight are here attacks on S. Paul.
196. 3 The words tw~| po&nw| purou&menoj are taken as part of the quotation in Blondel's edition, but there is no need to do this.
197. 1 It will be noticed that Macarius makes no attempt to argue from the special case of Timothy.
198. 2 He omits the words, "In this city."
199. 3 Surely this is a slip for "a Jew."
200. 1 Or, more literally, " a foster-brother of that which is false."
201. 2 lit. " Festering beneath the surface."
202. 3 Such is the strangely inadequate three-fold answer given to the objection. The play upon the word 9Pw&mh is quite characteristic of patristic interpretation. Macarius does not seem to have grasped that a Jew could be a Roman citizen.
203. 1 The quotations are abbreviated, pa&ntwj is omitted after di0 h9ma~j, and the middle clause of v. 7 is wanting. Macarius, however, makes use of the latter in his answer.
204. 1 The clause, "Who planteth a vine and doth not eat of the fruit thereof?" was omitted by his opponent from I Cor. ix. 7, but here Macarius plainly refers to it.
205. 2 No answer is here given to the difficulty about God not taking care of oxen, but there is a brief word of explanation at the end of the next answer (ch. xl. p. 107, 11. 12-17).
206. 3 This is quite different from the text of Galatians, "to every man that is circumcised." Perhaps the "one thing" comes from James ii. 10. Macarius accepts the quotation as it stands, and repeats it.
207. 1 This spontaneous introduction of a Persian measure of distance is a proof that the writer was near that part of the world. His subsequent suggestion of a city with so many gates indicates that there were large cities in his district.
208. 2 He chooses the example given by Christ Himself in John vii. 22-23, but can scarcely have that passage in mind, for it decides the difficulty.
209. 1 Macarius had ignored this part of the previous objection, and here his reference to the quotation can scarcely be called an answer to the difficulty raised, which seems to have proved too much for him.
210. 2 This is evidently a slip, as it is unlikely that he placed the Corinthian before the Roman Epistle.
211. 3 This correct translation must be given, rather than "sting," as Macarius develops the idea of a goad in his answer.
212. 1 The above summary is in a very abbreviated form, but it will be seen that, unlike some of his defence of S. Paul, his line of argument is excellent, and is a sound interpretation of S. Paul's own attitude towards the law.
213. 1 The verse is quoted in an abbreviated form.
214. 2 The full translation of this answer is given, as its language is curious and interesting.
215. 3 The answer at once makes obvious what the objection failed to state explicitly—namely, that S. Paul's inconsistency lies in his contradiction of the decision in Acts xv. that the Gentile converts were not to eat things offered to idols.
216. 1 This is an attempt to render kai/per 9Ellh&nwn w9j e0pi\ to_ plei~ston tw~n makelleuo&ntwn to&te gnwrizome/nwn.
217. 2 i1ulci of the MS. must be for i1ugci.
218. 3 sfazome/nwn is the addition of a later hand in the margin, and scarcely seems to supply the sense required.
219. 1 This was a book by Porphyry, called peri/ th~j e0k logi/wn filosofi/aj. It is lost, but is mentioned by Fabricius, v. p. 744. See Introd., p. xiv., for the argument which the reference to this book affords, as against Harnack's belief that the writer of these objections is Porphyry himself.
220. 2 For this see Euseb., Praepar. Evang. iv. 8, 9.
221. 3 eu0age/steron—perhaps "purer."
222. 1 The word applies to men as well as women, and it is the masculine plural which is here used, but the translation "virginity" best accords with the words which follow about the Blessed Virgin.
223. 1 Macarius reflects the attitude of his age in regarding virginity as a cause of "merit."
224. 2 I Tim. iv. 2. This is the passage quoted in the objection, but v. 2 was then omitted, and only vv. 1 and 3 given. ( a0nasth&suntai is not S. Paul's word, but is incorrectly borrowed from the a0posth&sontai of the previous verse.) These are the men who should "forbid to marry" and therefore commend virginity.
225. 3 Our apologist is on the wrong track, but it leads to many things of interest to us.
226. 4 This sentence represents the previous paragraph, but best fits into the argument here.
227. 1 This seems to refer to the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar.
228. 2 He is referring to the further words of I Tim. iv. 3, "abstaining from meats," as well as "forbidding to marry."
229. 3 The followers of Manes are first found in Asia Minor, as here stated ; their system being founded on the theory of a god of good and a god of evil, which was to be found in the religion of Persia. For a further mention of Manes see Bk. IV. ch. xv.
230. 4 The Encratites (as the name implies) were the Gnostics whose contempt for matter showed itself in their strict asceticism, while the name Apotactites suggests the licentious tendencies of the Antinomian Gnostics, who showed their contempt in the opposite way. The Eremites were ascetics of the deserts.
231. 5 Dositheus cannot be the head of the Samaritan sect mentioned by Hegesippus (ap. Euseb., H.E. iv. 22) and represented in the Clementine writings as the disciple of John the Baptist. Macarius is alone in mentioning him (see also iv. 15, p. 128, 1. 24), which shows that this list is not a copy of that of Epiphanius, as Salmon suggested, D.C.B., art. "Macarius."
232. 6 e0gkra&teia, the word from which Encratite is derived.
233. 1 terpome/noij is the reading suggested by Blondel for MS. prome/noij or poqome/noij.
234. 2 If su_n eu0marei/a| tou~ krei/ttonoj is to be so rendered.
235. 1 Theosthenes seems to have been the friend to whom he dedicated the Apocriticus, as well as his supporter during the disputations. If the whole situation is a fictitious one, the name may have been suggested by that of Theophilus in S. Luke's dedication. Cf. Proem to Book III.
236. 2 Possibly this is a reminiscence of the Homeric use of the words, as in the passage qa&rsei to&nde g' a1eqlon (Od. 8. 197).
237. 1 He leaves out the word "this," in which Macarius follows him.
238. 2 He is quoting the verses which precede the words about the world passing away, but lie omits the word "wives" after "them that have," and is led thereby to make the strange suggestion that God is the subject, and what He has is the world.
239. 3 dhmiourgo&j, a familiar name as the world-maker of the Gnostic systems.
240. 1 It is impossible to reproduce his metaphor. Both words suggest that musical instruments are played so loudly as to make speaking impossible, viz. kataya&lletai and kataulou&menoj.
241. 1 Details of the measurements of the city are given, which suggest that the writer was familiar with that part of the world.
242. 2 The obvious reference seems to be to Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, and her defeat by Aurelius. This would be a matter of recent history to the opponent of Macarius, if he dates from the beginning of the fourth century. Does it suggest that the answer was of the same date ?
243. 3 This is a very natural touch, and it is more easy to connect it with an actual disputation than merely with the writing of a book.
244. 1 He places too late the words "unto the coming of the Lord' and omits "and remain" after the second occurrence of "we which are alive." "Cloud" for "clouds" is another unimportant inaccuracy.
245. 2 He does not intend to substitute an impersonal power for the Creator; indeed, further on he attributes creation to the Word of God.
247. 1 The story is taken from the Apocryphal part of Daniel, viz. xiv. 34-36 (Bel and the Dragon). The LXX gives the name as Ambakou&m, in A.V. Habbacuc.
248. 1 The abbreviated form of the quotation is tacitly accepted by Macarius in his answer.
249. 2 It is very remarkable that, wherever it is possible, the attack is made on Christ's followers, and not on Himself. Here it is only the Evangelist who is blamed for words which are attributed to Christ. See Introd., p. xv.
250. 3 The previous objection has stated that only 300 years have passed, so that this cannot have been written later than the early part of the fourth century. To speak thus is therefore an exaggeration, as Macarius shows in his answer. But it is very significant that a heathen should regard Christianity as universally spread, even before it became a lawful religion.
251. 1 The way he locates these races gives some clue to the place of writing. See Introd., p. xxi.
252. 2 These are also referred to in iii. 15 (see p. 79). Their name implies that they were "long-lived."
253. 3 This is probably a reference to 2 Peter iii. 8, but not necessarily so, as it may refer only to Ps. xc. 4. It is curious that elsewhere Macarius ignores 2 Peter when its use was to be expected. See Introd., p. xxv. His very involved statement comes to this in the end, but it begins with the awkward words ou3twj e1th th_n h9me/ran e0rga&zetai xi/lia kai\ thn h9me/ran ou0 polla_j a0ll' e1xein mi/an h3me/ran.
254. 1 He thus echoes the Christian tradition that S. Paul was beheaded at Rome, but he shows the same desire to put his martyrdom at an impossibly early moment as in the case of S. Peter.
255. 2 In iii. 22 he uses similar language about S. Peter's crucifixion, which he strangely places within a few months of his being charged to feed the lambs.
256. 1 He adds that they also beat thereby the seed of the dragon, for by being beheaded Paul lured the serpent to greediness for blood and milk, while Peter beat him with his cross. For the legend of milk flowing from S. Paul's wound, see Introd., p. xxvi.
257. 2 Apollonius of Tyana is here intended. He was mentioned by name, and this same incident referred to, in iii. 8. See also below, in the next objection.
258. 1 See note on iii. I. p. 52.
259. 2 Harnack has used this as an argument for the late date of the Apocriticus. But as early as A. D. 290 the Manichaeans had so spread in Africa that the Proconsul of Africa was ordered to burn the leaders with their books.
260. 3 The Syrian Gnostic, who was born at Edessa in A. D. 155.
261. 4 Droserius appears in the dialogue called Adamantius (Pseudo-Origen). In Bk. IV. Droserius is made to suggest the Valentinian origin of evil, and is answered by Adamantius.
262. 5 Dositheus appears again in a similar list in iii. 43, p. 115, l. 16, where interesting details are given. He is not otherwise known to us.
263. 1 Macarius in chapter xvi. combines this question with the next in his answer.
264. 1 This is an attempt to translate ou0rano_n . . . w9j to_n krith_n a0nasxo&menon kat' au0tou~ tina terateu&esqai ou3tw qaumasro_n, ou3tw mega&la (reading qaumasta& ).
265. 2 He seems to think he is again quoting from the Apocalypse of Peter, though the word used is neuter. He gives no hint that he is quoting the Old Testament, but Macarius passes over the reference to an Apocryphal book in the previous question, as of doubtful authority, and proceeds to quote this as from Isaiah.
266. 3 This is a misquotation for "receive."
267. 4 The quotation is really from the law.
268. 5 He strangely omits the very word most needed, i. e. "heaven."
269. 1 As he has made no previous reference to Isaiah, it would seem that the words are attributed to God.
270. 2 With this cursory mention Macarius passes on from the words of that Apocryphal book, as quoted in the first objection he is answering (chapter vi.), and proceeds to Isaiah's similar words, adduced without acknowledgment in chapter vii. It is evident that he regarded this Apocalypse as quite outside the canon.
271. 3 e9auto_n a0poqeoi~ koinwnw~n th~ qeo&thti.
273. 2 This excellent passage well carries on the simile suggested by Isaiah.
274. 3 This is in accordance with the Platonic theory of ideas, lo&goj is perhaps best rendered "rationale," but the original word must be kept for the sake of the play on the words in this sentence.
275. 4 This is a strangely forced interpretation of the passage in Matt. xxiv. 35.
276. 5 In this statement he passes in his philosophising from Platonism to Origenism.
277. 1 All the answer which Macarius gives to this objection is contained in the last paragraph of chapter xvii., which is his answer to the previous objection of chapter viii.
278. 2 Eng. Vers. " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us."
279. 1 Aratus was a Cilician astronomer. See Introd., p. xxi,
280. 2 A reference to the Pythagoreans.
281. 1 In this last brief paragraph Macarius answers a further objection, thus curtailing his own chapters for the second time in Book IV.
282. 1 Thus does Macarius run away from the point, and content himself with an allegorical interpretation.
283. 1 The following paragraph introduces the next six questions.
284. 1 The following paragraph is an introduction to the next six answers.
285. 2 It is only here that Macarius plainly refers to his method of arrangement, taking a number of objections to answer at the same time. The average number is seven, but this is not always strictly adhered to. The odd thing is that in this case the number of questions answered consecutively is only six.
286. 1 Macarius refers elsewhere to the Emperor as basileu&j. Apparently there had just been a "royal progress" in the East in his locality. It may be only a bit of sham realism, or an event which occurred when Macarius was writing his book ; but on the face of it, it seems to give some support to the theory of a real dialogue.
287. 1 The passage which begins here, and continues to the end of the paragraph (268 words in the Greek) is the only one where the inner doctrines of the Christian Creed are expounded. It is either a later interpolation, or an exception to the usual style of the book. In the latter case, it is not easy to reconcile with an early date for Macarius. See Introd., pp. xviii and xxviii.
288. 2 It is to be noted that he here misquotes his text, and assists his argument by reading tou~ pneu&matoj instead of e0n tw~| pneu&mati, thus making "in the name of" refer to Him as well as to Christ.
289. 1 This is the seemingly Post-Nicene phrase which has inclined so many critics to assign a late date to Macarius. But see Introd., p. xviii. n. 3, and p. 155 n. 1. The theory that the passage is a later interpolation is supported by the subject of the next objection. Could Macarius have chosen anything more unfortunate than the Three Persons to lend on to a defence of the Monarchy of God ?
290. 1 This objection and the next, and also the answers contained in chapters xxvi., xxvii., and xxviii. are quoted by Nicephorus, in his Antirrhetica, and are to be found in D. Pitra's Spicil. Solesm. t. I. p. 309 et seq. See Introd., pp. x, xi, xxvii.
One interest of Nicephorus lies in the difference of his text from the Athens MS. The most notable in this chapter occurs in the first sentence, where he omits the words tou~ mo&nou qeou~ kai\ th~j poluarxi/aj.
291. 2 The word Monarchia ( monarxi/a ) seems to require translating thus, in order to bring it into contrast with the Polyarchia ( poluarxi/a ) which follows.
292. 3 e0c ei0k&noj h9mi~n . . . to_n lo&gon kratu&nein e0spou&dasaj. The mention of an "image" at the beginning of this answer may possibly have attracted the attention of Nicephorus to the passage. For it is on the question of image worship that he introduces it as supporting his own attitude.
293. 1 The same illustration is used in ii. 9.
294. 2 qe&sei, in contrast with fu&sei, philosophic terms by which he expresses his argument. Literally, "by position" and "by nature." See ii. 9.
295. 1 These first sentences are placed by Nicephorus under the objection of the previous chapter. It is to be noted that the matter of naming was mentioned there, and answered by Macarius, whereas his answer to this question is silent on this point. It is therefore possible that Nicephorus preserves the right order.
296. 2 An ancient reader was unable to restrain himself, and wrote in the margin of the MS., "This is not true."
297. 3 Blondel gives Qeo&j, not qeo&j, in this passage.
298. 1 There may be something wrong about to_ loipo_n kaqareu&ontaj. Nicephorus reads tw~n loipw~n.
299. 2 This statement has been taken as proof that the author wrote after the beginning of the new encouragement of Christianity shown by Constantine. For during the period that it was an unlawful religion (till A.D. 312), there were not the larger churches, which began to be built immediately afterwards. But the force of the argument is weakened by the many reasons there are for believing that the philosopher's date is earlier.
300. 3 tou~ kuri/on is an addition by Nicephorus. It scarcely sounds like the language of the objector, but a subject of some sort is wanted.
301. 1 Blondel's edition follows Nicephorus in reading au0tw~n, and prints lo&gw| earlier in the sentence, and not Lo&gw|. The MS. reads au0tw~|, which would refer to "the Word." As here translated, au0tw~n, and also e0ke/inwn in the following clause, of course refer to the angels.
302. 2 Nicephorus is answering the Iconoclastic party, who were utterly opposed to the use of Christian images. They had garbled the words of Macarius to suit their purpose, taking the words ou0 mh_n ei0ko&naj e0kei/nwn tupw&saj tw~| sxh&mati k.t.l., and referring them to Christian images, and omitting the words just before them. Nicephorus (op. cit. p. 322) shows that Macarius is only speaking from the Greek point of view, as the words w9j fh_j au0to&j prove, and that he would not be answering his opponent if they referred to Christian images.
303. 1 qhra~n to_ a0qh&raton. This is more likely than the a0qe/aton of the text of Nicephorus, showing that the latter is only occasionally a guide to the true reading.
304. 1 qeofo&ron a1galma monogenw~j e0rga&setai. If monogenw~j is not to be connected with the name which the author uses as the sub-title of his book, it may only mean "by an unique birth." Could it mean "by a birth that is single " ?
305. 1 The passage beginning with the mention of Prometheus and ending here, is quoted by Nicephorus, Antirrhet., loc. cit.
306. 1 He means that even men sometimes have the title. He might have quoted, as our Lord did, " I said, ye are gods" (John x. 34). If it can be used by men concerning each other, it can be used of higher beings.
307. 2 He here continues the thoughts of his last chapter.
308. 3 There is a play on words here ; the stars run ( qe/wsin ) but are not qeoi/ in consequence ( tou&touj mh_ qeia&swmen ).
309. 4 See chapter xxvi. init.
310. 1 The title of the chapter uses the phrase, so familiar in early creeds, "Resurrectio carnis." And although his opponent calls it "the resurrection of the dead," the former phrase is used in his answer as well as in the title of it.
312. 1 Reading ti/na for ti/j ( u9po&stasin e0xari/sato ;). This passage is an example of the fact that Macarius does not ordinarily use this word as meaning "person." See Introd., p. xviii, and p. 142 n. I.
313. 1 miasma&twn—perhaps in the sense of "noxious mists."
314. 2 An unexpected word; perhaps it should be nauagi/aj, "shipwreck."
316. 1 th~j a0xra&ntou periwph~j.
318. 1 a0mi/anton. It cannot be translated asbestos, as it is repeated in the a0mi/anton o1noma of the next clause.
319. 1 There appears to be an intentional alliteration in ou0k e0n fwti\, a0ll' e0n forutw~|.
320. 1 This quotation also appears in Latin form in his Adversus Magdaburgenses, lib. iv. ch. 7.
321. 1 to_ prolabo_n kato&rqwma. Like the fragment of Book I., the language is here linked with that of the rest of Macarius by the use of his favourite word, which occurs three times in this fragment.
322. 2 Turrianus gives fa&blwn, but his Latin rendering "pravis" shows it to have been fau&lwn.
323. 1 It is uncertain what form of attack Macarius is here answering. It does not seem. likely that he is simply dealing with the quotation from Genesis about Abraham's faith. And if the argument centres in the difference between the teaching of S. Paul and S. James on faith and works, it would be a return to the earlier objections of a detailed kind, whereas the latter part of Book IV. leads us to expect objections of a more general and doctrinal character. It would seem therefore as if Hierocles had gone on to attack the inner teachings of Christianity, and such difficulties within the faith as the reconciliation of justification by faith with the stress laid upon good works.
If this conclusion is correct, it shows us that the scope of the Apocriticus was wider than is supposed or its title would suggest, and the dialogue is seen to have had a much broader doctrinal range than the discussion of passages in the New Testament.
Internal evidence supports the genuineness of the fragment. The allegorical and Origenistic style of explanation is quite Macarian, and so is the language. His favourite word kato&rqwma occurs no less than three times.
END
This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 11th July 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.
| Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts |