ollowing up the suggestion, I have
inserted the missing words from the parallel passage in Origen, to which
Georgius Hamartolos refers in this very context: _in Matth._ tom. xvi. 6
(III. p. 719 sq, Delarue), [Greek: pepokasi de poterion kai to baptisma
ebaptisthesan hoi tou Zebedaiou huioi, epeiper Herodes men apekteinen
Iakobon ton Ioannou machaira, ho de Rhomaion basileus, hos he paradosis
didaskei, katedikase ton Ioannen marturounta dia ton tes aletheias logon
eis Patmon ten neson.] It must be noticed that Georgius refers to this
passage of Origen as testimony that _St John suffered martyrdom_, thus
mistaking the sense of [Greek: marturounta]. This is exactly the error
which I suggested as an explanation of the blundering notice of John
Malalas respecting the death of Ignatius (see above p. 79).

[213:1] See Lipsius _Die Quellen der Aeltesten Ketzergeschichte_ p. 237
(1875). Though the notice in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vii. 17 (p. 898) makes
Marcion a contemporary of the Apostles, there is obviously some error in
the text. All other evidence, which is trustworthy, assigns him to a
later date. The subject is fully discussed by Lipsius in the context of
the passage to which I have given a reference. See also Zahn in
_Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol._ 1875 p. 62.

[213:2] Aberle suggested 'exegeseos,' for which Hilgenfeld rightly
substituted 'exegeticis.' This was before he adopted Overbeck's
suggestion of the spurious Papias.

[213:3] The photographs, Nos. 3, 7, 10, 20, in the series published by
the Palaeographical Society, will show fairly what I mean.

[213:4] In the _Catena Patr. Graec. in S. Joann._ Prooem. (ed. Corder),
[Greek: haireseon anaphueison deinon hupegoreuse to euangelion to
heautou mathete Papia eubioto] (_sic_) [Greek: to hierapolite, k.t.l.].

[214:1] Or, the confusion may have been between [Greek: apegrapsa
(apegrapsan)], and [Greek: apegrapsa].

[214:2] [See above, p. 187.]

[214:3] [See above, p. 79 sq.]

[214:4] The passage of Andreas of Caesarea will be found in Routh _Rel.
Sacr._ I. p. 15. It is not there said that Papias ascribed the
Apocalypse to St John the Apostle, or even that he quoted it by name.
Our author's argument therefore breaks down from lack of evidence. It
seems probable however, that he would ascribe it to St John, even though
he may not have said so distinctly. Suspicion is thrown on the testimony
of Andreas by the fact that Eusebius does not directly mention its use
by Papias,