The works of Nathaniel Lardner - The Christian Researcher - Home

254 Credibility of the Gospel History.
As for the author of the book, Jerom supposed it to have
been written in Syriac by Archelaus himself, and then translated
into Greek : but lie does not name the translator.
Epiphanius'' likewise, and Cyril' of Jerusalem, and'" Socrates,
ascribe the book to Archelaus : but by Photius we
are informed that" Heraclean, bishop of Chalcedon, in his
book against the Manichees, said, Hegemonius wrote the
Dispute of Archelaus. This has induced" Cave, and others,
to look upon Hegemonius as the translator. Zacagni says
thatP Hegemonius not only translated the Syriac, but made
additions of his own. To the like purpose'' Asseman. Both
which last writers ascribe some additions and alterations to
Heg-emonius, an author whose age is unknown, as must
greatly lessen the authority of this work : more, perhaps,
than they imagined.
But Beausobre says that this piece was originally written
in Greek, and that Hegemonius was the author, and that it
was not written before the year 330. He argues in this"^
manner: ' Eusebius published his Ecclesiastical History
' about fifty years after the death of Mani. He there speaks
' of this heresiarch, and his heresy : but he says not one word
' of his excursion into the Roman Mesopotamia, nor of his dis-
' putes with Archelaus. Since Eusebius says nothing of
' these matters, it may be concluded that he was entirely
* ignorant of them : but it is not to be supposed that he
' should be ignorant of so public an event that had hap-
* pened half a century before: nor that he should omit to
' relate so memorable a thing- if he knew it.' Beausobre
thinks that Archelaus must have been entirely unknown
to Eusebius : and therefore he concludes that these Acts
of Archelaus did not appear until after Eusebius had published
his Ecclesiastical History ; that is, in the space of
time between the year 326 or 330, and the year 348 or 350,
^ Atto rw Apxi^an (iipXin- Epiph. II. 66. n. 32. in. Vid. et. n. 21.
Cat. 6. n. 27. p. 104. '" H. E. 1. i. c. 22. p. 56. D.
" 'Hyc/ioviov Tt Tov [rag] Apxi^aa Trpoc nvTov avriXoyiag avaypatpavra.
Phot. Cod. 85. p. 204. ° Unde conceptis pene verbis jurare
ausim, non alium hujusce versionis auctorem fuisse quam Hegemonium
nostrum, nee aliam earn, quam qua Cyrillas, Epiphanius, aliique olim usi
sunt. Cav. De Hegemonic, in Diss, de Scriptor. incert. aet.
1 Hegemonium veto, quae ab Archelao jam cdita fuerant, meliori non
solum ordine digessisse verum etiam exordio, epiiogo, aliisque nonnullis locupletasse,
ut omnibus numeris absoluta celeberrimse illius disputationis acta ad
posteros transmitferentur. Zac. Praef. cap. 4. p. iv.
'I Qua; quuni ita sint, ab eodem Hegemonic videntur quaedam ex illis Actis
mutilafa, quzedam etiam addita. Assem. Bib. or T. 3. P. 2. p. 47. in. Vid, quae
ibidem praeeunt et sequuntur.
' B. Hist, de Manich. T. i. p. 5, 6. p. 145, 146.