Time uncertain. "nichee at his coming out of Perfia, which " has been tranflated into Greek. He flou"rished under the Emperour Probus, who "fucceeded Aurelian and Tacitus." This piece, as we now have it, contains two conferences with Mani, one at Cafchar, or Carchar, a city in the Roman part of Mefopotamia, and another at Diodoris, a village, or small town, in the fame countrey; with an hiftorical account of the life and death of Mani, and fome other things. The greatest part of it is now only in a Latin translation, not made from the fuppofed Syriac original, but from (b) Greek. When this Latin tranflation was made, is not certain. Zacagni, the editor, fuppofeth, that (c) it was not in being in Jerome's time, but that however it was made before the feventh centurie. Another learned writer argues, that (d) this tranflation was not made fooner than the fixth, or the later part of the fifth ex Perfide, Syro fermone compofuit, qui tranflatus in Graecum habetur a multis. Claruit fub Imperatore Probo, qui Aureliano et Tacito fuccefferat. De V. I. c. 72. (b) Porro Graecam verfionem, non vero Syriacum textum prae manibus Latinum interpretem habuiffe que demonftratur. Zacagn. Praef. §. v. in. (c) ib. n. iv. f. fatis fuper (d) See Beaufobr. Hift. de Manich. T. i. Diff. Prelim. fifth centurie, because the conference itself was unknown to Auguftin, and likewife to Pope Leo, who dyed in 461. It is thought, that (e) this piece is not now entire and compleat. Archelaus is placed by Cave, and many others, as flourishing about the year 278. Beaufobre's opinion of this book, entitled the Acts of the Difputation of Archelaus with Mani, or Manichee. is, "that (f) it is, in "general, a romance, published by fome "Greek, about the year of our Lord 330. fifty or fixty years after Mani's death." "There are in it, he (g) fays, fome truths, "but not many, and those disguised, and "mixed with manifeft falfhoods." Again: "It (b) is a fiction of fome Greek, who "having B 2 (e) Illud tamen diffimulare non poffum, Acta ifta difputationis Archelai cum Manete, quae ex Vaticano Cafinenfis codicis apographo primi edimus, integra nequaquam videri, fed pluribus in locis a librario mutilata. Zac. ib. n. 14. in. (f) En general toute cette piece, qu'on nomme les Actes de la Difpute d' Archelaus, n'eft qu' un roman fabriqué par un Grec et publié depuis l'an 330, foixante ans, ou environ, aprés la mort de Manichée. Beauf. ib. p. 6. (g) Il y a quelques veritez, mais en petit nombre, et le peu qu'il y en a eft alteré, confus, mêlé de fables manifef (b) Dés que j'eus lû cette piece, que feu M. Zacagni, bibliothecaire du Vatican, publia le premier toute entiere, j'eus Time uncertain. having got fome memoirs concerning the "life and opinions of Mani, resolved to "write a historie of him, and confute his "errours." I fear, that account of this book is too juft, and that a large part of it is fiction, of which I may say more in the next (a) chapAt present I would chiefly confider the author, and the time of this work. ter. As for the author of the book, Jerome supposed it to have been written in Syriac by Archelaus himself, and then translated into Greek. But he does not name the tranflator. Epiphanius (i) likewise, and (k) Cyril of Jerufalem, and (1) Socrates, afcribe the book to Archelaus. But by Photius we are informed, that (m) Heraclean, Bishop of Chalcedon, in his book against the Maniche ans, j'eus un grand foupçon, que la Difpute de Cafcar, n'étoit qu' (A) See the first fection in the next chapter. numb. i. 2. et n. 21. (k) Cat. 6. n. 27. p. 104. (1) H. E. l. i. c. 22. p. 56. D. Epiph. H. 66. n. 32. in. Vid. (m) Ηγεμόνιόν τε τὸν [τάς] ἀρχελάω πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀντιλο gías dvaɣpáfavta. Phot. Cod. 85. p. 204. ans, said, Hegemonius wrote the Dispute of Archelaus. This has induced (n) Cave, and others, to look upon Hegemonius, as the tranflator. Zacagni fays, that (0) Hegemonius not only tranflated the Syriac, but made additions of his own. To the like purpose (p) Affeman. Both which last writers afcribe fuch additions and alterations to Hegemonius, an author, whose age is unknown, as must greatly leffen the authority of this work ; more, perhaps, than they imagined. But Beaufobre fays, that this piece was originally writ in Greek, and that Hegemonius was the author, and that it was not writ before the year 330. He argues in this (q) manner: "Eufebe published his Ecclefiafti"cal Hiftorie about fifty years after the death "of B 3 Time un (n) Unde conceptis pene verbis jurare aufim, non alium hujufce verfionis auctorem fuiffe quam Hegemonium noftrum, nec aliam eam, quam quâ Cyrillus, Epiphanius, aliique olim ufi funt. Cav. De Hegemonio, in Diff. de Scriptor. incert. aet. (0) Hegemonium vero, quae ab Archelao jam edita fuerant, meliori non folum ordine digeffiffe, verum etiam exordio, epilogo, aliifque nonnullis locupletaffe, ut omnibus numeris abfoluta, celeberrimae illius difputationis acta ad pofteros tranfmitterentur. Zac. Praef. cap. 4. p. iv. (p) Quae quum ita fint, ab eodem Hegemonio videntur quaedam ex illis Actis mutilata, quaedam etiam addita. Affem. Bib. or. T. 3. P. 2. p. 47. in. Vid. quae ibidem praeeunt et Lequuntur. (9) B. Hift. de Manich, T. i. p. 5. 6. p. 145. 146. certain. Time uncertain "of Mani. He there fpeaks of this herefiarch, and his herefie. But he says not << one word of his excurfion into the Ro"man Mefopotamia, nor of his difputes with "Archelaus. Since Eufebe fays nothing of "these matters, it may be concluded, that "he was entirely ignorant of them. But it "is not to be fuppofed, that he should "be ignorant of fo public an event, that "had happened half a centurie before: nor "that he should omit to relate fo memo"rable a thing, if he knew it." Beaufobre thinks, that Archelaus must have been entirely unknown to Eufebe. And therefore he concludes, that these Acts of Archelaus did not appear, untill after Eusebe had publifhed his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie; that is, in the space of time between the year 326. or 330. and the year 348. or 350. when Cyril of Jerufalem wrote his Catechetical Difcourses, who is the first author that has quoted this piece. Nor does it appear, that (r) St. Ephrem, who was of Mefopotamia, and dyed in 373. has any where taken notice of this Difputation, though he often speaks of Mani. Moreover there is a particular in the book itself, which leads him to conclude, it was compofed (r) ib. p. 146. |