DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4680#0380
1. AVIRCIUS MARCELLUS. 711
a proof that it was in the original epitaph of Avircius. Yet many
recent scholarsx prefer the feeble and vapid reading Katpm against the
testimony of the ancient inscr.
In composing his testament for permanent publicity, Avircius had
to adapt it to the circumstances of the time. As we have seen 2, it
was not possible to put forth in such a public way a statement that
was overtly Chr. The testament was necessarily composed in such
terms as should be capable of passing as an ordinary metrical epitaph ;
but 1. 19, 'let him who comprehends these words, viz. every one who
is in sympathy with the author, pray for him,' contains an obvious
reference to the esoteric sense that underlies the words. The success
with which the aim was achieved has been unintentionally set in
strong relief by Dr. Ficker, who has essayed the proof3 that there is
not a word or phrase in it which might not have been used by a
priest of Cybele. His paper is a remarkable example of ingenuity in
details and failure to conceive the document as a whole; and it is
hard to say whether the scholar who can understand this epitaph as
the public testament of a priest of Cybele shows more misapprehen-
sion of the character of second century paganism or want of appre-
ciation of the spirit of second century Christianity. The testament
of Avircius, then, was intended to bear both an exoteric sense, satis-
factory to the ordinary reader, and an esoteric sense for 'him who
comprehends.'
Avircius lays great stress on his travels, his visit to Rome and to
the East; and he obviously intended that the sense should spring
into the mind of the ordinary reader, ' in Rome I saw the Emperor
and the Empress.' His real purpose, however, was to bring out that
he had visited the Church in Rome and the E., and could bear witness
to the unanimity and intercommunion of the members of all the parts
of the Church 4, In the same way Hegesippus laid stress on the fact
that everywhere ' he found himself in harmony with the authorities of
the Church5.' It is probable that already at that time great stress was
1 So Duchesne, Lig'htfoot, Maruoclli, (p£>v at ISia peXr; npocriepevoi ktX.
Hamack, De Rossi (who says dubitanter 5 Eusebius IV 22 i» ima-Ty iroXei ovtus
recepi). Zahn is here very good : so e^« &>s 6 vopos Krjova-n-ei ko.\ ol TrpwjiiJTai
Schulze. Kal 6 Kipios : cp. Westcott N. T. Canon
2 See pp. 500 f. p. 187, Ritschl Entstehung d. K. p. 268.
3 Berl. Akad. Sitz. 1894 pp. 87 ff. He says that at Corinth <T\ivaveKar\piv
4 See Church in E. E. pp. 288, 318 f. t<S &p8S \6ya (cp. Bom. XV 32), where
Basil Caes. Epist. 191 speaks of tS ap- Hort (from whom I quote) would insert
X"'<f e'ISei rrjs aydirrjs Trjs eKKXr/frias, tovs iv, Jud. Christ, p. 167.
Trap' inarepov pepovs ftaSl^ovTas rav riSeA-
a proof that it was in the original epitaph of Avircius. Yet many
recent scholarsx prefer the feeble and vapid reading Katpm against the
testimony of the ancient inscr.
In composing his testament for permanent publicity, Avircius had
to adapt it to the circumstances of the time. As we have seen 2, it
was not possible to put forth in such a public way a statement that
was overtly Chr. The testament was necessarily composed in such
terms as should be capable of passing as an ordinary metrical epitaph ;
but 1. 19, 'let him who comprehends these words, viz. every one who
is in sympathy with the author, pray for him,' contains an obvious
reference to the esoteric sense that underlies the words. The success
with which the aim was achieved has been unintentionally set in
strong relief by Dr. Ficker, who has essayed the proof3 that there is
not a word or phrase in it which might not have been used by a
priest of Cybele. His paper is a remarkable example of ingenuity in
details and failure to conceive the document as a whole; and it is
hard to say whether the scholar who can understand this epitaph as
the public testament of a priest of Cybele shows more misapprehen-
sion of the character of second century paganism or want of appre-
ciation of the spirit of second century Christianity. The testament
of Avircius, then, was intended to bear both an exoteric sense, satis-
factory to the ordinary reader, and an esoteric sense for 'him who
comprehends.'
Avircius lays great stress on his travels, his visit to Rome and to
the East; and he obviously intended that the sense should spring
into the mind of the ordinary reader, ' in Rome I saw the Emperor
and the Empress.' His real purpose, however, was to bring out that
he had visited the Church in Rome and the E., and could bear witness
to the unanimity and intercommunion of the members of all the parts
of the Church 4, In the same way Hegesippus laid stress on the fact
that everywhere ' he found himself in harmony with the authorities of
the Church5.' It is probable that already at that time great stress was
1 So Duchesne, Lig'htfoot, Maruoclli, (p£>v at ISia peXr; npocriepevoi ktX.
Hamack, De Rossi (who says dubitanter 5 Eusebius IV 22 i» ima-Ty iroXei ovtus
recepi). Zahn is here very good : so e^« &>s 6 vopos Krjova-n-ei ko.\ ol TrpwjiiJTai
Schulze. Kal 6 Kipios : cp. Westcott N. T. Canon
2 See pp. 500 f. p. 187, Ritschl Entstehung d. K. p. 268.
3 Berl. Akad. Sitz. 1894 pp. 87 ff. He says that at Corinth <T\ivaveKar\piv
4 See Church in E. E. pp. 288, 318 f. t<S &p8S \6ya (cp. Bom. XV 32), where
Basil Caes. Epist. 191 speaks of tS ap- Hort (from whom I quote) would insert
X"'<f e'ISei rrjs aydirrjs Trjs eKKXr/frias, tovs iv, Jud. Christ, p. 167.
Trap' inarepov pepovs ftaSl^ovTas rav riSeA-