“The words of John Malalas are:  The same king Trajan was residing in the same city (Antioch) when the visitation of God (i.e. the earthquake) occurred.  And at that time the holy Ignatius, the bishop of the city of Antioch, was martyred (or bore testimony, [Greek:  emarturese]) before him ([Greek:  epi autou]); for he was exasperated against him, because he reviled him.’” [109:1]

Dr. Lightfoot endeavours in every way to discredit this statement.  He argues that Malalas tells foolish stories about other matters, and, therefore, is not to be believed here; but so simple a piece of information may well be correctly conveyed by a writer who elsewhere may record stupid traditions. [109:2] If the narrative of foolish stories and fabulous traditions is to exclude belief in everything else stated by those who relate them, the whole of the Fathers are disposed of at one fell swoop, for they all do so.  Dr. Lightfoot also assert that the theory of the cause of the martyrdom advanced by Volkmar “receives no countenance from the story of Malalas, who gives a wholly different reason—­the irritating language used to the Emperor.” [109:3] On the other hand, it in no way contradicts it, for Ignatius can only have “reviled” Trajan when brought before him, and his being taken before him may well have been caused by the fury excited by the earthquake, even if the language of the Bishop influenced his condemnation; the whole statement of Malalas is in perfect harmony with the theory in its details, and in the main, of course, directly supports it.  Then Dr. Lightfoot actually makes use of the following extraordinary argument:—­

“But it may be worth while adding that the error of Malalas is capable of easy explanation.  He has probably misinterpreted some earlier authority, whose language lent itself to misinterpretation.  The words [Greek:  marturein, marturia], which were afterwards used especially of martyrdom, had in the earlier ages a wider sense, including other modes of witnessing to the faith:  the expression [Greek:  epi Traianou] again is ambiguous and might denote either ‘during the reign of Trajan,’ or ‘in the presence of Trajan.’  A blundering writer like Malalas might have stumbled over either expression.” [110:1]

This is a favourite device.  In case his abuse of poor Malalas should not sufficiently discredit him, Dr. Lightfoot attempts to explain away his language.  It would be difficult indeed to show that the words [Greek:  marturein, marturia], already used in that sense in the New Testament, were not, at the date at which any record of the martyrdom of Ignatius which Malalas could have had before him was written, employed to express martyrdom, when applied to such a case, as Dr. Lightfoot indeed has in the first instance rendered the phrase.  Even Zahn, whom Dr. Lightfoot so implicitly follows, emphatically decides against him on both points.  “The [Greek:  epi autou] together with [Greek:  tote] can only signify ‘coram Trajano’ (’in the presence of Trajan’), and [Greek:  emarturaese] only the execution.” [110:2] Let anyone simply read over Dr. Lightfoot’s own rendering, which I have quoted above, and he will see that such quibbles are excluded, and that, on the contrary, Malalas seems excellently well and directly to have interpreted his earlier authority.