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