Book 2

Book II.

Introduction.

1. We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in
ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of
introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by
Christians, together with the events which have taken place in
connection with Christ’s recent appearance, and in connection with his
passion and with the choice of the apostles.

2. In the present book let us examine the events which took place after
his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine Scriptures, and
others from such writings as we shall refer to from time to time.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter I.–The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of
Christ.

1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, [233]
who, as has been shown [234] was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to
the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, [235] for
the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the
hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen
was one. [236] He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the
time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been
promoted for this very purpose. [237] And thus he was the first to
receive the crown, corresponding to his name, [238] which belongs to
the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just [239] on account of
the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be
made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the
brother of the Lord [240] because he was known as a son of Joseph,
[241] and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the
Virgin, being betrothed to him, ”was found with child by the Holy Ghost
before they came together,” [242] as the account of the holy Gospels
shows.

3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes [243] writes thus:
”For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our
Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but
chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” [244]

4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates
also the following things concerning him: ”The Lord after his
resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and
Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest
of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. [245] But
there were two Jameses: [246] one called the Just, who was thrown from
the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a
fuller, [247] and another who was beheaded.” [248] Paul also makes
mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, ”Other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” [249]

5. At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the
Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent
Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the religion of
Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there.
[250]

7. When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ;
and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind
by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ,
he made them disciples of the Saviour’s teaching. And from that time
down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to
the name of Christ, [251] offering no common proof of the beneficence
of our Saviour toward them also.

8. These things have been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now
turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and greatest
persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem
in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the
disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria, [252] some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart
the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews
alone. [253]

9. During this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and entering
the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and committing
them to prison. [254]

10. Philip also, one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with
the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down
to Samaria, [255] and being filled with the divine power, he first
preached the word to the inhabitants of that country. And divine grace
worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus with many others was
attracted by his words. [256]

11. Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his
jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he
was thought to be the great power of God. [257] But at this time, being
amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine
power, he feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far
as to receive baptism. [258]

12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by
those who follow his most impure heresy. [259] For they, after the
manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they
are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves. [260] The most of these have been expelled as soon as they
have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected
by Peter, received the merited punishment. [261]

13. But as the preaching of the Saviour’s Gospel was daily advancing, a
certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of
the queen of that country, [262] for Ethiopia even to the present day
is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among
the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip
in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of
believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on
returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the
universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men; [263] so
that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment, which
declares that ”Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God.” [264]

14. In addition to these, Paul, that ”chosen vessel,” [265] ”not of men
neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and
of God the Father who raised him from the dead,” [266] was appointed an
apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice which
was uttered in a revelation from heaven. [267]
__________________________________________________________________

[233] See Acts i. 23-26.

[234] Bk. I. chap. 12, S:2.

[235] The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenaeus
(adv. Haer. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64.
3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the
third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only
seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since
almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification are urged
this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties
assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words
diakonia and diakonein in connection with the ”Seven” in Acts vi. It
must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously in
favor of the identification, for Chrysostom (Homily XIV. on Acts)
denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later
deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the
financial affairs of the Jerusalem church, while the latter acted
simply as bishops’ assistants. In fact, it was the bishop of the second
century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church finances. And
finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms diakonein and
diakonia in connection with the Seven, for these words are used always
in a general, never in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and
of the New Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word
(diakonia) is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles;
the Seven are ”to serve tables” (diakonein tais trapezais,) the
apostles are to give themselves to ”the service of the word” (diakonia
tou logou.) There is just as much reason, therefore, on linguistic
grounds, for calling the apostles ”deacons” as for giving that name to
the Seven. On the other hand, against the opinion that the Seven were
deacons, are to be urged the facts that they are never called ”deacons”
by Luke or by any other New Testament writer; that we are nowhere told,
in the New Testament or out of it, that there were deacons in the
Jerusalem church, although Luke had many opportunities to call the
Seven ”deacons” if he had considered them such; and finally, that
according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of
Palestine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi (chiefs of
the synagogue). These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries
who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its normal
development; it is therefore at least significant that there were no
deacons among them in the fourth century. In view of these
considerations I feel compelled to doubt the traditional
identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost all
scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot’s article on The Christian Ministry in his
Commentary on Philippians). There remain but two possibilities: either
the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by
Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his
celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on the
Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent officers in the
Church, other than deacons. The former alternative is possible, but the
emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also
the fact that the very duties which these men were chosen to perform
were such as would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the
Church, and such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and
similar committee if the old were not continued. In favor of the second
alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of
this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be urged:
First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in
the Jerusalem church known as ”elders.” Of the appointment of these
elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot have
been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of the
Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and influential
men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters
of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to
with the apostles, it is always the ”elders” that are mentioned.
Finally, when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we
find them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were
originally appointed to perform: they receive the alms sent by the
church of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural
conclusion that these ”elders” occupy the office of whose institution
we read in Acts vi. Against this identification of the Seven with the
elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged: First, that Luke does
not call them elders. But it is quite possible that they were not
called by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that
case, in referring to them in later times, people would naturally call
the first appointed ”the Seven,” to distinguish them from their
successors, ”the elders,”–the well-known and frequently mentioned
officers whose number may well have been increased as the church grew.
It is thus easier to account for Luke’s omission of the name ”elder,”
than it would be to account for his omission of the name ”deacon,” if
they were deacons. In the second place, it might be objected that the
duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not commensurate
with those which fell to the lot of the elders as known to us. This
objection, however, loses its weight when we realize that the same kind
of a development went on in connection with the bishop, as has been
most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Organization of the Early
Christian Churches, and by Harnack in his translation of that work and
in his edition of the Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case
of the Seven, who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem
church after the apostles, and at the same time were ”full of the
Spirit,” it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered,
the successors of these Seven should have committed to them other
duties besides the purely financial ones. The theory presented in this
note is not a novel one. It was suggested first by Boehmer (in his
Diss. Juris eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his Entstehung
der alt-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a somewhat modified
form by Lange (in his Apostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his
Apost. und Nachapost. Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had
been proposed by others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in
a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association
in the spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been
increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent
scholars referred to above.

[236] See Acts vi. 1-6.

[237] See Acts vii

[238] stephanos, ”a crown.”

[239] James is not called the ”Just” in the New Testament, but
Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called thus
by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and it
is by this name that he is known throughout history.

[240] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.

[241] Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for
had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in
this way.

[242] Matt. i. 18.

[243] On Clement’s Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement’s life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.

[244] all’ ‘IEURkobon ton dikaion episkopon ton ;;Ierosolumon
helesthai, as the majority of the mss. and editions read. Laemmer,
followed by Heinichen, substitutes genesthai for helesthaion the
authority of two important codices. The other reading, however, is as
well, if not better, supported. How soon after the ascension of Christ,
James the Just assumed a leading position in the church of Jerusalem,
we do not know. He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in
37 (or 40) a.d. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem.
But we do not know of his having a position of leadership until the
Jerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one of the
three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence with
Peter and John. But this very expression ”three pillars of the Church”
excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the Church in the modern
sense of the term–he was only one of the rulers of the Church. Indeed,
we have abundant evidence from other sources that the monarchical
episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age. It was the custom of
all writers of the second century and later to throw back into the
apostolic age their own church organization, and hence we hear of
bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches where we know
that the episcopacy was a second century growth.

[245] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3.

[246] Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with
James, the son of Alphaeus (compare the words just above: ”These
delivered it to the rest of the apostles,” in which the word
”apostles,” on account of the ”Seventy” just following, seems to be
used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the
Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis
(see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given
by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus
(quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many
of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to
distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement
with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in
regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction,
indeed, appears only upon careful examination.

[247] Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The account
of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius in chap.
23, below, which see.

[248] James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I.,
44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9 below.

[249] Gal. i. 19.

[250] See above, Bk. I. chap. 13.

[251] The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not
known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat
of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius’ time was filled with
magnificent churches and monasteries.

[252] See Acts viii. 1

[253] See Acts xi. 19

[254] See Acts viii. 3

[255] See Acts viii. 5

[256] See Acts viii. 9 sqq. Upon Simon, see chap. 13, note 3.

[257] ten megEURlen dunamin tou theou. Compare Acts viii. 10, which has
he dunamis tou theou he kaloumene. According to Irenaeus (I. 23. 1) he
was called ”the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father over
all things” (sublissimam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit nuper omnia
Pater); according to Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13),
ton proton theon; according to the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) he
wished to be called ”a certain supreme power of God” (anotEURte tis
dunamis.) According to the Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was
called the ”Standing one” (hinc ergo Stans appellatur).

[258] Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say
that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be
implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to
purchase the gift of God with money.

[259] Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated
probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God. They were
exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings gradually assumed a
decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked upon as the
father of all Gnostics (compare Irenaeus, I. 27. 4), and hence of
heretics in general, and as himself the arch-heretic. Eusebius,
therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the Gnostics, or to
the heretics in general.

[260] Another instance of the external and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.

[261] Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further than
the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a curse, and
which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a deserved
punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing him to
destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).

[262] Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the
Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but
of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroe, an island formed by two
branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. N. VI. 35 (Delphin
edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54 (Mueller’s
edit., Paris, 1877).

[263] Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned
to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far as I know,
is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him. The first
certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into
Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and AEdesius, of
whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable
that Christianity existed there long before this time. Compare
Neander’s Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also H. R. Reynolds’ article
upon the ”Ethiopian Church” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian
Biography, II. 232 sqq.

[264] Psa. xviii. 31.

[265] Acts ix. 15.

[266] Gal. i. 1.

[267] See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; xxii. 6 sqq.; xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16; 1
Cor. xv. 8-10
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter II.–How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate
concerning Christ.

1. And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour
were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the
emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that
nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius [268] of the
reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the
resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.

2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of
him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now
believed by many to be a God. [269] They say that Tiberius referred the
matter to the Senate, [270] but that they rejected it, ostensibly
because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law
prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a
vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving
teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and
recommendation of men.

3. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made
in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he
had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
[271]

4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, [272] a man well versed in
the laws of the Romans, [273] and in other respects of high repute, and
one of those especially distinguished in Rome. [274] In his apology for
the Christians, [275] which was written by him in the Latin language,
and has been translated into Greek, [276] he writes as follows: [277]

5. ”But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their
origin, it was an ancient decree [278] that no one should be
consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus.
[279] And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, [280] that among
you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not
please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it
is necessary for man to be gracious to God.

6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry
into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine,
where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to
them that he was pleased with the doctrine. [281] But the Senate, since
it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius
continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers
of the Christians.” [282] Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this
into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at
its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.
__________________________________________________________________

[268] That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by
Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Martyr
(Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate as well
known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are still
extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of these
Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the Gospel of
Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate
addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and
Epistles are collected in Tischendorf’s Evang. Apoc., and most of them
are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See also the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the excellent
article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. lxii
sqq.

[269] The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius’ description,
containing as it does a detailed account of Christ’s miracles and of
his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its
present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely
based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by
interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf
referred to in the previous note.

[270] See below, note 12.

[271] That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but
this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and
not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.

[272] Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius
pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even
into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst
Noeldechen in the Zeitschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1886,
Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about
230. Tertullian’s father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a
lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity
probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a
presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or
in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly
spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in
Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his
writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200
a.d.), and died at an advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter
rests only upon the authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is
denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical
celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of
works,–apologetic, polemic, and practical–a few in Greek, but most of
them in Latin,–and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best
edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol.
III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of
Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1-125. Our main
sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome’s
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of
the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A.
Hauck, Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the
literature, see Schaff’s Church Hist. II. p. 818.

[273] His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very
conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a
lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of
resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his
own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have
been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the
acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.

[274] Kai ton mEURlista epi ;;Romes lampron. Rufinus translates inter
nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores
celeberrimus, taking epi ;;Romes to mean the Latin language. But this
is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says
expressly, one of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his
work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent
some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would
imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law
and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.

[275] Tertullian’s Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is
”one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church”
(Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it
must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and
almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204.
Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften Tertullian’s,
Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitschrift fuer Kirchengeschichte,
1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Noeldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte
und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its
composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its
date may be accepted as practically established.

[276] Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage
from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from
an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language
appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance
with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from Latin
into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of
so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound
knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding
that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of
Tertullian’s which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek
translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of
Tertullian’s works, or at least the most of them, were not translated,
and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read
them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion
in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small
acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general.
In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of
the important Latin works which had been produced before his time,
except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen’s note
in his edition of Eusebius’ History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The
translation of Tertullian’s Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as
may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted
in Bk. II. chap. 25, S:4. For the mistakes, however, of course not
Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held
responsible.

[277] Tertullian’s Apology, chap. 5.

[278] Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian’s Apology, p. 56)
that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero’s De Legibus in
the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas
nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.

[279] MEURrkos ‘Aimilios houtos peri tinos eidolou pepoieken
‘Albournou. Latin: Scit M. AEmilius de deo suo Alburno. In Adv.
Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says, Alioquin si sic homo Deum
commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et
Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus
Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non
regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that this eidolos or Deus
Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I
find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.

[280] Literally, ”This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of)
our doctrine” (kai touto huper tou hemon logou pepoietai); but the
freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
The original Latin reads: facit et hoc ad causam nostram.

[281] This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably,
as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents
from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from
original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long
after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention
these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical
historian. Compare Neander’s remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p.
93 sqq. (Torrey’s Translation).

[282] Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan’s rescript and all
subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III.–The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the
World.

1. Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine
co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun,
quickly illumined the whole world; [283] and straightway, in accordance
with the divine Scriptures, [284] the voice of the inspired evangelists
and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the
end of the world.

2. In every city and village, churches were quickly established, filled
with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor. And those
whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to them from
their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of idolatrous
superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating through the
teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set free, as it
were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the most cruel
bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of demoniacal
polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the creator of
all things, and him they honored with the rites of true piety, through
the inspired and rational worship which has been planted by our Saviour
among men.

3. But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the
nations, Cornelius, of Caesarea in Palestine, with his whole house,
through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received
faith in Christ; [285] and after him a multitude of other Greeks in
Antioch, [286] to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now
increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem
were on the ground, [287] among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition
many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,
[288] as from a fresh and life-giving fountain. [289]

4. And Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a
prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place, [290] and
Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the brethren.
[291]
__________________________________________________________________

[283] Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over the
whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the
statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a
historical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that
the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of
him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles preached in all
parts of the world is to be traced back to the same cause.

[284] Ps. xix. 4.

[285] See Acts x. 1 sq.

[286] See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads
at this point ;;EllenistEURs, a reading which is strongly supported by
external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the internal
evidence seems to demand ;’Ellenas, and this reading is found in some
of the oldest versions and in a few mss., and is adopted by most modern
critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius is a witness for the latter
reading. He takes the word ;’Ellenas in a broad sense to indicate all
that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the allon, ”other
Greeks,” after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a Greek, but a Roman.
Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and Stigloher Heiden.

[287] See Acts xi. 22 sqq.

[288] See Acts xi. 26. This name was first given to the disciples by
the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word ”Christ”
meant too much; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom
appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple.
The word christianos has a Latin termination, but this does not prove
that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were common in the Greek
of that day. It was probably originally given as a term of contempt,
but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.

[289] ap’ euthalous kai gonimou peges. Two mss., followed by Stephanus,
Valesius, Closs, and Cruse, read ges; but all the other mss., together
with Rufinus, support the reading peges, which is adopted by the
majority of editors.

[290] See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and one
other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the
imprisonment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the
reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in
chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of putting
the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of committing a
chronological error. He is following the account of the Acts, and
mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that connection, without
thinking of chronological order. His method is, to be sure, loose, as
he does not inform his readers that he is anticipating by a number of
years, but leaves them to discover it for themselves when they find the
same subject taken up again after a digression of four chapters. Upon
the famine itself, see below, chap. 8.

[291] See Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IV.–After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King
of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.

1. Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years, [292]
and Caius succeeded him in the empire. [293] He immediately gave the
government of the Jews to Agrippa, [294] making him king over the
tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias; in addition to which he bestowed
upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod, [295] having
punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered [296] ) and his
wife Herodias with perpetual exile [297] on account of numerous crimes.
Josephus is a witness to these facts. [298]

2. Under this emperor, Philo [299] became known; a man most celebrated
not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without
the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those
who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in
the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to all from
the work which he has done. How familiar he was with philosophy and
with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to
say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in
the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to which he
particularly devoted his attention. [300]
__________________________________________________________________

[292] From Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37.

[293] Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41.

[294] Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of
Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with
Caius, and upon the latter’s accession to the throne received the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of
Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Antipas. After the death
of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed him also king over the
province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a
dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great. He was a strict
observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews with
success. It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter
imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died of a terrible disease in a.d. 44. See
below, chap. 10.

[295] Herod Antipas.

[296] See Luke xxiii. 7-11.

[297] He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to
Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. J. II. 9.
6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).

[298] See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.

[299] Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born
probably about 20-10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an
old man). Very little is known about his life, and the time of his
death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the embassy to
Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this. He
is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a
priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is
probably no truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus in
his Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly imbued
with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek
culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent
ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works (Biblical,
historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very numerous, and
probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see
chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo, see Schuerer,
Geschichte des Juedischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; zweite
Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief
literature upon the subject is given.

[300] Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its
departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The
influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his
philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek
philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself
be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains not only
Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his
doctrinal system, see especially Schuerer, ibid. p. 836 sq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter V.–Philo’s Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.

1. Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of
the Jews under Caius. [301] He recounts at the same time the madness of
Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor
innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the miseries of
the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he
himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria; [302] how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the
laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life.

2. Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book
of his Antiquities, in the following words: [303] ”A sedition having
arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,
[304] three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.

3. One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion, [305] who uttered many
slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they
neglected the honors due to Caesar. For while all other subjects of
Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects
treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it
disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.

4. And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped
that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of
the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of
Alexander the Alabarch, [306] and not unskilled in philosophy, was
prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations.

5. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very
angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them.
And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that were with
him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging against them he
was in fact already contending with God.”

6. Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy
[307] which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things
which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the most of them
and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the
reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after
their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.

7. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of
Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the
emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; [308]
and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour
were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in
respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in
Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults. [309]
__________________________________________________________________

[301] Upon this work, see Schuerer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the
whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title peri areton
kai presbeias pros GEURion. Eusebius cites what seems to be the same
work under these two different titles in this and in the next chapter;
and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact
that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the
Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work,
describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title he presbeia
in so complete a catalogue of Philo’s works makes its identification
with peri areton very probable. Of the five, only the third and fourth
are extant,–eis PhlEURkkon, Adversus Flaccum, and peri presbeias pros
GEURion, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey’s ed. Vol. II. p.
517-600). Book I., which is lost, contained, probably, a general
introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the
oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome,
and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum
(still extant), contains an account of the persecution of the Jews of
Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad
Cajum (still extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews
as a result of Caius’ command that divine honors should everywhere be
paid him; Book V., the palinodia (which is lost), contained an account
of the change for the better in the Jews’ condition through the death
of Caius, and the edict of toleration published by Claudius. Upon the
other works of Philo, see chap. 18, below.

[302] The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had
arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued
with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been
shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All efforts to secure
peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the Greeks dispatched an
embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him an edict for the
extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their side, followed the
example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own defense, with
Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius relates, and the Jews
were left in a worse condition than before, from which, however, they
were speedily relieved by the death of Caius. Claudius, who succeeded
Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and all the rights
which they had hitherto enjoyed.

[303] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.

[304] This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d., soon after the
accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great,
when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city,
Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor there,
and were among the most influential inhabitants. They possessed all the
rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their neighbors
in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of the Romans, all
the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to take a
position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was not
worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however, been
hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their
prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.
This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition
of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually
burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more prosperous
neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was
the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made
a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for
them the hatred of Caius himself.

[305] Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of
Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He
seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter
and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at
least two of his works–the Egyptian History and a special work Against
the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous in his
attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which were
quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still more
widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote his
celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de antiquitate Judaeorum
contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second book of which
he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the
Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious)
role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion’s
works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Mueller’s Fragm. Hist.
Graec. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius’ Bibl. Graec. I. 503, and VII. 50.
Compare Lightfoot’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[306] The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria.
Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and
held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed
procurator of Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius Fadus. Philo
thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The accuracy of
Josephus’ statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabarch
Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des Juedischen
Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have
been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare
Schuerer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).

[307] See note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title he
presbeia (Legatio).

[308] The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had
increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first
disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose
notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their
enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the
emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were
driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the death
of Sejanus, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed to return,
and their former rights were restored.

[309] Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very
obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during
his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no
procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he
changed his quarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and
Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another time he
offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with
the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express
order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again, he appropriated a
part of the treasure of the temple to the construction of an aqueduct,
which caused another terrible tumult which was quelled only after much
bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see the next chapter). For further
particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VI.–The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their
Presumption against Christ.

1. After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides
innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly
afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. [310] These things
we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows:
[311]

2. ”So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and
especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly
hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the
other cities, [312] and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with
images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them
he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had
hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable
asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it
might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius.”
[313]

3. Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which
came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor,
are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the
title, On the Virtues. [314] With him agrees also Josephus, who
likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with
the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.
[315]

4. Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he
writes as follows: [316] ”Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by
Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called
ensigns, [317] to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the
greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were
confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled
under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city.”

5. Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you
will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty
for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when
they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar. [318]

6. The same writer further records that after this another calamity
overtook them. He writes as follows: [319] ”After this he stirred up
another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban, [320] in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia
in length. [321]

7. The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in
Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud
complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through
the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen’s clothing, forbidding
them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those
who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal
from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in
consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot by
their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives. But
the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held their
peace.”

8. In addition to these the same author records [322] many other
tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from
that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other
in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea
until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine
vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit
against Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

[310] Caius’ hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His
demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in
Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship,
the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the
emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of
Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the
Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is
probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there
as elsewhere.

[311] Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.

[312] en tais allais polesi. The reason for the use of the word ”other”
is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities except
Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.

[313] ”`Caius the younger,’ to distinguish him from Julius Caesar who
bore the name Caius, and who was also deified” (Valesius).

[314] This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning
of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two
titles he presbeia and peri areton. See Schuerer, ibid. p. 859, who
considers the deutero here the addition of a copyist, who could not
reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.

[315] This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius,
as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the
nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.

[316] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2.

[317] semaiai kalountai

[318] John xix. 15.

[319] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4.

[320] Heb. Q+oR+B+uoN%; Greek korban and korbanas. The word denoted
originally any offering to God, especially an offering in fulfillment
of a vow. The form korbanas, which Josephus has employed here, was used
to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself. In Matt. xxvii.
6, the only place where this form of the word occurs in the New
Testament, it is used with the latter meaning. Upon this act of
Pilate’s, see above, chap. 5, note 9.

[321] Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200
stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is
400, according to the Greek mss. of Josephus, though the old Latin
translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The situation of the
aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct have
been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may
have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a new
aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time of
Solomon. Schultz (Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40,
supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from
Jerusalem.

[322] See B. J. II. 10, 12 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VII.–Pilate’s Suicide.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time
of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under
Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his
own murderer and executioner; [323] and thus divine vengeance, as it
seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek
historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the
respective events which have taken place in each period. [324]
__________________________________________________________________

[323] Pilate’s downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader of
the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36
a.d.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon reaching Rome he
found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne. He was unsuccessful in
his attempt to defend himself, and, according to tradition, was
banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still shown as Pilate’s
tomb. According to another tradition he committed suicide upon the
mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.

[324] Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known to
us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the
trustworthiness of the account.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter VIII.–The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.

1. Caius had held the power not quite four years, [325] when he was
succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited with
a famine, [326] which writers that are entire strangers to our religion
have recorded in their histories. [327] And thus the prediction of
Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, [328] according to which
the whole world was to be visited by a famine, received its
fulfillment.

2. And Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of
Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to
his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and
Barnabas, [329] adds the following account.
__________________________________________________________________

[325] Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was
succeeded by his uncle Claudius.

[326] Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year of
Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal famine is
recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Josephus (Ant. XX.
2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea while Cuspius Fadus
and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators. Fadus was sent
into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 a.d.), and Alexander was
succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.d. The exact date of Alexander’s accession
we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46. This famine
is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in Acts xi. 28. The
exact meaning of the word oikoumene, in that passage, is a matter of
dispute. Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate
a succession of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed
only in a rhetorical sense, it is impossible to say. Eusebius
understands the word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a
universal famine; but he is mistaken in his assumption.

[327] The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a
famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who
mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in
Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his
Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign,
but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have no
extant account of a general famine at this time.

[328] Acts xi. 28.

[329] Acts xi. 29, 30.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter IX.–The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.

1. ” [330] Now about that time” (it is clear that he means the time of
Claudius) ”Herod the King [331] stretched forth his hands to vex
certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the
sword.”

2. And concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his
Hypotyposes, [332] relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling
it as he received it from those who had lived before him. He says that
the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his
testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was himself also a
Christian.

3. They were both therefore, he says, led away together; and on the way
he begged James to forgive him. And he, after considering a little,
said, ”Peace be with thee,” and kissed him. And thus they were both
beheaded at the same time.

4. And then, as the divine Scripture says, [333] Herod, upon the death
of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also
and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not, by
the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been
wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the service
of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to Peter.
__________________________________________________________________

[330] Acts xii. 1, 2.

[331] Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.

[332] On Clement’s Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably
received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such
traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,–in how far
true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells
of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This story of
James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true, though
external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin legends
concerning James’ later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella
are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and
lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his
statement and it is not improbable that the report originated through a
confusion of this James with James the Just.

[333] Acts xii. 3sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter X.–Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the
Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.

1. The consequences of the king’s undertaking against the apostles were
not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook
him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of Acts
records. [334] For when he had journeyed to Caesarea, on a notable
feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an
address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal. And
when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the voice of
a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord
smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost. [335]

2. We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the
divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly
bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities,
where he relates the wonder in the following words: [336]

3. ”He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea [337]
when he came to Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower.
[338] There he held games in honor of Caesar, learning that this was a
festival observed in behalf of Caesar’s safety. [339] At this festival
was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men
in the province.

4. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at
break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful
texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the
sun’s earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to
produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.

5. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from
another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good,
calling him a god, and saying, `Be thou merciful; if up to this time we
have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior
to the nature of mortals.’

6. The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above
his head. [340] And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of
evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, [341] and he was
smitten with a heart-piercing pain.

7. And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence,
seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, `I, your god,
am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus on the spot
disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who
has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our destiny
must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed our life
by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is pronounced
happiness.’ [342]

8. And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He
was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread
among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude,
with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of
their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was
filled with lamentation and tears. [343] And the king as he lay in a
lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could
not refrain from weeping himself.

9. And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the
bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and
in the seventh year of his reign. [344] Four years he ruled under the
Emperor Caius–three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was
added in the fourth year that of Herod [345] –and three years during
the reign of the Emperor Claudius.”

10. I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in
others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there should
seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the
king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is
meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names.
[346]
__________________________________________________________________

[334] See Acts xii. 19 sqq.

[335] Acts xii. 23.

[336] Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.

[337] 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 a.d.
See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[338] Caesarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem.
In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point,
called ”Strato’s Tower”; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the
city of Caesarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of
Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the
seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in
Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea. It was a city
of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of
utter desolation.

[339] The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered
it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival
in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these
suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned
was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of
Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and
celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler’s Chronologie des
ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed
in connection with the date of Agrippa’s death which is fixed by
Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.

[340] The passage in Josephus reads: ”But as he presently afterward
looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him.”
This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in
Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the
gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of
the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of
the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but
in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks
serious, but so severe an accusation–an accusation which impeaches the
honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner–should not be made
except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to
be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the
use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general
conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given
the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an
explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says:
”Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod
Agrippa’s death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in
which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where
we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this
unjust charge.” And in a note he adds: ”It is not the substitution of
an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result
is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of
Josephus, which runs thus: anakupsas d’ oun met’ oligon[ton boubona]
tes heautou kephales huper kathezomenon eiden[epi schoiniou tinos]
angelon[te] touton euthus enoese kakon einai, ton kai pote ton agathon
genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and aition is added after
einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden angelon touton euthus enoese
kakon einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not feel at all sure that
the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous
motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton
boubona, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have
been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to
extract some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name:
boubona de hoi ;;Romaioi ton ornin touton kalousi. Moeller (quoted by
Bright, p. XLV.) calls this `the one case’ in which, so far as he
recollects, `a sinceritatis via paululum deflexit noster’; and even
here the indictment cannot be made good. The severe strictures against
Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii. 21, are altogether
unjustifiable” (Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog. II. p. 325).
The Greek word boubon means, according to Liddell and Scott, (1) the
groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies ”an
owl,” and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the
Latin into Greek without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with
Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant.
XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure,
explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a
copyist of Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had
probably never seen that explanation. Whiston in his translation of
Josephus inserts a note to the following effect: ”We have a mighty cry
made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose
falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the
parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles, because the present
copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the
words boubona …epi schoiniou, tinos, i.e. `an owl …on a certain
rope,’ which Josephus’ present copies retain, and only have the
explanatory word angelon, or `angel,’ as if he meant that `angel of the
Lord’ which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not
that owl, which Josephus called `an angel or messenger, formerly of
good but now of bad news,’ to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat
strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so
accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient
records and particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without
any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we
are, whether Josephus’ and Eusebius’ copies of the fourth century were
just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct
evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not
admit of any such exposition. `This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa
presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of
good fortune’; which can belong only to that bird the `owl,’ which, as
it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant.
XVIII. 6. 7, so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy
forewarner of his death in five days’ time. If the improper word
aition, or `cause,’ be changed for Josephus’ proper word angelon,
`angel,’ or `messenger,’ and the foregoing words, boubona epi schoiniou
tinos, be inserted, Eusebius’ text will truly represent that in
Josephus.”

[341] Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in
chains–having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius–an owl made
its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner
interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would
soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird
would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius died in
the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass. The story
was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good
faith.

[342] The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of
Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read epi
tes makarizomenes lamprotetos, which I have adopted in preference to
the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in substituting
makari& 231;tetos for lamprotetos

[343] This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor
of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that
exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

[344] He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of Philip
and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.

[345] Herod Antipas.

[346] Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name,
while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us
under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius
should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa,
instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading
of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he
entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XI.–The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.

1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to, [347] ”rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody;
who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.” [348]
Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He
records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:
[349]

2. ”While Fadus was procurator of Judea [350] a certain impostor called
Theudas [351] persuaded a very great multitude to take their
possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was
a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and
afford them an easy passage.

3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them
to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who
fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others
alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head
and carried it to Jerusalem.” Besides this he also makes mention of the
famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following
words.
__________________________________________________________________

[347] kata ton deloumenon chronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa’s
death. But Luke writes pro gar touton ton hemeron, ”Before these days.”

[348] Acts v. 36.

[349] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.

[350] About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2.

[351] There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this
Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by
Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various
solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any
one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the
alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler’s Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald’s Gesch.
des Juedischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten,
Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in
loco. A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is
as to Eusebius’ conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke
with the Theudas of Josephus,–an identification which is impossible,
if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently
been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of
promoting the credibility of Luke’s accounts. But a protest must again
be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius.
A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not
have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a
glaring anachronism–an anachronism which every reader had the means of
exposing–for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the
narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would
certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would
not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover
in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible
reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius’
anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many
blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar
character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without
a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the
passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting
that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of
the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XII.–Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.

1. [352] ”And at this time [353] it came to pass that the great famine
[354] took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, [355] having
purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the
needy.”

2. You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the
Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, ”each
according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren
that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Paul.” [356]

3. But splendid monuments [357] of this Helen, of whom the historian
has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is
now called AElia. [358] But she is said to have been queen of the
Adiabeni. [359]
__________________________________________________________________

[352] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2.

[353] In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander.

[354] Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of
his Ant., chap. 2, S:5.

[355] Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son
Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of
Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and
Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to
Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the
distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After their
death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and
buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three
pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).

[356] Acts xi. 29, 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.

[357] ”Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of
Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too, testifies
that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a palace in
Jerusalem” (Stroth).

[358] AElia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).

[359] Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris,
Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but
before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith’s Dict. of Greek
and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate
Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIII.–Simon Magus. [360]

1. But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been
diffused among all men, [361] the enemy of man’s salvation contrived a
plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither
the above-mentioned Simon, [362] aided him in his deceitful arts, led
many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his
own power.

2. This is stated by Justin, [363] one of our distinguished writers who
lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall
speak in the proper place. [364] Take and read the work of this man,
who in the first Apology [365] which he addressed to Antonine in behalf
of our religion writes as follows: [366]

3. ”And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put
forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only
allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,
[367] who in the reign of Claudius Caesar [368] performed in your
imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating
in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with
a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, [369] between the two
bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo
Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God. [370]

4. And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations
confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with
him at that time a certain Helena [371] who had formerly been a
prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that
proceeded from him.” [372]

5. Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in
the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account
of the man [373] and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be
superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who
wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each
of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs
practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the
above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6. We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. [374]
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy
have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is
celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they
nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they
seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images
of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him;
and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and
libations.

7. But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard
to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished,
and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be
confounded, [375] are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness
and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to
commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with
the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness. [376]

8. For whatever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest thing–all
that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed
of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally
overwhelmed with all kinds of vices. [377]
__________________________________________________________________

[360] It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius’
History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to
heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the
author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any
truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked
upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen
tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his
information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of
them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no
means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is highly probable that
he did not have access to any of their works. The accounts of the
heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be
preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously
excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and
the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church. The
sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge
of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost
solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way
and very likely for the same reason.

[361] See chap. 3, note 1.

[362] Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq.
(quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early
Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends
that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him.
Indeed the Tuebingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have
denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved
the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in
hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked
as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and Simon rests
upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in
which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of
identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer
of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the author of
the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to
his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no
more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article,
Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576).
The original of Simon then is not to be found in Paul. The third
century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual
existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in
the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him
among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton–the
basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon
legends–a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in
the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magus, in the Dict. of
Christ. Biog. IV. p. 681 sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is
represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all
directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his
impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at
length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by
suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various
conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient
accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c.
Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions;
Irenaeus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian’s Apology, On
Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.;
Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and
Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); Epiphanius,
Haer. XXI.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1. See also Lipsius, article
in Schinkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.

[363] In his Apology, I. 26, 56.

[364] In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18.

[365] On Justin’s Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2.

[366] Justin’s Apology, I. 26.

[367] Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the modern
Nablus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of
Kuryet Jit (see Robinson’s Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note).
Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin’s report, for the reason that
Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about
the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition
in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this
place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of
the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a
native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own
country, than that Josephus was. Simon’s activity may have extended to
Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his
birthplace.

[368] Justin here assigns Simon’s visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenaeus also does. Other accounts assign it
to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death;
suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary
burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are
reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited
Rome at some time or another.

[369] That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola
Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.

[370] In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio,
&c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue
was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore highly
probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus.
This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin
Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am.
ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin
in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenaeus, I. 23. 1 (who, however, simply
says ”It is said,” and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin
Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general
a poor authority even if he be independent of Justin at this point,
which is not probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us
an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing
about the statue and his silence is a strong argument against it.

[371] A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by
Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Haer. 21; and by Theodoret,
Haer. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon
taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother
of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence, &c. The
Simonians, according to Irenaeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15;
see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored
as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon’s doctrines and practice, as recorded by
these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the
Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of
Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II.
p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.

[372] This conception of the idea (znnoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and
plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these
systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamis and the
znnoiaas the original principles from whose union all beings emanated.
These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the
different systems.

[373] Irenaeus adv. Haer. I. 23.

[374] See note 3, above.

[375] thambothesesthai

[376] This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the
purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them as
an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense. This
thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been
perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject. Neander was
the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his
Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since
that time the subject has been treated intelligently and
discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon
and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism
perhaps more fully than any one else. See his Dogmengeschichte, I. p.
158 sqq.

[377] This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see
below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the opposite
extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of
these extremes we perceive the same principle–a dualism of matter and
spirit, therefore of body and mind–the former considered as the work
of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as
divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of
the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of
the two opposite results, asceticism or antinomianism, according to the
character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church Hist.
II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of heresy,
naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were therefore
indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their
worst forms.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIV.–The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.

1. The evil power, [378] who hates all that is good and plots against
the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and
author of such wickedness, [379] as if to make him a mighty antagonist
of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its
ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the
kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them ”every
high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God.” [380]

3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the
others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those
apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the
splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but
lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then
flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.

4. Immediately [381] the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the
eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil
deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in
Judea, [382] he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the
East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to
his mind.

5. And coming to the city of Rome, [383] by the mighty co-operation of
that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as
a god by the erection of a statue. [384]

6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all
things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the
one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to
Rome [385] against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble
commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise
of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in
the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings
salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven. [386]
__________________________________________________________________

[378] See the previous chapter, note 1.

[379] See chap. 1, note 25.

[380] 2 Cor. x. 5.

[381] The significance of the word ”immediately” as employed here is
somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context
with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius may
have been using at this point some unknown source and that the word
”immediately” refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter
(perhaps his Caesarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of
which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius. The
figure employed here is most remarkable.

[382] Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper,
but Eusebius evidently uses the word ”Judea” in a wide sense, to
indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It
is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a
written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is
referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic
Constitutions, VI. 8.

[383] Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism
which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial
seat of the devil.

[384] See above, chap. 13, note 11.

[385] Upon the historic truth of Peter’s visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that
he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition
that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by
Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost
universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent
years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so
long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took
its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous
chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits
of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier
date for Simon’s arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same
date for Peter’s arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter
in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes. The
assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of
Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter’s later life from the
New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in
Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there
(according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to
Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in
various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle,
and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see
chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul
wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made
of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have
been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to
63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the
extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that
he met his death there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome
at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the
summer of 64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus’ visit to
Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make
him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing
and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius
follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon’s visit to Rome;
but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter,
which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions. The earlier date for
Simon’s visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition.
Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the
reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the
presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon’s meeting with
Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by
Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap.
Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source
Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian
mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much,
as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As
to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so
conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet
recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could
hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and
Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines
were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the
source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly
probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as
they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact
commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written
authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us,
as suggested above (note 4).

[386] A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an
excellent illustration of Eusebius’ rhetorical style.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XV.–The Gospel according to Mark.

1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, [387]
the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together
with the man himself. [388] And so greatly did the splendor of piety
illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with
hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of
the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,
[389] a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he
would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been
orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had
prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written
Gospel which bears the name of Mark. [390]

2. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of
the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of
the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for
the purpose of being used in the churches. [391] Clement in the eighth
book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the
bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. [392] And Peter makes mention of
Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself,
as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon,
as he does in the following words: ”The church that is at Babylon,
elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”
[393]
__________________________________________________________________

[387] The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery. Eusebius
gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.: that
Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who went there during
the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is sufficiently disproved by
history. The origin of the Church was due to unknown persons, though it
is possible we may obtain a hint of them in the Andronicus and Junta of
Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned as apostles, and who were therefore,
according to the usage of the word in Paul’s writings, persons that
introduced Christianity into a new place–missionaries proper, who did
not work on others’ ground.

[388] See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, note 8.

[389] John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas (Col.
iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their missionary
journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone (Acts xv. 39),
and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv. 10 and Philemon
24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 13). For
the later traditions concerning Mark, see the next chapter, note 1.

[390] That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter,
or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the universal
tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed passage
(quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the
tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark’s Gospel under the name
”Memoirs (apomnemoneumata) of Peter” (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252, which
refers the autou to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T.
Einleitung, p. 44, note 4). Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 11. 1, quoted
below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen (quoted
below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over
again by the Fathers. The question as to the real authorship of our
second Gospel, or rather as to its composition and its relation to
Matthew and Luke, is a very difficult one. The relationship of the
three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by Augustine (De Consensu
Evangelistarum), who defended the traditional order, but made Mark
dependent upon Matthew. This view prevailed until the beginning of the
present century, when the problem was attacked anew, and since then it
has been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible. The three
have been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible
order has found its advocates; a common source has been assumed for the
three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk.
III. chap. 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an original
Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary documents
have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted only oral
tradition as the basis. According to Baur’s tendency theory, Matthew
(polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an original Luke
(polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which was based upon
both and written in the interest of neutrality, and lastly by our
present Luke, designed as a final irenicum. This view now finds few
advocates. The whole matter is still unsettled, but criticism seems to
be gradually converging toward a common ground type (or rather two
independent types) for all three while at the same time maintaining the
relative independence of the three, one toward the other. What these
ground types were, is a matter of still sharper dispute, although
criticism is gradually drawing their larger features with more and more
certainty and clearness. (The latest discussion upon the subject by
Handmann, das Hebraeer-Evangelium, makes the two types the ”Ur-Marcus”
and the Gospel of the Hebrews.) That in the last analysis, however,
some space must still be left for floating tradition, or for documents
irreducible to the one or two types, seems absolutely certain. For
further information as to the state of discussion upon this intricate
problem, see among recent works, especially Weiss, Einleitung, p. 473
sqq., Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 575
sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great fullness.
Conservative opinion puts the composition of all the synoptic Gospels
before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see III. 4,
note 12); but the critical school, while throwing the original type
back of that date, considers the composition of our present Gospels to
have been the gradual work of years, assuming that they were not
finally crystallized into the form in which we have them before the
second century.

[391] This mention of the ”pleasure” of Peter, and the ”authority”
given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts the account of Clement to
which Eusebius here appeals as his authority. In Bk. VI. chap. 14 he
quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a passage which must be
identical with the one referred to in this place, for it is from the
same work and the general account is the same; but there Clement says
expressly, ”which when Peter understood he neither directly hindered
nor encouraged it.”

[392] The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39.
Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he
had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details
of the account as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III.
chap. 39.

[393] 1 Pet. v. 13. Commentators are divided as to the place in which
Peter wrote this epistle (compare Schaff’s Church Hist. I. p. 744
sqq.). The interpretation given by Eusebius is the patristic and Roman
Catholic opinion, and is maintained by many Protestant commentators.
But on the other hand the literal use of the word ”Babylon” is defended
by a great number of the leading scholars of the present day. Compare
Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 433, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVI.–Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of
Egypt.

1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt,
and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first
established churches in Alexandria. [394]

2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were
collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most
philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo
thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings,
their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.” [395]
__________________________________________________________________

[394] That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius (Haer.
LI. 6), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 8), by Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43), and
by the Acta Barnabae, p. 26 (Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74),
which were written probably in the third century. Eusebius gained his
knowledge apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula,
”they say” (phasin). In chap. 24, below, he says that Annianus
succeeded Mark as a leader of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth year
of Nero (62 a.d.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and
Jerome gives the same date for his death. But if the tradition that he
wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter’s death, as the
best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenaeus) be correct, then this date is
hopelessly wrong. The varying traditions are at best very uncertain,
and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New
Testament, is involved in obscurity.

[395] See the next chapter.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVII.–Philo’s Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.

1. It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became
acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. [396] Nor
is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and
which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those
rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us.

2. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our
ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also approved,
while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his time, who
were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed, after the
manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients.

3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or
on Suppliants, [397] after affirming in the first place that he will
add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to
truth or of his own invention, [398] he says that these men were called
Therapeutae and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. [399] He
then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that
they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them,
by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact
that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity.

4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well
suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really
called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was
not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.

5. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their
property. When they begin the philosophical [400] mode of life, he
says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing
all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in
lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of
a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at
that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and
ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets’ mode of life.

6. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as
authentic, [401] it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles
sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all
according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was
in want. ”For as many as were possessors of lands or houses,” as the
account says, ”sold them and brought the prices of the things that were
sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, so that distribution was
made unto every man according as he had need.” [402]

7. Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and
then adds the following account: [403] ”Everywhere in the world is this
race [404] found. For it was fitting that both Greek [405] and
Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race
particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, [406]
and especially about Alexandria.

8. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the
Therapeutae’s fatherland, [407] to a certain very suitable spot which
lies above the lake Maria [408] upon a low hill excellently situated on
account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere.”

9. And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses
which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which
were scattered about here and there: [409] ”In each house there is a
sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery, [410]
where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life.
They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the
other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only
the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such
other things as augment and make perfect their knowledge and piety.”

10. And after some other matters he says: [411]

”The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of
exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the philosophy
of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the written words
as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in obscure figures.

11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of
their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method.
These they use as models, and imitate their principles.”

12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them
expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the
works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and the
writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the ancient
prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and in
many others of Paul’s Epistles.

13. Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which
they composed: [412] ”So that they not only spend their time in
meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every
variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into
measures of more than common solemnity.”

14. The same book contains an account of many other things, but it
seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the
characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life.

15. But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to
the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those
mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same
author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed
testimony on this subject. Philo’s words are as follows: [413]

16. ”Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul,
they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or
drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy
of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in
the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the
latter a small portion of the night.

17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to
take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so
luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without
stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are
accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food.” These
statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to
those of our communion.

18. But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in
denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be
convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere
else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians. [414]

19. For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are
speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins [415] who had
preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the
priestesses among the Greeks, [416] but rather by their own choice,
through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire
to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the
pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which
only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.

20. Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: [417] ”They
expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For
the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of
which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense
stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning
has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed
as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts.”

21. Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the
respective occupations of the men and of the women during those
meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day
habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to
observe at the feast of the Saviour’s passion, with fasting and night
watching and study of the divine Word.

22. These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own
work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the present
time by us alone, recording especially the vigils kept in connection
with the great festival, and the exercises performed during those
vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how,
while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and
join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days
referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his
own words, [418] ”taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is
their only drink, and the reish with their bread is salt and hyssop.”

23. In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which
exists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning
the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence
over all the others. [419] But whosoever desires a more accurate
knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited.

24. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first
heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by
the apostles, is clear to every one.
__________________________________________________________________

[396] This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an
acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome (de vir ill. 11), and by
Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says directly that Philo
became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be regarded as quite
worthless. It is absolutely certain from Philo’s own works, and from
the otherwise numerous traditions of antiquity that he never was a
Christian, and aside from the report of Eusebius (for Jerome and
Photius do not represent an independent tradition) there exists no hint
of such a meeting between Peter and Philo; and when we realize that
Philo was already an old man in the time of Caius (see above, chap. 4,
note 8), and that Peter certainly did not reach Rome before the later
years of Nero’s reign, we may say that such a meeting as Eusebius
records (only upon tradition, logos zchei) is certainly not historical.
Where Eusebius got the tradition we do not know. It may have been
manufactured in the interest of the Philonic authorship of the De vita
contemplativa, or it may have been a natural outgrowth of the
ascription of that work to him, some such explanation suggesting itself
to the reader of that work as necessary to explain Philo’s supposed
praise of Christian monks. Philo’s visit to Rome during the reign of
Caligula being a well-known historic fact, and Peter’s visit to Rome
during the reign of Claudius being assumed as likewise historic (see
above, chap. 14, note 8), it was not difficult to suppose a meeting
between them (the great Christian apostle and the great Jewish
philosopher), and to invent for the purpose a second visit of Philo to
Rome. It seems probable that the ascription of the work De vita
contemplativa to Philo came before the tradition of his acquaintance
with Peter in Rome (which is first mentioned by Eusebius); but in any
case the two were mutually corroborative.

[397] peri biou theoretikou e hiketon; De Vita Contemplativa. This work
is still extant, and is given by Mangey, II. 471-486. Eusebius is the
first writer to mention it, and he identifies the Therapeutae described
in it with the Christian monks, and assumes in consequence that
monasticism in the form in which he knew it existed in the apostolic
age, and was known and praised by Philo. This opinion was generally
adopted by the Fathers (with the single exception of Photius, Cod. 105,
who looked upon the Therapeutae as a Jewish sect) and prevailed
unquestioned until the Reformation, when in the Protestant reaction
against monasticism it was denied that monks existed in the apostolic
age, and that the Therapeutae were Christians at all. Various opinions
as to their identity have been held since that time, the commonest
being that they were a Jewish sect or school, parallel with the
Palestinian Essenes, or that they were an outgrowth of Alexandrian
Neo-Pythagoreanism. The former opinion may be said to have been the
prevailing one among Christian scholars until Lucius, in his work
entitled Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der Askese
(Strassburg, 1879), proved (what had been asserted already by Graetz
and Jost) that the Therapeutae are really to be identified with
Christian monks, and that the work De Vita Contemplativa is not a
genuine work of Philo’s. If the former proposition is proved, the
latter follows of necessity, for it is absolutely impossible to suppose
that monasticism can have existed in so developed a form (or indeed in
any form) in the time of Philo. On the other hand it may be proved that
the work is not Philonic, and yet it may not follow that the
Therapeutae are to be identified with Christian monks. And so some
scholars reject the Philonic authorship while still maintaining the
Jewish character of the Therapeutae (e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and
Weingarten; see Schuerer, Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
p. 863). In the opinion of the writer, who agrees therein with the
great majority of scholars, Lucius has conclusively demonstrated both
his propositions, and has shown that the work De Vita Contemplativa is
the production of some Christian of the latter part of the third
century, who aimed to produce an apology for and a panegyric of
monasticism as it existed in his day, and thus to secure for it wider
recognition and acceptance. Lucius concludes with the following words:
”Wir haben es demnach in D.V.C. mit einer Tendenzschrift zu thun,
welche, da sie eine weit ausgebildete und in zahlreichen Laendern
verbreitete Askese, so wie Zustaende voraussetzt, genau wie dieselben
nur im Christenthum des dritten Jahrhunderts vorhanden waren, kaum
anders aufgefasst werden kann, als eine, etwa am Ende des dritten
Jahrhunderts, unter dem Namen Philo’s, zu Gunsten der Christlichen
Askese, verfasste Apologie, als erstes Glied eines an derartigen
Producte ueberaus reichen Litteratur-zweige der alten Kirche.” Compare
with Lucius’ work the reviews of it by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift
fuer wiss. Theol., 1880, pp. 423-440, and by Schuerer in the
Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1880, No. 5. The latter especially has
added some important considerations with reference to the reasons for
the composition of this work under the name of Philo. Assuming then the
correctness of Lucius’ conclusions, we see that Eusebius was quite
right in identifying the Therapeutae with the Christian monks as he
knew them in his day, but that he was quite wrong in accepting the
Philonic authorship of the work in question, and in concluding that the
institution of monasticism as he knew it existed already in the
apostolic age (compare note 19, below).

[398] It may fairly be doubted whether the work does not really contain
considerable that is not in strict accordance with the facts observed
by the author, whether his account is not to an extent idealized, and
whether, in his endeavor to emphasize the Jewish character of the
Therapeutae, with the design of establishing the antiquity of
monasticism (compare the review of Schuerer referred to above), he has
not allowed himself to introduce some imaginative elements. The strong
asseveration which he makes of the truthfulness of his account would
rather increase than allay this suspicion, and the account itself at
certain points seems to bear it out. On the whole, however, it may be
regarded as a reasonably accurate sketch. Were it not such, Eusebius
would not have accepted it, so unreservedly as he does, as an account
of Christian monks. Lucius’ exhibition of the points of similarity
between the practices of the Therapeutae, as described here, and of
early Christian monks, as known from other sources, is very interesting
(see p. 158 sq.).

[399] therapeutai and therapeutrides, ”worshipers” or ”physicians”;
from therapeuo, which means either to do service to the gods, or to
tend the sick.

[400] See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

[401] See Bk. III. chap. 4, note 14.

[402] Acts ii. 45.

[403] De Vita Contemplativa, S:3.

[404] Namely, the Therapeutae.

[405] Heinichen omits, without explanation, the words kai ten ;;Ellada,
which are found in all the other editions that I have examined.
Inasmuch as Heinichen gives no hint of an alternate reading at this
point, I can conclude only that the words were accidentally omitted by
him.

[406] Egypt, exclusive of the cities Alexandria and Ptolemais, was
divided into land districts, originally 36 in number, which were called
nomoi (see Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner’s ed. I.
p. 255 sq.).

[407] patrida. This word, as Schuerer points out (Theol.
Literaturzeitung, 1880, no. 5), is not a noun, as it is commonly
regarded (and hence translated ”fatherland”), but an adjective (and
hence to be translated ”eine vaterlaendische Colonie,” ”a colony of the
fatherland”); the oikoumene, mentioned in the previous paragraph, being
the fatherland of the Therapeutae.

[408] huper limnes Marias. In Strabo the name is given as he Mareotis
or Mareia limne. The Lake Mareotis (as it is most commonly called) lies
in the northern part of the Delta, just south of Alexandria. It was in
ancient times much more of a lake than it is now, and the description
of the climate as given here is quite accurate.

[409] Ibid.

[410] semneion kai monasterion

[411] Ibid.

[412] Ibid.

[413] Ibid.S:4.

[414] See Ibid. S:8.

[415] How Eusebius, who knew that Philo lived and wrote during the
reign of Claudius, could have overlooked the fact that Christianity had
not at that time been long enough established to admit of virgins
growing old within the Church, is almost inexplicable. It is but
another example of his carelessness in regard to chronology which comes
out so often in his history. Compare Stroth’s words: ”In der That ein
wichtiger Beweis, der gerade der irrigen Meinung des Eusebius am
meisten entgegen ist. Denn sie haetten alt zum Christenthum kommen
muessen, sonst konnten sie ja zu Philo’s Zeiten unmoeglich im
Christenthum alt geworden sein, dessen Schrift Eusebius selbst in die
Regierung des Claudius setzt. Es ist beinahe unbegreiflich, wie ein so
guter Kopf, wie Eusebius ist, in so grobe Irrthuemer fallen konnte.”

[416] For a description of the religious cults among the Greeks and
Romans, that demanded virginity in their priests or priestesses, see
Doellinger’s Heidenthum und Judenthum, p. 182 and 521 sq.

[417] De Vita Contemplativa, S:10.

[418] Ibid.S:9.

[419] Ibid.S:S:8-10. The author of the D. V. C. mentions young men that
serve at table (diakonountes) and a president (proedros) who leads in
the exposition of the Scriptures. Eusebius is quite right in finding in
these persons deacons and bishops. The similarity is too close to be
merely accidental, and the comment of Stroth upon this passage is quite
unwarranted: ”Was einer doch alles in einer Stelle finden kann, wenn er
es darin finden will! Philo sagt, dass bei ihren gemeinschaftlichen
Gastmaehlern einige bei Tische dienten (diakonountes), hieraus macht
Eusebius Diakonate; und dass bei ihren Untersuchungen ueber die Bibel
einer (proedros) den Vorsitz habe; hieraus macht Eusebius die
bischoefliche wuerde (episkopes proedrian).”
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XVIII.–The Works of Philo [420] that have come down to us.

1. Copious in language, comprehensive in thought, sublime and elevated
in his views of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold and
various expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, he expounds
in order the events recorded in Genesis in the books to which he gives
the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws; [421] on the other hand, he
makes successive divisions of the chapters in the Scriptures which are
the subject of investigation, and gives objections and solutions, in
the books which he quite suitably calls Questions and Answers on
Genesis and Exodus. [422]

2. There are, besides these, treatises expressly worked out by him on
certain subjects, such as the two books On Agriculture, [423] and the
same number On Drunkenness; [424] and some others distinguished by
different titles corresponding to the contents of each; for instance,
Concerning the things which the Sober Mind desires and execrates, [425]
On the Confusion of Tongues, [426] On Flight and Discovery, [427] On
Assembly for the sake of Instruction, [428] On the question, `Who is
heir to things divine?’ or On the division of things into equal and
unequal, [429] and still further the work On the three Virtues which
with others have been described by Moses. [430]

3. In addition to these is the work On those whose Names have been
changed and why they have been changed, [431] in which he says that he
had written also two books On Covenants. [432]

4. And there is also a work of his On Emigration, [433] and one On the
life of a Wise Man made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten Laws;
[434] and still further the work On Giants or On the Immutability of
God, [435] and a first, second, third, fourth and fifth book On the
proposition, that Dreams according to Moses are sent by God. [436]
These are the books on Genesis that have come down to us.

5. But on Exodus we are acquainted with the first, second, third,
fourth and fifth books of Questions and Answers; [437] also with that
On the Tabernacle, [438] and that On the Ten Commandments, [439] and
the four books On the laws which refer especially to the principal
divisions of the ten Commandments, [440] and another On animals
intended for sacrifice and On the kinds of sacrifice, [441] and another
On the rewards fixed in the law for the good, and on the punishments
and curses fixed for the wicked. [442]

6. In addition to all these there are extant also some single-volumed
works of his; as for instance, the work On Providence, [443] and the
book composed by him On the Jews, [444] and The Statesman; [445] and
still further, Alexander, or On the possession of reason by the
irrational animals. [446] Besides these there is a work On the
proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to which is subjoined the
work On the proposition that every goad man is free. [447]

7. After these was composed by him the work On the contemplative life,
or On suppliants, [448] from which we have drawn the facts concerning
the life of the apostolic men; and still further, the Interpretation of
the Hebrew names in the law and in the prophets are said to be the
result of his industry. [449]

8. And he is said to have read in the presence of the whole Roman
Senate during the reign of Claudius [450] the work which he had
written, when he came to Rome under Caius, concerning Caius’ hatred of
the gods, and to which, with ironical reference to its character, he
had given the title On the Virtues. [451] And his discourses were so
much admired as to be deemed worthy of a place in the libraries.

9. At this time, while Paul was completing his journey ”from Jerusalem
and round about unto Illyricum,” [452] Claudius drove the Jews out of
Rome; and Aquila and Priscilla, leaving Rome with the other Jews, came
to Asia, and there abode with the apostle Paul, who was confirming the
churches of that region whose foundations he had newly laid. The sacred
book of the Acts informs us also of these things. [453]
__________________________________________________________________

[420] On Philo’s works, see Schuerer, Gesch. des jued. Volkes, II. p.
831 sqq. The best (though it leaves much to be desired) complete
edition of Philo’s works is that of Mangey: 2 vols., folio, London,
1742; English translation of Philo’s works by Yonge, 4 vols., London,
1854-55. Upon Philo’s life, see chaps. 4-6, above. Eusebius, in his
Praep. Evang., quotes extensively from Philo’s works and preserves some
fragments of which we should otherwise be ignorant.

[421] nomon hieron allegoriai. This work is still extant, and,
according to Schuerer, includes all the works contained in the first
volume of Mangey’s edition (except the De Opificio Mundi, upon which
see Schuerer, p. 846 sqq. and note 11, below), comprising 16 different
titles. The work forms the second great group of writings upon the
Pentateuch, and is a very full and allegorical commentary upon Genesis,
beginning with the second chapter and following it verse by verse
through the fourth chapter; but from that point on certain passages are
selected and treated at length under special titles, and under those
titles, in Schuerer’s opinion, were published by Philo as separate
works, though really forming a part of one complete whole. From this
much confusion has resulted. Eusebius embraces all of the works as far
as the end of chap. 4 (including five titles in Mangey) under the one
general title, but from that point on he too quotes separate works
under special titles, but at the end (S:5, below) he unites them all as
the ”extant works on Genesis.” Many portions of the commentary are now
missing. Compare Schuerer, ibid. pp. 838-846.

[422] zetemata kai luseis: Quaestiones et solutiones. According to
Schuerer (ibid. p. 836 sq.), a comparatively brief catechetical
interpretation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers,
embracing probably six books on Genesis and five on Exodus, and forming
the first great group of writings upon the Pentateuch. So far as
Eusebius seems to have known, they covered only Genesis and Exodus, and
this is all that we are sure of, though some think that they included
also the remainder of the Pentateuch. About half of his work (four
books on Genesis and two on Exodus) is extant in an Armenian version
(published by Aucher in 2 vols., Venet. 1822 and ’26, and in Latin by
Ritter, vols. 6 and 7 of his edition of Philo’s works); and numerous
Latin and Greek fragments still exist (see Schuerer, p. 837 sqq.).

[423] peri georgias duo: De Agricultura duo (so Jerome, de vir. ill.
11). Upon Genesis ix. 20, forming a part (as do all the works mentioned
in S:S:2-4 except On the Three Virtues, and On the Unwritten Laws,
which belong to the third group of writings on the Pentateuch) of the
large commentary, nomon hieron allegoriai, mentioned above (note 2).
This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 300-356, as two
works with distinct titles: peri georgias and peri phutourgias Noe to
deuteron (Schuerer, p. 843).

[424] peri methes tosauta: De ebrietate duo (so Jerome, ibid.). Upon
Gen. ix. 21. Only the second book is extant (Mangey, I. 357-391), but
from its beginning it is plain that another book originally preceded it
(Schuerer, p. 843).

[425] peri hon nepsas ho nous euchetai kai kataratai. Jerome, de vir.
ill. 11, de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur. Upon Gen. ix. 24.
Still extant, and given by Mangey (I. 392-403), who, however, prints
the work under the title peri tou exenepse Noe: De Sobrietate; though
in two of the best mss. (according to Mangey, I. 392, note) the title
agrees closely with that given by Eusebius (Schuerer, p. 843).

[426] peri sunkuseos ton dialekton. Upon Gen. xi. 1-9. Still extant,
and given by Mangey, I. 404-435 (Schuerer, p. 844).

[427] peri phuges kai heureseos. The same title is found in Johannes
Monachus (Mangey, I. 546, note), and it is probably correct, as the
work treats of the flight and the discovery of Hagar (Gen. xvi. 6-14).
It is still extant and is given by Mangey (I. 546-577) under the title
peri phugEURdon, `On Fugitives.’ The text of Eusebius in this place has
been very much corrupted. The reading which I give is supported by good
ms. authority, and is adopted by Valesius, Stroth, and Laemmer. But
Nicephorus reads peri phuges kai haireseos kai ho peri phuseos kai
heureseos, which is also supported by ms. authority, and is adopted by
Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen. But upon comparing the title of the
work, as given by Johannes Monachus and as found in the various mss. of
Philo, with the contents of the work itself, there can be little doubt
of the correctness of the shorter reading. Of the second work, which
the longer reading introduces into the text of Eusebius, we have no
knowledge, and Philo can hardly have written it. Schuerer, who adopts
the shorter reading, expresses himself very strongly (p. 845, note 34).

[428] peri tes pros ta paideumata sunodou, ”On Assembly for the sake of
instruction.” Upon Gen. xvi. 1-6, which is interpreted to mean that one
must make himself acquainted with the lower branches of knowledge
(Hagar) before he can go on to the higher (Sarah), and from them obtain
the fruit, viz.: virtue (Isaac). Still extant, and given by Mangey, I.
519-545 (Schuerer, 844 sqq.).

[429] peri te tou, tis ho ton theion esti kleronomos, e peri tes eis ta
isa kai enantia tomes. From this double title Jerome (de vir. ill. 11)
wrongly makes two works. The writing is still extant, and is given by
Mangey (I. 473-518) under the title peri tou tis ho ton theion
pragmEURton kleronomos (Schuerer, 844).

[430] peri ton trion areton, has sun allais anegrapse Mouses. This work
is still extant, and is given by Mangey under the title peri trion
areton etoi peri andreias kai philanthropias kai metanoias: peri
andreias, II. 375-383; peri philanthropias, II. 383-405; peri
metanoias, II. 405-407. Jerome gives the simple title De tribus
virtutibus liber unus. According to Schuerer (p. 852 sqq.) it forms an
appendix to the third great group of works upon the Pentateuch,
containing those laws which do not belong to any one of the ten
commandments in particular, but fall under the head of general cardinal
virtues. The third group, as Schuerer describes it (p. 846), aims to
give for non-Jews a complete view of the Mosaic legislation, and
embraces, first, the work upon the Creation (which in the mss. and
editions of Philo is wrongly placed at the beginning in connection with
the great Allegorical Commentary, and is thus included in that by
Eusebius in his list of Philo’s works, so that he does not make special
mention of it); second, the lives of great and good men, the living
unwritten law; and third, the Mosaic legislation proper (1. The ten
commandments; 2. The special laws connected with each of these); and
finally an appendix treating of certain cardinal virtues, and of reward
and punishments. This group is more historic and less allegoric than
the two others, which are rather esoteric and scientific.

[431] peri ton metonomazomenon kai hon heneka metonomEURzontai, De
Mutatione nominum. Upon Gen. xvii. 1-22. This work is still extant, and
is given by Mangey, I. 578-619. See Schuerer, p. 485.

[432] en ho phesi suntetachenai kai peri diathekon proton kai deuteron.
Nearly all the mss., followed by some of the editors, read protes kai
deuteras, instead of proton kai deuteron, thus making Eusebius mention
a work ”On the first and second covenants,” instead of a first and
second book ”On the covenants.” It is plain from Philo’s own reference
to the work (on p. 586 in Mangey’s ed.) that he wrote two books ”On
covenants,” and not a work ”On the two covenants.” I have therefore
felt warranted in reading with Heinichen and some other editors proton
kai deuteron, a reading which is more natural in view of the absence of
an article with diathekon, and which is confirmed by Nicephorus
Callistus. This reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that
Eusebius misread Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote
a kai b’, which the copyists wrongly referred to the ”covenants”
instead of to the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine
instead of the neuter form. This work ”On covenants,” or ”On the whole
discussion concerning covenants” (as Philo gives it), is now lost, as
it was already in the time of Eusebius; at least he knew of it only
from Philo’s reference to it. See Schuerer, p. 845.

[433] peri apoikias: De Migratione Abrahami. Upon Gen. xii. 1-6. The
work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 436-472. See Schuerer,
p. 844.

[434] biou sophou tou kata dikaiosunen teleiothentos, e nomon
agrEURphon. (According to Schuerer, dikaiosunen here is a mistake for
didaskalian, which is the true reading in the original title.) This
work, which is still extant, is given by Mangey, II. 1-40, under the
same title (didaskalian, however, instead of dikaiosunen), with the
addition, ho esti peri ‘AbraEURm: De Abrahamo. It opens the second
division of the third great group of writings on the Pentateuch (see
note 11, above): the biographical division, mentioning Enos, Enoch and
Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but dealing chiefly with Abraham. The
biographies of Isaac and Jacob probably followed, but they are lost,
and we have no trace of them, so that the life of Joseph (see below,
note 26) in the mss. follows directly upon that of Abraham (Schuerer,
p. 848 sqq.).

[435] peri gigEURnton, e peri tou me trepesthai to theion. Upon Gen.
vi. 1-4 and 4-12. The two parts of this work, both of which are still
extant, form really but one book; for instance, Johannes Monachus
(ineditus) quotes from the latter part under the title peri gigEURnton
(according to Mangey, I. 262, note, and 272, note). But the two are
divided in Mangey’s edition, where the first is given under the title
peri gigEURnton (I. 262-272), the second under the title hoti atrepton
(I. 272-299). See Schuerer, p. 843. The title is found in the form
given at the beginning of this note in all the mss. of Eusebius except
two, which have kai instead of e, thus making two separate works. This
reading is adopted by Heinichen and by Closs, but is poorly supported
by ms. authority, and since the two titles cover only one work, as
already mentioned, the e is more natural than the kai.

[436] peri te tou kata Mousea theopemptous einai tous oneirous proton,
deuteron, k.t.l. Two books are extant, the first upon Gen. xxviii. 12
sqq. and Gen. xxxi. 11 sqq. (given by Mangey, I. 620-658), the second
upon Gen. xxxvii. and xl.-xli. (given by Mangey, I. 659-699). Jerome
(de vir. ill. 11) follows Eusebius in mentioning five books, and there
is no occasion to doubt the report. Schuerer thinks that the two extant
books are the second and third of the original five (Schuerer, 845
sqq.).

[437] zetemata kai luseis; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only five
books upon Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were any more.

[438] Philo wrote a work entitled peri biou Moseos: Vita Mosis, which
is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue of Eusebius. It
contains a long description of the tabernacle, and consequently
Schuerer concludes that the work mentioned here by Eusebius (peri tes
skenes) represents that portion of the larger work. If this be the
case, it is possible that the section in the mss. used by Eusebius was
detached from the rest of the work and constituted an independent book.
The omission of the title of the larger work is doubtless due, as
Schuerer remarks, to the imperfect transmission of the text of
Eusebius’ catalogue. See Schuerer, p. 855.

[439] peri ton deka logion: De Decalogo. Still extant, and given by
Mangey, II. 180-209. Jerome has the condensed title de tabernaculo et
decalogo libri quattuor, and this introduces the third division of the
third general group of works upon the Pentateuch (see note 11, above),
and, according to Schuerer, should be joined directly to the bios
politikos, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it by the
insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by Mangey), which does not
belong to this group (Schuerer, p. 849 sqq.).

[440] ta peri ton anapheromenon en eidei nomon eis ta sunteinonta
kephEURlaia ton deka logon, a’b’g’d’: De specialibus legibus. A part of
the third division of the third general group of works (see note 11,
above). It is still extant in four books, each with a special title,
and each containing many subdivisions. They are given by Mangey: first
book, II. 210-269, in seven parts: de circumcisione, de monarchia Liber
I., de monarchia Liber II., de praemiis sacerdotum, de victimis, de
sacrificantibus, or de victimis offerentibus, de mercede meretricis non
accipienda in sacrarium; second book, 270-298, incomplete in Mangey,
but entire in Tischendorf’s Philonea, p. 1-83; third book, 299-334;
fourth book, 335-374: made up like the first of a number of tracts on
special subjects. Philo, in this work, attempts to bring all the Mosaic
laws into a system under the ten rubrics of the decalogue: for
instance, under the first two commandments, the laws in regard to
priests and sacrifices; under the fourth, the laws in regard to the
Sabbath, &c. See Schuerer, p. 850 sqq.

[441] peri ton eis tas hierourgias zoon, kai tina ta ton thusion eide.
This is really only a portion of the first book of the work just
mentioned, given in Mangey under the title de victimis (II. 237-250).
It is possible that these various sections of books–or at least this
one–circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for an
independent work. See Schuerer, p. 851.

[442] peri ton prokeimenon en to nomo tois men agathois athlon, tois de
ponerois epitimion kai aron, still extant and given by Mangey
(incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles peri athlon kai
epitimion, de praemiis et poenis (II. 408-428), and peri aron, de
execrationibus (II. 429-437). The writing forms a sort of epilogue to
the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schuerer, p. 854.

[443] to peri pronoias, De providentia. This work is extant only in an
Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher,
Vol. I. p. 1-121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol.
VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved
by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14. In the
Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of doubtful
genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for both
quotations in the Praep. Evang. are from the present second book, and
the work is cited in the singular, as also in the present passage,
where to is to be read instead of ta, though some mss. have the latter.
The work (which is not found in Mangey’s ed.) is one of Philo’s
separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon
the Pentateuch.

[444] peri ‘Ioudaion, which is doubtless to be identified with the he
huper ‘Ioudaion apologia, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius
mentions, and from which he quotes in his Praep. Evang. VIII. 2. The
fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632-634,
and in Daehne’s opinion (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 990) the
two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to
this Apology. The work entitled de nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437-444)
possibly formed a part of the Apology. This is Daehne’s opinion (see
ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schuerer agrees. The genuineness of the
Apology is generally admitted, though it has been disputed on
insufficient grounds by Graetz (Gesch. der Juden, III. p. 680, third
ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in the Zeitschrift fuer wiss.
Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and in his Ketzergesch. des
Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too, like the preceding, was one of
the separate works of Philo. See Schuerer, p. 861 sq.

[445] ho politikos. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41-79) under
the title bios politikos hoper esti peri ‘Ioseph: De Josepho. Photius,
Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title peri biou politikou. This forms a part
of the second division of the third great group upon the Pentateuch
(see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of Abraham, the
Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out (compare note 15,
above). The work is intended to show how the wise man should conduct
himself in affairs of state or political life. See Schuerer, p. 849.

[446] ho ‘Alexandros e peri tou logou zchein ta aloga zoa, De Alexandro
et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, as the title is given
by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in Armenian,
and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123-172, and in Latin by Ritter, Vol.
VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the Florilegium of
Leontius and Johannes, according to Schuerer. This book is also one of
the separate works of Philo, and belongs to his later writings. See
Schuerer, p. 860 sqq.

[447] ho peri tou doulon einai pEURnta phaulon, ho exes estin ho peri
tou pEURnta spoudaion eleutheron einai. These two works formed
originally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was
treated from its two sides,–the slavery of the wicked man and the
freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half is
extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445-470). A long fragment of the
extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his Praep. Evang.
VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed by some, but is
defended with success by Lucius, Der Essenismus, p. 13-23, Strasburg,
1881 (Schuerer, p. 85).

[448] See the preceding chapter; and on the work, see note 2 on that
chapter.

[449] ton en nomo de kai prophetais ‘Ebraikon onomEURton hai
hermeneiai. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work (tou autou
spoudai einai legontai) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous
work, which, however, was ”said to be the result of Philo’s industry.”
Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the beginning of his own
work, De nominibus Hebraicis), says that, according to the testimony of
Origen, it was the work of Philo. For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an
anonymous work. This testimony of Origen cannot, according to Schuerer,
be found in his extant works, but in his Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed.
Lommatzsch, I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the
author of which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the
existing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to
be the work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is
no longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible
to decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of
works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this lost
original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his Liber de Nominibus
Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schuerer, p. 865
sq.

[450] ”This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to the
Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula could not
have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the author was
a Jew” (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that Philo was in Rome
during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17, note 1). The report
given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to the imagination of
some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during the reign of
Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already referred to),
and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at that time his
revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way. It was not
difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid work might
have been intended for public reading, and it was an attractive
suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the audience.

[451] See above, chap. 5, note 1.

[452] Romans xv. 19.

[453] See Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19 sqq.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XIX.–The Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the
Day of the Passover.

1. While Claudius was still emperor, it happened that so great a tumult
and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover,
that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were forcibly crowded
together at the gate of the temple perished, [454] being trampled under
foot by one another. Thus the festival became a season of mourning for
all the nation, and there was weeping in every house. These things are
related literally [455] by Josephus.

2. But Claudius appointed Agrippa, [456] son of Agrippa, king of the
Jews, having sent Felix [457] as procurator of the whole country of
Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea. [458] And after he
had reigned thirteen years and eight months [459] he died, and left
Nero as his successor in the empire.
__________________________________________________________________

[454] This disturbance (described by Jos. B. J. II. 12. 1, and Ant. XX.
5. 3) took place in 48 a.d. while Cumanus was procurator of Judea.
During the Passover feast the procurator, as was the custom, brought
extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any uproar which might arise
among the great mass of people. One of the soldiers, with the view of
insulting the Jews, conducted himself indecently in their presence,
whereupon so great an uproar arose that the procurator felt obliged to
collect his troops upon the temple hill, but the appearance of the
soldiers so greatly alarmed the multitude assembled there that they
fled in all directions and crushed each other to death in their
eagerness to escape. Josephus, in his Jewish War, gives the number of
the slain as ten thousand, and in the Antiquities as twenty thousand.
The latter work was written last, but knowing Josephus’ fondness for
exaggerating numbers, we shall perhaps not accept the correction as any
nearer the truth. That Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse
suspicion as to his honesty,–he could have had no object for changing
”twenty” to ”thirty,” when the former was certainly great enough,–we
need simply remember how easily numbers become altered in
transcription. Valesius says that this disturbance took place under
Quadratus in 52 a.d. (quoting Pearson’s Ann. Paull. p. 11 sqq., and
Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54). But Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the eighth
year of Claudius (48 a.d.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh
year. Jost and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date.

[455] Eusebius simply sums up in the one sentence what fills half a
page in Josephus.

[456] Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of his
father’s death (44 a.d.) he was but seventeen years of age, and his
youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his father,
which was therefore again converted into a Roman province, and Fadus
was sent as procurator. In 49 a.d. Agrippa was given the kingdom of
Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod (a brother of Agrippa
I.), and in 53 a.d. he was transferred to the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias with the title of King. He was never king of the Jews in the
same sense in which his father was, as Judea remained a Roman province
throughout his reign, while his dominion comprised only the
northeastern part of Palestine. He enjoyed, however, the right of
appointing and removing the high priests, and under Nero his domain was
somewhat increased by the addition of several cities of Galilee, and
Perea. He sided with the Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went
to Rome, where he died in 100 a.d., the last prince of the Herodian
line. It was before this Agrippa that Paul made his defense recorded in
Acts xxvi.

[457] Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator of
Judea in 52 (or, according to Wieseler, 53) a.d. The territory over
which he ruled included Samaria and the greater part of Galilee and
Perea, to which Judea was added by Nero, according to Josephus, B. J.
II. 13. 2. Ewald, in the attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54,
and Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2-7. 1,–the former of whom makes Cumanus and
Felix contemporary procurators, each over a part of the province, while
the latter makes Felix the successor of Cumanus,–concludes that Felix
was sent to Judea as the assistant of Cumanus, and became procurator
upon the banishment of the latter. This is not impossible, though we
have no testimony to support it. Compare Wieseler, p. 67, note. Between
59 and 61 (according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22, note 1, below)
he was succeeded by Porcius Festus. For the relations of these two
procurators to the apostle Paul, see Acts xx. sqq. Eusebius, in his
Chron., puts the accession of Felix in the eleventh year of Claudius
(51 a.d.), and the accession of Festus in the fourteenth year (54
a.d.), but both of these dates are clearly incorrect (cf. Wieseler, p.
68, note).

[458] Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time to
have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he was
wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agrippa II.
having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3) and a
few cities of Galilee and Perea. He had, however, the authority over
the temple and the power of appointing the high priests (see Jos. Ant.
XX. 8. 11 and 9. 1, 4, 6, 7), which had been given by Claudius to his
uncle, the king of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. XX. 1. 3).

[459] Claudius ruled from Jan. 24, 41 a.d., to Oct. 13, 54.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XX.–The Events which took Place in Jerusalem during the Reign
of Nero.

1. Josephus again, in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, relates
the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of Nero,
while Felix was procurator of Judea.

2. His words are as follows [460] : ”There arose a quarrel between the
high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people
of Jerusalem on the other. [461] And each of them collected a body of
the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and
whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other. And
there was no one that would interpose; but these things were done at
will as if in a city destitute of a ruler.

3. And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of the high priests
that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors to seize
the tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the priests that were
poor were seen to be perishing of want. In this way did the violence of
the factions prevail over all justice.”

4. And the same author again relates that about the same time there
sprang up in Jerusalem a certain kind of robbers, [462] ”who by day,”
as he says, ”and in the middle of the city slew those who met them.”

5. For, especially at the feasts, they mingled with the multitude, and
with short swords, which they concealed under their garments, they
stabbed the most distinguished men. And when they fell, the murderers
themselves were among those who expressed their indignation. And thus
on account of the confidence which was reposed in them by all, they
remained undiscovered.

6. The first that was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest; [463]
and after him many were killed every day, until the fear became worse
than the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly expecting death.
__________________________________________________________________

[460] Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 8. Felix showed himself throughout very mean and
cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual disturbances.

[461] This disturbance arose toward the end of Felix’s term, under the
high priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a short time
before. No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.

[462] B. J.II. 13. 3. These open robberies and murders, which took
place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part a result of the conduct
of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see the next note). At
least his conduct in this case started the practice, which was kept up
with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at that time.

[463] This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring
the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon intimate
terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebuking him at
pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix that he bribed
a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his murder. The friend
accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers into the city, who,
being unknown, mingled freely with the people and slew Jonathan and
many others with him, in order to turn away suspicion as to the object
of the crime. See Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 5. Josephus has omitted to mention
Jonathan’s appointment to the high priesthood, and this has led
Valesius to conclude that he was not really a high priest, but simply
one of the upper class of priests. But this conclusion is unwarranted,
as Josephus expressly calls him the high priest in the passage referred
to (cf. also the remarks of Reland, quoted in Havercamp’s ed. of
Josephus, p. 912). Wieseler (p. 77, note) thinks that Jonathan was not
high priest at this time, but that he had been high priest and was
called so on that account. He makes Ananias high priest from 48 to 57,
quoting Anger, De temporum in Act. Ap. ratione.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXI.–The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts of the
Apostles.

1. After other matters he proceeds as follows: [464] ”But the Jews were
afflicted with a greater plague than these by the Egyptian false
prophet. [465] For there appeared in the land an impostor who aroused
faith in himself as a prophet, and collected about thirty thousand of
those whom he had deceived, and led them from the desert to the
so-called Mount of Olives whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem by
force and to overpower the Roman garrison and seize the government of
the people, using those who made the attack with him as body guards.

2. But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to meet him with the
Roman legionaries, and all the people joined in the defense, so that
when the battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a few followers, but
the most of them were destroyed or taken captive.”

3. Josephus relates these events in the second book of his History.
[466] But it is worth while comparing the account of the Egyptian given
here with that contained in the Acts of the Apostles. In the time of
Felix it was said to Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the
multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle, ”Art
not thou he who before these days made an uproar, and led out into the
wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” [467] These are the
events which took place in the time of Felix. [468]
__________________________________________________________________

[464] Jos. B. J. II. 13. 5.

[465] An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets
that arose during this century. He prophesied that Jerusalem, which had
made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by God, who would throw
down the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his
followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the
victory over the oppressors and rule the world. For this purpose he
collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were
to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack.

[466] Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the B. J.
he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the desert to
the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the Egyptian
”escaped with a few,” while most of his followers were either destroyed
or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was written later, he states that
the Egyptian led a multitude ”out from Jerusalem” to the Mount of
Olives, and that when they were attacked by Felix, four hundred were
slain and two hundred taken captive. There seems to be here a glaring
contradiction, but we are able to reconcile the two accounts by
supposing the Egyptian to have brought a large following of robbers
from the desert, which was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem,
until the number reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the
rabble dispersed, but that Felix slew or took captive the six hundred
robbers, against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egyptian
escaped with a small number (i.e. small in comparison with the thirty
thousand), who may well have been the four thousand mentioned by the
author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by Eusebius. It is no
more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this
case than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to
assume a mistake upon the part of either one, though as already
remarked, numbers are so treacherous in transcription that the
difference may really have been originally less than it is. Whenever
the main elements of two accounts are in substantial agreement, little
stress can be laid upon a difference in figures. Cf. Tholuck,
Glaubwuerdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 254).

[467] Acts xxi. 38.

[468] Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in
assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as
he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus
in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he
expressly assigns to Nero’s reign, and there is no reason to suppose
that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Valesius and
Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded
Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since Paul was
two years in Caesarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the
Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul’s arrest and just
before he was carried to Caesarea, must have taken place before the end
of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact that Felix was
succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth year of Nero
(see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, therefore, no ground for
accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the present case.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXII.–Paul having been sent bound from Judea to Rome, made his
Defense, and was acquitted of every Charge.

1. Festus [469] was sent by Nero to be Felix’s successor. Under him
Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome. [470]
Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite
naturally calls his fellow-prisoner. [471] And Luke, who wrote the Acts
of the Apostles, [472] brought his history to a close at this point,
after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at
large, and preached the word of God without restraint. [473]

2. Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was
sent again upon the ministry of preaching, [474] and that upon coming
to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. [475] In this
imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy, [476] in which he
mentions his first defense and his impending death.

3. But hear his testimony on these matters: ”At my first answer,” he
says, ”no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it
may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with
me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known,
and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the
mouth of the lion.” [477]

4. He plainly indicates in these words that on the former occasion, in
order that the preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was rescued from
the mouth of the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, as is
probable on account of the latter’s cruelty. He did not therefore
afterward add the similar statement, ”He will rescue me from the mouth
of the lion”; for he saw in the spirit that his end would not be long
delayed.

5. Wherefore he adds to the words, ”And he delivered me from the mouth
of the lion,” this sentence: ”The Lord shall deliver me from every evil
work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom,” [478] indicating
his speedy martyrdom; which he also foretells still more clearly in the
same epistle, when he writes, ”For I am now ready to be offered, and
the time of my departure is at hand.” [479]

6. In his second epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke
was with him when he wrote, [480] but at his first defense not even he.
[481] Whence it is probable that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at
that time, continuing his history down to the period when he was with
Paul. [482]

7. But these things have been adduced by us to show that Paul’s
martyrdom did not take place at the time of that Roman sojourn which
Luke records.

8. It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in
the beginning, Paul’s defense of his doctrine was more easily received;
but that when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of
daring, he made the apostles as well as others the subjects of his
attacks. [483]
__________________________________________________________________

[469] The exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it is
known that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.d.; for at that
time his successor, Albinus, was already procurator, as we can see from
Josephus, B. J. VI. 5. 3. But from the events recorded by Josephus as
happening during his term of office, we know he must have been
procurator at least a year; his accession, therefore, took place
certainly as early as 61 a.d., and probably at least a year earlier,
i.e. in 60 a.d., the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest possible margin
for his accession is from 59-61. Upon this whole question, see
Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He seems to have been
a just and capable governor,–in this quite a contrast to his
predecessor.

[470] Acts xxv. sqq. The determination of the year in which Paul was
sent as a prisoner to Rome depends in part upon the determination of
the year of Festus’ accession. He was in Rome (which he reached in the
spring) at least two years before the Neronic persecution (June, 64
a.d.), therefore as early as 62 a.d. He was sent from Caesarea the
previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn of 61. If Festus
became procurator in 61, this must have been the date. But if, as is
probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then Paul was sent to Rome in
the autumn of the same year, and reached Rome in the spring of 61. This
is now the commonly accepted date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out
(cf. Wieseler, ibid.). Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot
have become procurator before 60 a.d., and hence Paul cannot have been
taken to Rome before the fall of that year.

[471] Col. iv. 10.

[472] See below, Bk. III. chap. 4.

[473] See Acts xxviii. 30.

[474] Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a
first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He
introduces the statement with the formula logos zchei, which indicates
probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his
efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the
tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here,
but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the
Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment.
But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula logos
zchei. The report may have arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but
it can hardly have originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with
this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul’s death
as 67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and other later writers follow
Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the
tradition soon became firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5).
Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment.
Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume
a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and
others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but
this is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the
epistles (e.g. the Tuebingen critics and the majority of the new
critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where
Paul spent the interval–supposing him to have been released–there is
again a difference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be
genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient. But for such
a visit there is no ancient tradition, although Paul himself, in the
Epistle to the Philippians, expresses his expectation of making such a
visit. On the other hand, there is an old tradition that he visited
Spain (which must of course have been during this interval, as he did
not reach it before the first imprisonment). The Muratorian Fragment
(from the end of the second century) records this tradition in a way to
imply that it was universally known. Clement of Rome (Epistle to the
Corinthians, c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness for such a visit, but
the interpretation of his words is doubtful, so that little weight can
be laid upon his statement. In later times the tradition of this visit
to Spain dropped out of the Church. The strongest argument against the
visit is the absence of any trace of it in Spain itself. If any church
there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its
founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim and the
tradition have been preserved at least in that church. This appears to
the writer a fatal argument against a journey to Spain. On the other
hand, the absence of all tradition of another journey to the Orient
does not militate against such a visit, for tradition at any place
might easily preserve the fact of a visit of the apostle, without
preserving an accurate account of the number of his visits if more than
one were made. Of the defenders of the Pastoral Epistles, that accept a
second imprisonment, some assume simply a journey to the Orient, others
assume also the journey to Spain. Between the spring of 63 a.d., the
time when he was probably released, if released, and the date of his
death (at the earliest the summer of 64), there is time enough, but
barely so, for both journeys. If the date of Paul’s death be put later
with Eusebius and Jerome (as many modern critics put it), the time is
of course quite sufficient. Compare the various Lives of Paul,
Commentaries, etc., and especially, among recent works, Schaff’s Church
Hist. I. p. 231 sqq.; Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. p. 283 sqq.;
Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 295 sqq.; and Weizsaecker’s Apostolisches
Zeitalter, p. 453 sqq.

[475] See below, chap. 25, note 6.

[476] Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly
genuine, and placed them among the Homologumena, or undisputed writings
(compare Bk. III. chaps. 3 and 25). The external testimony for them is
very strong, but their genuineness has, during the present century,
been quite widely denied upon internal grounds. The advanced critical
scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline authorship as completely
established, and many otherwise conservative scholars follow their
lead. It is impossible here to give the various arguments for or
against their genuineness; we may refer the reader particularly to
Holtzmann’s Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt
(1880), and to his Einleitung (1886), for the most complete
presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to Weiss’
Einleitung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., and to his Commentary on
the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the Meyer Series, for a
defense of their genuineness, and also to Woodruff’s article in the
Andover Review, October, 1886, for a brief and somewhat popular
discussion of the subject. The second epistle must have been written
latest of all Paul’s epistles, just before his death,–at the
termination of his second captivity, or of his first, if his second be
denied.

[477] 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.

[478] 2 Tim. iv. 18.

[479] Ibid. iv. 6.

[480] See 2 Tim. iv. 11.

[481] See 2 Tim. iv. 16.

[482] This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative
commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecution
of Nero and of the death of Paul. On the other hand, some who accept
Luke’s authorship of the Acts, put the composition into the latter part
of the century and explain the omission of the persecution and the
death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g. Weiss, who dates the
Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus brings the Acts down to a
still later date (see his Einleitung, p. 585 sqq.). It is now becoming
quite generally admitted that Luke’s Gospel was written after the
destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be so, the Acts must have been
written still later. There is in fact no reason for supposing the book
to have been written at the point of time at which its account of Paul
ceases. The design of the book (its text is found in the eighth verse
of the first chapter) was to give an account of the progress of the
Church from Jerusalem to Rome, not to write the life of Paul. The
record of Paul’s death at the close of the book would have been quite
out of harmony with this design, and would have formed a decided
anti-climax, as the author was wise enough to understand. He was
writing, not a life of Paul, nor of any apostle or group of apostles,
but a history of the planting of the Church of Christ. The advanced
critics, who deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of Paul, of
course put its composition much later,–some into the time of Domitian,
most into the second century. But even such critics admit the
genuineness of certain portions of the book (the celebrated ”We”
passages), and the old Tuebingen theory of intentional
misrepresentation on the part of the author is finding less favor even
among the most radical critics.

[483] Whether Eusebius’ conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact that
Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part of his
reign. The famous ”first five years,” however exaggerated the reports
about them, must at least have been of a very different character from
the remainder of his reign. But those five years of clemency and
justice were past before Paul reached Rome.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIII.–The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of
the Lord.

1. But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been
sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of
entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned
against James, the brother of the Lord, [484] to whom the episcopal
seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. [485] The
following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.

2. Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should
renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But,
contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater
boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole
multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of
God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who,
on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue [486] and of piety which
he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men,
and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence
was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact
that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province
was thus without a governor and head. [487]

3. The manner of James’ death has been already indicated by the
above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the
pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. [488] But
Hegesippus, [489] who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the
most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. [490] He writes
as follows:

4. ”James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the
Church in conjunction with the apostles. [491] He has been called the
Just [492] by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for
there were many that bore the name of James.

5. He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong
drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not
anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.

6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not
woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone
into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging
forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of
a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship
of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. [493]

7. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and
Oblias, [494] which signifies in Greek, `Bulwark of the people’ and
`Justice,’ [495] in accordance with what the prophets declare
concerning him. [496]

8. Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and
which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, [497] asked him, `What
is the gate of Jesus?’ [498] and he replied that he was the Saviour.

9. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ.
But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection
or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works. [499]
But as many as believed did so on account of James.

10. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a
commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there
was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the
Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, `We entreat
thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus,
as if he were the Christ. [500] We entreat thee to persuade all that
have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all
have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the
people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons. [501]

11. Do thou therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray
concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have
confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple,
[502] that from that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, and
that thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the
tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the
Passover.’

12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the
pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: `Thou just one,
in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are
led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the
gate of Jesus.’ [503]

13. And he answered with a loud voice, `Why do ye ask me concerning
Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand
of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’
[504]

14. And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of
James, and said, `Hosanna to the Son of David,’ these same Scribes and
Pharisees said again to one another, `We have done badly in supplying
such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order
that they may be afraid to believe him.’

15. And they cried out, saying, `Oh! oh! the just man is also in
error.’ And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, [505] `Let
us take away [506] the just man, because he is troublesome to us:
therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’

16. So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each
other, `Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for
he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said,
`I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, [507] forgive them, for they know
not what they do.’ [508]

17. And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons
of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, [509] who are mentioned by
Jeremiah the prophet, [510] cried out, saying, `Cease, what do ye? The
just one prayeth for you.’ [511]

18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat
out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered
martyrdom. [512] And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and
his monument still remains by the temple. [513] He became a true
witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And
immediately Vespasian besieged them.” [514]

19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in
agreement with Clement. [515] James was so admirable a man and so
celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of
the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of
Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for
no other reason than their daring act against him.

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his
writings, where he says, [516] ”These things happened to the Jews to
avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the
Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of
his Antiquities in the following words: [517] ”But the emperor, when he
learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus [518] to be procurator of
Judea. But the younger Ananus, [519] who, as we have already said,
[520] had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and
reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the
Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of
judgment, as we have already shown. [521]

22. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he
had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was
dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim,
and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ,
James by name, together with some others, [522] and accused them of
violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. [523]

23. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the
law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, [524]
requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had
not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to
meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that
it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his
knowledge. [525]

24. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in
anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king,
Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, [526]
which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of
Damnaeus.” [527]

25. These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the
author of the first of the so-called catholic [528] epistles. But it is
to be observed that it is disputed; [529] at least, not many of the
ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle
that bears the name of Jude, [530] which is also one of the seven
so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also,
[531] with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.
[532]
__________________________________________________________________

[484] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

[485] See above, chap. 1, note 11.

[486] philosophias. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

[487] See the preceding chapter, note 1, and below, note 40.

[488] See chap. 1, above.

[489] On Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

[490] As the Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this
account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely
lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf. Book IV.
chap. 22). This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 208 sqq.,
with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.

[491] meta ton apostolon, ”with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly
translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post
apostolos, ”after the apostles,” as if the Greek were meta tous
apostolous. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader
of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from
Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does
just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, S:3) does,
that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles. See chap. 1,
note 11.

[492] See chap. 1, note 6.

[493] ”The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn
picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing
traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James, and other
Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite
saint (cf. his advice to Paul, Acts xxi. 23, 24), who drank no wine,
ate no flesh, never shaved nor took a bath, and wore only linen. But
the Biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic, rather than Essenic and
ascetic” (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. p. 268). For Peter’s asceticism, see the
Clementine Recognitions, VII. 6; and for Matthew’s, see Clement of
Alexandria’s Paedagogus, II. 1.

[494] ‘Oblias: probably a corruption of the Heb. #P+L+ E+aM%, which
signifies ”bulwark of the people.” The same name is given to James by
Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See Suicer,
Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v.

[495] perioche tou laou kai dikaiosune

[496] To what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage
in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He may have been
thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in S:15, below, but the
reference is certainly very much strained.

[497] See Bk. IV. chap. 22.

[498] For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose
interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh Rel. Sac. I. p.
434 sq., and Heinichen’s Mel. IV., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol.
III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his Spic. PP. p.
254), seems to me the best. According to him, the Jews wish to
ascertain James’ opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers him
a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, ”What (of what
sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ? Is it a gate which opens into
life (or a way which leads to life); or is it a gate which opens upon
death (or a way which leads to death)?” Cf. Matt. vii. 13, 14, where
the two ways and the two gates are compared. The Jews had undoubtedly
often heard Christ called ”the Way,” and thus they might naturally use
the expression in asking James’ opinion about Jesus, ”Is he the true or
the false way?” or, ”Is this way true or false?” The answer of James
which follows is then perfectly consistent: ”He is the Saviour,” in
which words he expresses as decidedly as he can his belief that the way
or the gate of Christ led to salvation. And so below, in S:12, where he
gives a second answer to the question, expressing his belief in Christ
still more emphatically. This is somewhat similar to the explanation of
Heinichen (ibid. p. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive ‘Iesou as in
virtual apposition to thura: ”What is this way, Jesus?” But Grabe seems
to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.

[499] Rufinus translates non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and
he is followed by Fabricius (Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. p. 603). This
rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only
rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence. And yet,
as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as both
anEURstasin and erchomenon are left entirely indefinite. The Greek
runs, ouk episteuon anEURstasin, oute erchomenon apodounai, k.t.l. Cf.
the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage. Of these seven
sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the
resurrection from the dead. If Hegesippus’ words, therefore, be
understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in error.

[500] This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of
Hegesippus’ account. James’ position as a Christian must have been well
enough known to prevent such a request being made to him in good faith
(and there is no sign that it was made in any other spirit); and at any
rate, after his reply to them already recorded, such a repetition of
the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who does not think the
account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem to have asked him a
second time, thinking that they could either flatter or frighten him
into denying Christ.

[501] Cf. Matt. xxii. 16.

[502] epi to pterunion tou naou. Some mss. read tou hierou, and in the
preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical with the
phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on a pinnacle
of the temple. hieros is the general name for the temple buildings as a
whole, while naos is a specific name for the temple proper.

[503] Some mss., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and
Heinichen, add staurothentos, ”who was crucified,” and Stroth, Closs,
and Cruse follow this reading in their translations. But many of the
best mss. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton, Routh,
Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I prefer to follow their
example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous line.

[504] Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62

[505] Isa. iii. 10. Jess (p. 50) says, ”Auch darin ist Hegesipp nur ein
Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten Testamente
Weissagungen auffindet. Aber mit Bezug darauf darf man nicht
vergessen,–dass dergleichen mehr oratorische Benutzung als exegetische
Erklaerungen sein sollen.” Cf. the writer’s Dialogue between a
Christian and a Jew (Papiscus and Philo), chap. 1.

[506] aromen. The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads desomen, but Justin
Martyr’s Dial., chap. 136, reads aromen (though in chaps. 17 and 133 it
reads desomen). Tertullian also in his Adv. Marc. Bk. III. chap. 22,
shows that he read aromen, for he translates auferamus.

[507] Kurie thee pEURter.

[508] Luke xxiii. 34.

[509] ;;Rachabeim, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of
the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to ”the Rechabites.” But
Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an
individual, just as he uses the name ;;RechEURb which immediately
precedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from
Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from 1 Chron. ii. 55 to have
belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which came into
Palestine with the Israelites. Jehonadab enjoined upon his descendants
a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which they observed with great
strictness for centuries, and received a blessing from God on account
of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19). That a Rechabite, who did not
belong to the tribe of Judah, nor even to the genuine people of Israel,
should have been a priest seems at first sight inexplicable. Different
solutions have been offered. Some think that Hegesippus was
mistaken,–the source from which he took his account having confounded
this ascetic Rechabite with a priest,–but this is hardly probable.
Plumptre, in Smith’s Bib. Dict. art. Rechabites (which see for a full
account of the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by
God (Jer. xxxv. 19) included their solemn adoption among the people of
Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore
into the number of the priests. Others (e.g. Tillemont, H. E. I. p.
633) have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the
practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore
identified with them. The language here, however, seems to imply a
native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least believed
this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not. See
Routh, I. p. 243 sq.

[510] See Jer. xxxv

[511] In Epiphanius, Haer. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into the
mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that
Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but there is no ground
for such an assumption. The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechabite of
Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply
varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius’, as the more exact,
was undoubtedly the later tradition, and an intentional improvement
upon the vagueness of the original.

[512] Clement (in chap. 5, S:4, above), who undoubtedly used the
account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James as
taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded.
Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning.
But Hegesippus’ account, which is the fullest that we have gives us the
means of reconciling the briefer accounts of Clement and of Josephus,
and we have no reason to think either account incorrect.

[513] Valesius remarks that the monument (stele) could not have stood
through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Hegesippus, nor
could James have been buried near the temple, as the Jews always buried
their dead without the city walls. Tillemont attempted to meet the
difficulty by supposing that James was thrown from a pinnacle of the
temple overlooking the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore fell
without the walls, where he was stoned and buried, and where his
monument could remain undisturbed. Tillemont however, afterward
withdrew his explanation, which was beset with difficulties. Others
have supposed that the monument mentioned by Hegesippus was erected
after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Jerome, de vir. ill. 2), while
his body was buried in another place. This is quite possible, as
Hegesippus must have seen some monument of James which was reported to
have been the original one but which must certainly have been of later
date. A monument, which is now commonly known as the tomb of St. James,
is shown upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore
at a considerable distance from the temple. See Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p.
246 sqq.

[514] See below, note 40.

[515] See above, chap. I. S:4. His agreement with Clement is not very
surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge from the
account of the former.

[516] This passage is not found in our existing mss. of Josephus, but
is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which shows at any rate that
Eusebius did not invent the words. It is probable therefore, that the
copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this
interpolation, while the copies from which our existing mss. drew were
without it. It is of course possible, especially since he does not
mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words
from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as it still remains as
difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen, and
even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen instead of from
Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jachmann (ib. p. 40) to
accuse him of wilful deception. For with his great confidence in
Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and with his naturally
uncritical spirit, he would readily accept as true in all good faith a
quotation given by Origen and purporting to be taken from Josephus,
even though he could not find it in his own copy of the latter’s works.

[517] Ant.XX. 9. 1.

[518] Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 a.d. He was a very corrupt
governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius Florus in 64 a.d. See
Wieseler, Chron. d. Ap. Zeitalters, p. 89.

[519] Ananus was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned in
the N.T. His father and his four brothers had been high priests before
him, as Josephus tells us in this same paragraph. He was appointed high
priest by Agrippa II. in 61 or 62 a.d., and held the office but three
months.

[520] Ananus’ accession is recorded by Josephus in a sentence
immediately preceding, which Eusebius, who abridges Josephus’ account
somewhat, has omitted in this quotation.

[521] I can find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of the
Sadducees; but see Reland’s note upon this passage in Josephus. It may
be that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees and
Pharisees.

[522] kai paragagon eis auto [ton adelphon ‘Iesou tou christou
legomenou, ‘IEURkobos onoma auto, kai] tinas [heterous], k.t.l. Some
critics regard the bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch. der
Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, 5th ed., p. 445, note,
contends for their genuineness, and this is now the common opinion of
critics. It is in fact very difficult to suppose that a Christian in
interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother
of the ”so-called Christ.” On the other hand, as the words stand there
is no good reason to doubt their genuineness.

[523] The date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus, is 61
or 62 a.d. (at the time of the Passover, according to Hegesippus, S:10,
above). There is no reason for doubting this date which is given with
such exactness by Josephus, and it is further confirmed by Eusebius in
his Chron., who puts James’s martyrdom in the seventh year of Nero,
i.e. 61 a.d., while Jerome puts it in the eighth year of Nero. The
Clementines and the Chronicon Paschale, which state that James survived
Peter, and are therefore cited in support of a later date, are too late
to be of any weight over against such an exact statement as that of
Josephus, especially since Peter and James died at such a distance from
one another. Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by
historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 a.d., and as
thus being in direct conflict with Josephus; as a consequence some
follow his supposed date, others that of Josephus. But I can find no
reason for asserting that Hegesippus assigns the martyrdom to 69.
Certainly his words in this chapter, which are referred to, by no means
necessitate such an assumption. He concludes his account with the words
kai euthus Ouespasianos poliorkei autous. The poliorkei autous is
certainly to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the
siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by
Vespasian), i.e. to the year 67 a.d., and in such an account as this,
in which the overthrow of the Jews is designedly presented in
connection with the death of James, it is hyper-criticism to insist
that the word euthus must indicate a space of time of only a few
months’ duration. It is a very indefinite word, and the most we can
draw from Hegesippus’ account is that not long before Vespasian’s
invasion of Judea, James was slain. The same may be said in regard to
Eusebius’ report in Bk. III. chap. 11, S:1, which certainly is not
definite enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express statement
in his Chronicle. But however it may be with this report and that of
Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly to be accepted as
correct.

[524] Agrippa II.

[525] hos ouk exon en ‘AnEURno choris tes autou gnomes kathisai
sunedrion. Jost reads ekeinou (referring to Agrippa) instead of autou
(referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that the
Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and that
therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa, but not
contrary to the rights of Albinus. But the reading autou is supported
by overwhelming ms. authority and must be regarded as undoubtedly
correct. Jost’s conclusion, therefore, which his acceptance of the
ekeinou forced upon him, is quite incorrect. The passage appears to
imply that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of the
procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as Schuerer points out
(Gesch. der Juden im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, p. 169 sq.) this
conclusion is incorrect and all that the passage implies is that the
Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that is, could not meet
for the purpose of passing sentence of death and executing the
sentence, during the absence or without the consent of the procurator.
For the transaction of ordinary business the consent of the procurator
was not necessary. Compare the Commentaries on John xviii. 31, and the
remarks of Schuerer in the passage referred to above.

[526] Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 19, note 4 exercised government
over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and removing the
high priests.

[527] Of Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, nothing further is known. He was
succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son of
Gamaliel (Ant. XX. 9. 4).

[528] This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles by
the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the time of
Eusebius has been the common designation. The word is used in the sense
of ”general,” to denote that the epistles are encyclical letters
addressed to no particular persons or congregations, though this is not
true of II. and III. John, which, however, are classed with the others
on account of their supposed Johannine authorship, and consequent close
connection with his first epistle. The word was not first used, as some
have held, in the sense of ”canonical,” to denote the catholic or
general acceptance of the epistle,–a meaning which Eusebius
contradicts in this very passage, and which the history of the epistles
themselves (five of the seven being among the antilegomena)
sufficiently refutes. See Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 472 sqq., and
Weiss, ibid. p. 89 sqq.

[529] notheuetai. It is common to translate the word nothos, ”spurious”
(and the kindred verb, ”to be spurious”); but it is plain enough from
this passage, as also from others that Eusebius did not employ the word
in that sense. He commonly used it in fact, in a loose way, to mean
”disputed,” in the same sense in which he often employed the word
antilegomenos. Luecke, indeed, maintained that Eusebius always used the
words nothos and antilegomenos as synonymous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25,
as pointed out in note 1 on that chapter, he employed the words as
respective designations of two distinct classes of books. The Epistle
of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the
antilegomena. The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very
few. It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the
second century. Irenaeus seems to have known the epistle (his works
exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly
cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito
contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences
of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote
commentaries upon ”Jude and the other catholic epistles.” It is quoted
frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the ”Brother of the
Lord,” but does not express himself with decision as to its
authenticity. From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of
”James, the Lord’s brother.” Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena;
not necessarily because he considered it unauthentic, but because the
early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one
of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1). Luther rejected
the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds. The advanced critical school
are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work, and many
conservative scholars agree with them. See Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p.
475 sqq. and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 396 sqq. The latter defends its
authenticity (i.e. the authorship of James, the brother of the Lord),
and, in agreement with many other scholars of conservative tendencies,
throws its origin back into the early part of the fifties.

[530] The authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among the
antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is about as well
supported as that of the Epistle of James. The Peshito does not contain
it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for a number of
centuries. The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and Tertullian evidently
considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see De Cultu Fem. I. 3). The
first to quote from it is Clement of Alexandria who wrote a commentary
upon it in connection with the other catholic epistles according to
Eusebius, VI. 14. 1. Origen looked upon it much as he looked upon the
Epistle of James, but did not make the ”Jude, the brother of James,”
one of the twelve apostles. Eusebius treats it as he does James, and
Luther, followed by many modern conservative scholars (among them
Neander), rejects it. Its defenders commonly ascribe it to Jude, the
brother of the Lord, in distinction from Jude the apostle, and put its
composition before the destruction of Jerusalem. The advanced critical
school unanimously deny its authenticity, and most of them throw its
composition into the second century, although some put it back into the
latter part of the first. See Holtzmann, p. 501.

[531] On the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes 1 and 2. On
the Epistles of John, see ibid. chap. 44, notes 18 and 19.

[532] en pleistais ekklesiais
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXIV.–Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria
after Mark.

1. When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, [533] Annianus [534]
succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of
Alexandria. [535]
__________________________________________________________________

[533] 62 a.d. With this agrees Jerome’s version of the Chron., while
the Armenian version gives the seventh year of Nero.

[534] Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office
twenty-two years. In Apost. Const. VII. 46 he is said to have been
ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria. The Chron. Orient.
89 (according to Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) reports that
he was appointed by Mark after he had performed a miracle upon him. He
is commemorated in the Roman martyrology with St. Mark, on April 25.

[535] Upon Mark’s connection with Egypt, see above, chap. 16, note 1.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXV.–The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were
honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.

1. When the government of Nero was now firmly established, he began to
plunge into unholy pursuits, and armed himself even against the
religion of the God of the universe.

2. To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the
plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded
his history in most accurate narratives, [536] every one may at his
pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man’s extraordinary
madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the
destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such
blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and
dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his
wife, [537] with very many others of his own family as he would private
and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.

3. But with all these things this particular in the catalogue of his
crimes was still wanting, that he was the first of the emperors who
showed himself an enemy of the divine religion.

4. The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as
follows: [538] ”Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was
the first that persecuted this doctrine, [539] particularly then when
after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at
Rome. [540] We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment.
For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero
unless it was something of great excellence.”

5. Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief
enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is,
therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, [541] and
that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. [542] This account of
Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are
preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

6. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, [543] a member of the Church,
[544] who arose [545] under Zephyrinus, [546] bishop of Rome. He, in a
published disputation with Proclus, [547] the leader of the Phrygian
heresy, [548] speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred
corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid:

7. ”But [549] I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will
go to the Vatican [550] or to the Ostian way, [551] you will find the
trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.” [552]

8. And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, [553] in his epistle to the Romans, [554]
in the following words: ”You have thus by such an admonition bound
together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For
both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. [555] And
they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at
the same time.” [556] I have quoted these things in order that the
truth of the history might be still more confirmed.
__________________________________________________________________

[536] Tacitus (Ann. XIII.-XVI.), Suetonius (Nero), and Dion Cassius
(LXI.-LXIII.).

[537] Nero’s mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germanicus and
of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero’s command in 60 a.d.
in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an unsuccessful attempt to drown
her in a boat so constructed as to break to pieces while she was
sailing in it on the lake. His younger brother Britannicus was poisoned
by his order at a banquet in 55 a.d. His first wife Octavia was
divorced in order that he might marry Poppaea, the wife of his friend
Otho, and was afterward put to death. Poppaea herself died from the
effects of a kick given her by Nero while she was with child.

[538] Tertullian, Apol. V.

[539] We learn from Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be
the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place in 64
a.d. (Pliny, H. N. XVII. I, Suetonius, 38, and Dion Cassius, LXII. 18,
state directly that he was the author of it), and that to avert this
suspicion from himself he accused the Christians of the deed, and the
terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes so fully was the
result. Gibbon, and in recent times especially Schiller (Geschichte der
Roemischen Kaiserzeit unter der Regierung des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have
maintained that Tacitus was mistaken in calling this a persecution of
Christians, which was rather a persecution of the Jews as a whole. But
we have no reason for impeaching Tacitus’ accuracy in this case,
especially since we remember that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero
through his wife Poppaea. What is very significant, Josephus is
entirely silent in regard to a persecution of his countrymen under
Nero. We may assume as probable (with Ewald and Renan) that it was
through the suggestion of the Jews that Nero’s attention was drawn to
the Christians, and he was led to throw the guilt upon them, as a
people whose habits would best give countenance to such a suspicion,
and most easily excite the rage of the populace against them. This was
not a persecution of the Christians in the strict sense, that is, it
was not aimed against their religion as such; and yet it assumed such
proportions and was attended with such horrors that it always lived in
the memory of the Church as the first and one of the most awful of a
long line of persecutions instituted against them by imperial Rome, and
it revealed to them the essential conflict which existed between Rome
as it then was and Christianity.

[540] The Greek translator of Tertullian’s Apology, whoever he may have
been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 9, above),
being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, has made very bad work of
this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense of the original,
which runs as follows: illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam
cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano gladio ferocisse (”There you will
find that Nero was the first to assail with the imperial sword the
Christian sect, which was then especially flourishing in Rome”). The
Greek translation reads: ekei heuresete proton Nerona touto to dogma,
henika mEURlista en ;;Rome ten anatolen pasan hupotEURxas omos en eis
pEURntas, dioxonta, in the rendering of which I have followed Cruse,
who has reproduced the idea of the Greek translator with as much
fidelity as the sentence will allow. The German translators, Stroth and
Closs, render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus
preserve the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek
translator intended to reproduce. I have not, however, felt at liberty
in the present case to follow their example.

[541] This tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early
and universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition and may be accepted
as the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside of the New
Testament accounts. Clement (Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the first to mention
the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he does not directly
state, that his death took place in Rome during the persecution of
Nero. Caius (quoted below, S:7), a writer of the first quarter of the
third century, is another witness to his death in Rome, as is also
Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, S:8) of the second century. Origen
(quoted by Euseb. III. 1) states that he was martyred in Rome under
Nero. Tertullian (at the end of the second century), in his De
praescriptione Haer. chap. 36, is still more distinct, recording that
Paul was beheaded in Rome. Eusebius and Jerome accept this tradition
unhesitatingly, and we may do likewise. As a Roman citizen, we should
expect him to meet death by the sword.

[542] The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and
as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of
falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of
the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern
critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See
especially Lipsius’ Die Quellen der roemischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872;
a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Quarterly
and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius’ latest work upon
this subject, Die Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important
concessions.) The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside,
and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may
therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome
and suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in
John xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given. The first
extra-biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the
place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently
assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the
early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without
knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing
tradition. Ignatius (Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an
especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that
Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian
writing under the name of a favorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra
Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles.
This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well
known in Rome. Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter
labored in Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenaeus, Clement,
Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to
mention Peter’s death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed
to imply it) is Tertullian (De Praescrip. Haer. chap. 36), but he
mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is so
unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree
probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified
head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where Origen is quoted by
Eusebius.

[543] The history of Caius is veiled in obscurity. All that we know of
him is that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at the
beginning of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in Rome
(cf. Bk. VI. chap. 20, below). The accounts of him given by Jerome,
Theodoret, and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius and furnish us no new
data. Photius, however (Bibl. XLVIII.), reports that Caius was said to
have been a presbyter of the Roman Church during the episcopates of
Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been elected ”Bishop of the
Gentiles,” and hence he is commonly spoken of as a presbyter of the
Roman Church, though the tradition rests certainly upon a very slender
foundation, as Photius lived some six hundred years after Caius, and is
the first to mention the fact. Photius also, although with hesitation,
ascribes to Caius a work On the Cause of the Universe, and one called
The Labyrinth, and another Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below,
Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1). The first of these (and by some the last
also), is now commonly ascribed to Hippolytus. Though the second may
have been written by Caius it is no longer extant, and hence all that
we have of his writings are the fragments of the Dialogue with Proclus
preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31.
The absence of any notice of the personal activity of so distinguished
a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. p.
386, who refers to Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, I. 98, as holding
the same view) to assume the identity of Caius and Hippolytus,
supposing that Hippolytus in the Dialogue with Proclus styled himself
simply by his praenomen Caius and that thus as the book fell into the
hands of strangers the tradition arose of a writer Caius who in reality
never had a separate existence. This theory is ingenious, and in many
respects plausible, and certainly cannot be disproved (owing chiefly to
our lack of knowledge about Caius), and yet in the absence of any proof
that Hippolytus actually bore the praenomen Caius it can be regarded as
no more than a bare hypothesis. The two are distinguished by Eusebius
and by all the writers who mention them. On Caius’ attitude toward the
Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard
to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI. chap. 20,
and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The fragments of Caius (including
fragments from the Little Labyrinth, mentioned above) are given with
annotations in Routh’s Rel. Sacrae, II. 125-158 and in translation
(with the addition of the Muratorian Fragment, wrongly ascribed to
Caius by its discoverer) in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 599-604. See
also the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace, of Harnack, in Herzog (2d
ed.), and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq.

[544] ekklesiastikos anher.

[545] gegonos. Cruse translates ”born”; but Eusebius cannot have meant
that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius’ disputation with
Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus. He used gegonos,
therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came into public notice,
as we use the word ”arose.”

[546] On Zephyrinus, see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, S:7.

[547] This Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at the
beginning of the third century. According to Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv.
omnes Haer. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the Montanists,
the other division being composed of followers of AEschines. He is
probably to be identified with the Proculus noster, classed by
Tertullian, in Adv. Val. chap. 5, with Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and
Irenaeus as a successful opponent of heresy.

[548] The sect of the Montanists. Called the ”Phrygian heresy,” from
the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia. Upon Montanism, see below,
Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.

[549] The de here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain
claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the
Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the
apostles. And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be gathered
from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 31, S:4, in which
Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried in Hierapolis.
That these two sentences were closely connected in the original is
quite possible.

[550] According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the
hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro in
Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is still
shown to the trustful visitor. A more probable tradition makes the
scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero’s circus was, and where
the persecution took place. Baronius makes the whole ridge on the right
bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles the two traditions. In
the fourth century the remains of Peter were transferred from the
Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are said to have been interred
in 258 a.d.) to the Basilica of St. Peter, which occupied the sight of
the present basilica on the Vatican.

[551] Paul was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way, at
the spot now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains. The
fountains, which are said to have sprung up at the spots where Paul’s
head struck the ground three times after the decapitation, are still
shown, as also the pillar to which he is supposed to have been bound!
In the fourth century, at the same time that Peter’s remains were
transferred to the Vatican, Paul’s remains are said to have been buried
in the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked by the
church of San Paolo fuori le mura. There is nothing improbable in the
traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met their death. They
are as old as the second century; and while they cannot be accepted as
indisputably true (since there is always a tendency to fix the
deathplace of a great man even if it is not known), yet on the other
hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, it is hardly possible
that the place of their death and burial could have been forgotten by
the Roman church itself within a century and a half.

[552] Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the strict
sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul
came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have
reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early
fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.

[553] On Dionysius of Corinth, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 23.

[554] Another quotation from this epistle is given in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
The fragments are discussed by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 179 sq.

[555] Whatever may be the truth of Dionysius’ report as to Peter’s
martyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in speaking as he
does of Peter’s work in Corinth. It is difficult, to be sure, to
dispose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is still more
difficult to accept it. The statement that Paul and Peter together
planted the Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we know that it
was Paul’s own church, founded by him alone. The so-called Cephas
party, mentioned in 1 Cor. i., is perhaps easiest explained by the
previous presence and activity of Peter in Corinth, but this is by no
means necessary, and the absence of any reference to the fact in the
two epistles of Paul renders it almost absolutely impossible. It is
barely possible, though by no means probable, that Peter visited
Corinth on his way to Rome (assuming the Roman journey) and that thus,
although the church had already been founded many years, he became
connected in tradition with its early days, and finally with its
origination. But it is more probable that the tradition is wholly in
error and arose, as Neander suggests, partly from the mention of Peter
in 1 Cor. i., partly from the natural desire to ascribe the origin of
this great apostolic church to the two leading apostles, to whom in
like manner the founding of the Roman church was ascribed. It is
significant that this tradition is recorded only by a Corinthian, who
of course had every inducement to accept such a report, and to repeat
it in comparing his own church with the central church of Christendom.
We find no mention of the tradition in later writers, so far as I am
aware.

[556] kata ton auton kairon. The kata allows some margin in time and
does not necessarily imply the same day. Dionysius is the first one to
connect the deaths of Peter and Paul chronologically, but later it
became quite the custom. One tradition put their deaths on the same
day, one year apart (Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are said to
support this tradition). Jerome (de vir. ill. 1) is the first to state
explicitly that they suffered on the same day. Eusebius in his Chron.
(Armen.) puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68. The Roman Catholic
Church celebrates the death of Peter on the 29th and that of Paul on
the 30th of June, but has no fixed tradition as to the year of the
death of either of them.
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter XXVI.–The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced
the Last War Against the Romans.

1. Josephus again, after relating many things in connection with the
calamity which came upon the whole Jewish nation, records, [557] in
addition to many other circumstances, that a great many [558] of the
most honorable among the Jews were scourged in Jerusalem itself and
then crucified by Florus. [559] It happened that he was procurator of
Judea when the war began to be kindled, in the twelfth year of Nero.
[560]

2. Josephus says [561] that at that time a terrible commotion was
stirred up throughout all Syria in consequence of the revolt of the
Jews, and that everywhere the latter were destroyed without mercy, like
enemies, by the inhabitants of the cities, ”so that one could see
cities filled with unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged
scattered about with the bodies of infants, and women without even a
covering for their nakedness, and the whole province full of
indescribable calamities, while the dread of those things that were
threatened was greater than the sufferings themselves which they
anywhere endured.” [562] Such is the account of Josephus; and such was
the condition of the Jews at that time.
__________________________________________________________________

[557] Josephus, B. J. II. 14. 9. He relates that Florus, in order to
shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his
abominable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against
Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them. As a result many
disturbances broke out, and many bitter things were said against
Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures
referred to here by Eusebius.

[558] murious hosous. Josephus gives the whole number of those that
were destroyed, including women and children, as about thirty-six
hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration, like most of his figures). He
does not state the number of noble Jews whom Florus whipped and
crucified. The ”myriads” of Eusebius is an instance of the exaggerated
use of language which was common to his age, and which almost
invariably marks a period of decline. In many cases ”myriads” meant to
Eusebius and his contemporaries twenty, or thirty, or even less. Any
number that seemed large under the circumstances was called a ”myriad.”

[559] Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend of
the Empress Poppaea, through whose influence he obtained his
appointment (Jos. Ant. XX. 11. 1). He succeeded Albinus in 64 a.d. (see
above, chap. 23, note 35), and was universally hated as the most
corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea had ever endured. Josephus (B.
J. II. 14. 2 sqq. and Ant. XX. 11. 1) paints him in very black colors.

[560] Josephus (B. J. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in the
twelfth year of the reign of Nero (i.e. a.d. 66) in the month of
Artemision, corresponding to the month Iyar, the second month of the
Jewish year. According to Josephus (Ant. XX. 11. 1) this was in the
second year of Gessius Florus. The war began at this time by repeated
rebellious outbreaks among the Jews, who had been driven to desperation
by the unprincipled and tyrannical conduct of Florus,–though Vespasian
himself did not appear in Palestine until the spring of 67, when he
began his operations in Galilee.

[561] Jos. B. J. II. 18. 2.

[562] Ibid.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________