Book 3:1

Book III.

Chapter I.–The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached

1. Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and
disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. [563]
Parthia, [564] according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his
field of labor, Scythia [565] to Andrew, [566] and Asia [567] to John,
[568] who, after he had lived some time there, [569] died at Ephesus.

2. Peter appears to have preached [570] in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia [571] to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last,
having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; [572] for he had
requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say
concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to
Illyricum, [573] and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?
[574] These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his
Commentary on Genesis. [575]

[563] According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the
apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that
of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twenty-four
years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasii as Liber
qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely contained the
original tradition, and an account of the fate of the apostles, and was
probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The efforts to derive from the
varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to the apostles
themselves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions not only
assign different fields of labor to the different apostles, but also
give different lists of the apostles themselves. See Lipsius’ article
on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of
Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts,
Apocalypses, &c., are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII.
p. 361 sqq. Lipsius states that, according to the oldest form of the
tradition, the apostles were divided into three groups: first, Peter
and Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in
the region of the Black Sea; second, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the
Canaanite, in Parthia; third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor.

[564] Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent kingdom,
extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian Sea to the
Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in regard to
Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the Clementine
Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19. Rufinus (H. E. II.
5) and Socrates (H. E. IV. 18) speak of Edessa as his burial place.
Later traditions extended his labors eastward as far as India, and made
him suffer martyrdom in that land; and there his remains were exhibited
down to the sixteenth century. According to the Martyrium Romanum,
however, his remains were brought from India to Edessa, and from thence
to Ortona, in Italy, during the Crusades. The Syrian Christians in
India called themselves Thomas-Christians; but the name cannot be
traced beyond the eighth century, and is derived, probably, from a
Nestorian missionary.

[565] The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very
loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and
Black Seas. But two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate usage:
a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the Danube
and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from the
Ural. The former is here meant.

[566] The traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and
contradictory, though, as remarked above (note 1), the original form,
represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood
of the Black Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the
patron saint of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of Greece,
where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity there
rests upon a late tradition. His body is said to have been carried to
Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. III. 2), and
during the Crusades transferred to Amalpae in Italy, in whose cathedral
the remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of
Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to
the eighth century (cf. Skene’s Celtic Scotland, II. 221 sq.). Numerous
other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to have been the
scene of his labors.

[567] Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor,
lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean and comprising Mysia, Lydia,
and Caria.

[568] The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John’s later life to
Ephesus: e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 1. 1 and 3. 4, etc.; Clement of
Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23,
below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by Eusebius in
chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many others. The
testimony of Irenaeus is especially weighty, for the series: Irenaeus,
the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a complete chain such
as we have in no other case. Such testimony, when its force is broken
by no adverse tradition, ought to be sufficient to establish John’s
residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has been
denied by many of the critics who reject the Johannine authorship of
the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the author of Supernat.
Religion, and others), though the denial is much less positive now than
it was a few years ago. The chief arguments urged against the residence
of John in Ephesus are two, both a silentio: first, Clement in his
first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the apostles in such a way
as to seem to imply that they were all dead; secondly, in the Ignatian
Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but not John, which is certainly very
remarkable, as one is addressed to Ephesus itself. In reply it may be
said that such an interpretation of Clement’s words is not necessary,
and that the omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius becomes
perfectly natural if the Epistles are thrown into the time of Hadrian
or into the latter part of Trajan’s reign, as they ought to be (cf.
chap. 36, note 4). In the face of the strong testimony for John’s
Ephesian residence these two objections must be overruled. The
traditional view is defended by all conservative critics as well as by
the majority even of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel (cf. especially Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung, and
Weizsaecker in his Apostaliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul’s
epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus
until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should
naturally expect to be the case. Upon the time of John’s banishment to
Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1. Tradition reports that he lived
until the reign of Trajan (98-117). Cf. Irenaeus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3.

[569] Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.

[570] The language of Origen (kekeruchenai zoiken, instead of logos
zchei or parEURdosis periechei) seems to imply that he is recording not
a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of Peter,
which was known to him, and in which these places are mentioned. Such a
tradition did, however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g. the Syriac Doctrina
Apostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of Peter and Andrew. The
former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, in addition to
Galatia and Pontus, and cannot therefore, rest solely upon the first
Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the first three places. All
the places assigned to Peter are portions of the field of Paul, who in
all the traditions of this class is completely crowded out and his
field given to other apostles, showing the Jewish origin of the
traditions. Upon Peter’s activity in Rome and his death there, see Bk.
II. chap. 25, note 7.

[571] Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1.

[572] Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is
of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by
earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion), and
its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly doubtful.

[573] Cf. Rom. xv. 19. Illyricum was a Roman province lying along the
eastern coast of the Adriatic.

[574] See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.

[575] This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else. It is
impossible to tell where the quotation begins–whether with the words
”Thomas according to tradition received Parthia,” as I have given it,
or with the words ”Peter appears to have preached,” etc., as Bright
gives it.

Chapter II.–The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus [576] was the first
to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when
writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the
epistle. [577]

[576] The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is
a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by
Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius,
according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus
gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and
in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations
of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the
difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists,
have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of
Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed
to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and
Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting
Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note
10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing
that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the
endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each
successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair. It is at
least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop,
and therefore the question as to the order of these first three
so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to
which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions. The Roman Church
gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following
Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus
of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p.
xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was bishop for
twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while
Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal
succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the
personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in
this note see especially Salmon’s articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus,
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[577] 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenaeus, Adv.
Haer. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians
(longer version), chap. 7.

Chapter III.–The Epistles of the Apostles.

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine. [578] And this the ancient elders [579] used freely in their
own writings as an undisputed work. [580] But we have learned that his
extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; [581] yet, as it
has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other
Scriptures. [582]

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, [583] however, and the Gospel [584]
which bears his name, and the Preaching [585] and the Apocalypse, [586]
as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, [587]
because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of
testimonies drawn from them. [588]

3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in
addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have
from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, [589] and what
they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, [590]
as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which
I know to be genuine [591] and acknowledged by the ancient elders.

5. Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. [593] It is
not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the
Epistle to the Hebrews, [594] saying that it is disputed [595] by the
church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what
has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our
time I shall quote in the proper place. [596] In regard to the
so-called Acts of Paul, [597] I have not found them among the
undisputed writings. [598]

6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans, [599] has made mention among others of Hermas,
to whom the book called The Shepherd [600] is ascribed, it should be
observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account
cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is
considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need
instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has
been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most
ancient writers used it.

7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as
well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

[578] The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and
was cited under the name of Peter by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship
were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct
Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely
ungenuine. The Tuebingen School followed, and at the present time the
genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account
of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who
confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle).
The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine
authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of
the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was
written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the
name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no
fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find
an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged the
fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second
century, it is never connected with Peter’s name until the time of
Irenaeus. (Cf. Harnack’s Lehre der Zwoelf Apostel, p. 106, note, and
his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few

[579] hoi pEURlai presbuteroi. On the use of the term ”elders” among
the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.

[580] hos anamphilekto

[581] ouk endiEURthekon men einai pareilephamen. The authorship of the
second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external
testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to
have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been
offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still
remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of
the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian,
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to
Cyprian, S:6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by
Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed.
Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used
it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the
Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and
discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by
all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars.
Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of
Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the
second century,–some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria
(e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwoelf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who
assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 495
sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question),
Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see
especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and
Salmon’s Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.

[582] Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently
not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth
century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from
the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus,
Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the
Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.

[583] These prEURxeis (or periodoi, as they are often called) Petrou
were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collection
of periodoi ton apostolon, which were ascribed to Lucius Charinus, and,
like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of
the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work, as a whole, is no
longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in
a late Catholic redaction, under the title Passio Petri. Upon these
Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to other works
of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, II. I,
p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli already referred to, this work,
too, was used in the composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and
Peter, which are still extant, and which assumed their present form in
the fifth century, according to Lipsius. These Catholic Acts of Peter
and Paul have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle,
1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39. English
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.

[584] This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of
Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was rejected
by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained. It is
mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical;
also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. 1),
who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work employed by no
early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards it as probably
a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From Serapion’s
account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we see that it
differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their truth, or in
giving a contradictory account of Christ’s life, but rather in adding
to the account given by them. This, of course, favors Lipsius’
hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in denying that
the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, and that
it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of Mark. The Gospel
(as we learn from the same chapter) was used by the Docetae, but that
does not imply that it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ’s
body (cf. note 8 on that chapter). The Gospel is no longer extant. See
Lipsius, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.

[585] This Preaching of Peter (Kerugma Petrou, Praedicatio Petri),
which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost Preaching
of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and
Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early
Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Clement
of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter’s
teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic. Patr. I.
55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d ed., IV. p.
51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan. XIII. 17, and De
Princ. Praef. 8), and in the latter place is expressly classed among
spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius, closely
connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above.
Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work
originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the Preaching is
not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is
to be distinguished from the Ebionitic kerugmata. It would seem
therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the original of the
Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been
done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching is as old as
the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works
recording Peter’s preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted) the
Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts did not (if it
existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of Peter’s
preaching embodied in the Acts and in the Preaching. The latter (if it
included also the Preaching of Paul, as seems almost certain) appears
to have contained an account of some of the events of the life of
Christ, and it may have been used by Justin. Compare the remarks of
Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 28 (Cath. Adaptations of
Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon’s article on the Preaching of Peter, ibid.
IV. 329.

[586] The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early
Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the
apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with
the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted
by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at
that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing
that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third
century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack,
who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The Eclogae
or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine
work of Peter (S:S:41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter’s ed.), and so
Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to
Lipsius). After Eusebius’ time the work seems to have been universally
regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its
apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the
Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the
semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to
Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was
treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it
among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of
John. As Lipsius remarks, its ”lay-recognition in orthodox circles
proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have
contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians” (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the
work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test.
extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.

[587] oud’ holos en katholikais ismen paradedomena

[588] Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of Peter
was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the
Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14)
wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.

[589] ton antilegomenon

[590] peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon

[591] hon monen mian gnesian zgnon.

[592] As above; see note 2.

[593] The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely
undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of
them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted
until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is
ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of
the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and
there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the
Tuebingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other
epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was first
questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the Tuebingen
School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided; the
majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all
conservative scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by
Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tuebingen School. It fares
to-day somewhat better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected
by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense
(e.g. Weizsaecker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the
theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our
present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians,
of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tuebingen
School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is
still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely
accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsaecker and even
Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians was first
attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until
Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also. Second
Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative critics,
and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has regained the
support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld, Weizsaecker, and even
Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by comparatively few critics.
Philemon–which was first attacked by Baur–is quite generally
accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are almost as generally rejected,
except by the regular conservative school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk.
II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For a concise account of the state of
criticism upon each epistle, see Holtzmann’s Einleitung. For a defense
of them all, see the Einleitung of Weiss.

[594] tines ethetekasi. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written
by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely
certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its
theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external
testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul. The
first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantaenus and Clement
of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they evidently find it
necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the face of the
objections of others. Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original, which
was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 25)
leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it probable that the
thoughts are Paul’s, but the diction that of some one else, who has
recorded what he heard from the apostle. He then remarks that one
tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to Luke. Eusebius
himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of
Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship), looks upon it as a
work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria’s theory that it was
written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome was its
translator (see chap. 38, below). In the Western Church, where the
epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses it freely), it
is not connected with Paul until the fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian
(de pudicit. 20) states that it bore the name of Barnabas, and
evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed to any one else.
The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally prevailed, and from
the fifth century on we find it universally accepted, both East and
West, as an epistle of Paul, and not until the Reformation was its
origin again questioned. Since that time its authorship has been
commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery. Numerous guesses have been
made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos, and he has been followed by many),
but it is impossible to prove that any of them are correct. For
Barnabas, however, more can be said than for any of the others.
Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with him; and its contents
are just what we should expect from the pen of a Levite who had been
for a time under Paul’s influence, and yet had not received his
Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is Levitic, and
decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the influence of
Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in the place where
the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul, there first
appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see below, chap.
25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been suggested by Weiss
and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally
accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was
ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that Barnabas had written an
epistle, which must still have remained in the Church, led to the
ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We seem thus most
easily to explain the false ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and
the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It may be said that the
claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many supporters, while still
more attempt no decision. In regard to the canonicity of the epistle
there seems never to have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact
doubtless which did most to foster the belief in its Pauline authorship
from the third century on. For the criterion of canonicity more and
more came to be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect. The
early Church had cared little for such a criterion. In only one place
does Eusebius seem to imply that doubts existed as to its
canonicity,–in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where he classes it with the Book of
Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, among the
antilegomena. But in view of his treatment of it elsewhere it must be
concluded that he is thinking in that passage not at all of its
canonicity, but of its Pauline authorship, which he knows is disputed
by some, and in reference to which he uses the same word,
antilegesthai, in the present sentence. Upon the canonicity of the
epistle, see still further chap. 25, note 1. For a discussion of the
epistle, see especially the N. T. Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.

[595] antilegesthai

[596] See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.

[597] These prEURxeis are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they
are classed among the nothoi, implying that they had been originally
accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius wrote widely
accepted as such. This implies that they were not, like the works which
he mentions later in the chapter, of an heretical character. They were
already known to Origen, who (De Prin. I. 2, 3) refers to them in such
a way as to show that they were in good repute in the Catholic Church.
They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic periodoi or prEURxeis
Paulou, which from the end of the fourth century formed a part of the
Manichean canon of the New Testament, and of which some fragments are
still extant under various forms. The failure to keep these Catholic
and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has caused considerable
confusion. Both of these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed,
according to Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one
of the sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their
extant form belong to the fifth century. For a discussion of these
Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p.
70 sq.

[598] oude men tas legomenas autou prEURxeis en anamphilektois

[599] See Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last chapter of Romans
is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus. This has
been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it was first broached by
David Schulz (Studien und Kritiken, p. 629 sq.), and is accepted even
by many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss), while on the other hand it
is opposed by many of the opposite school. While Aquila and Priscilla,
of verse 3, and Epaenetus, of verse 5, seem to point to Ephesus, and
the fact that so many personal friends are greeted, leads us to look
naturally to the East as Paul’s field of labor, where he had formed so
many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had not been; yet on
the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus, Rufus, Hermas, Nereus,
Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to Rome. We must, however, be
content to leave the matter undecided, but may be confident that the
evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is certainly, in the face of the
Roman names mentioned, and of universal tradition (for which as for
Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not strong enough to establish it.

[600] The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of
the second century, and is quoted by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. IV. 20. 2) as
Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture
testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered it
not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter expressly
distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it is
disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it
among the nothoi or spurious writings in connection with the Acts of
Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian Fragment
it was ”written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by
Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church
of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made
public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as
their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.”
This shows the very high esteem in which the work was held in that age.
It was very widely employed in private and in public, both in the East
and the West, until about the fourth century, when it gradually passed
out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says that it was almost unknown
among the Latins of his time. As to the date and authorship of the
Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only direct testimony of antiquity
is that of the Muratorian Fragment, which says that it was written by
Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the episcopacy of the latter
(139-154 a.d.). This testimony is accepted by the majority of scholars,
most of whom date the book near the middle of the second century, or at
least as late as the reign of Hadrian. This opinion received not long
ago what was supposed to be a strong confirmation from the discovery of
the fact that Hermas in all probability quoted from Theodotion’s
version of Daniel (see Hort’s article in the Johns Hopkins University
Circular, December, 1884), which has been commonly ascribed to the
second century. But it must now be admitted that no one knows the
terminus a quo for the composition of Theodotian’s version, and
therefore the discovery leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined
(see Schuerer, Gesch. des juedischen Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile
Eusebius in this connection records the tradition, which he had read,
that the book was written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This
tradition, however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is
no more than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge as to
this Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove
decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for
accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name. In
Vis. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his book to Clement.
From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been
contemporary with the well-known Roman Clement, the author of the
Epistle to the Corinthians. While this appears very likely, it cannot
be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later
date. Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the
book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the
second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it.
Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas,
a contemporary of the Roman Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon
in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Critics
are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists
of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the
nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life
of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.
The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and
has been compared to the Pilgrim’s Progress. Opinions are divided as to
whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the author,
or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to be the more
probable. Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was
known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf,
being based upon a Mt. Athos ms. discovered shortly before by
Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the ms. the last was lost; three were
sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were
transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has
enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately
it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All
recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of
Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos
Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only
through Simonides’ transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt.
Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of
Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A.
Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek text
of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last
edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a
Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended
transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos ms. But this has been
conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we
are therefore still without any ms. authority for the Greek text of the
close of the work. Cf. Robinson’s introduction to the Collation of
Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack’s articles in the Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is
that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips.
1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The
literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should
examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf.
Zahn’s Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard
to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.

Chapter IV.–The First Successors of the Apostles.

1. That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the
churches ”from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum,” is evident
both from his own words, [601] and from the account which Luke has
given in the Acts. [602]

2. And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the
doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from
his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed, [603] in
which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. [604]

3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true
and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend
the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those
mentioned in the writings of Paul.

4. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or ”fellow-soldiers,” as he
called them, [605] and most of them were honored by him with an
imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them
in his own epistles.

5. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by
name. [606]

6. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate
of the parish in Ephesus, [607] Titus of the churches in Crete. [608]

7. But Luke, [609] who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by
profession, [610] and who was especially intimate with Paul and well
acquainted with the rest of the apostles, [611] has left us, in two
inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned
from them. One of these books is the Gospel, [612] which he testifies
that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and
ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he
followed accurately from the first. [613] The other book is the Acts of
the Apostles [614] which he composed not from the accounts of others,
but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as
if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, ”according to
my Gospel.” [615]

9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was
sent to Gaul; [616] but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle
to Timothy [617] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the
episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. [618]

10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome,
was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. [619]

11. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first
to believe after Paul’s address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as
recorded by Luke in the Acts) [620] is mentioned by another Dionysius,
an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, [621] as the
first bishop of the church at Athens.

12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall
relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our

[601] Rom. xv. 19.

[602] From Acts ix. on.

[603] In chap. 3, S:1.

[604] 1 Pet. i. 1.

[605] Philip. ii. 25; Philem. 2.

[606] Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (xii. 25; xiii. 13;
xv. 37, 39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. 1 sqq. and often); Aquila
and Priscilla (xviii.); Erastus (xix. 22); Gaius of Macedonia (xix.
29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater, Secundus, Gaius
of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus
(xx. 4); Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).

[607] That Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is stated also by
the Apost. Const. (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (H. E. III. 11), who
records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered martyrdom
under Domitian. Against the tradition that he labored during his later
years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged; though on the other hand
the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be no more than a
conclusion drawn from the Epistles to Timothy, though hardly a
conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word historeitai,
which seems to imply that he had some authority for his statement.
According to those epistles, he was at the time of their composition in
Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether he was afterward
there or not. From Heb. xiii. 23 (the date of which we do not know) we
learn that he had just been released from some imprisonment, apparently
in Italy, but whither he afterward went is quite uncertain. Eusebius’
report that he was bishop of Ephesus is the customary but unwarranted
carrying back into the first century of the monarchical episcopate
which was not known until the second. According to the Apost. Const.
VII. 46 both Timothy and John were bishops of Ephesus, the former
appointed by Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy is a saint in the
Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 24.

[608] Cf. Tit. i. 5. Titus is commonly connected by tradition with
Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop,–the
later institution being again pushed back into the first century. In
the fragment de Vita et Actis Titi, by the lawyer Zenas (in Fabric.
Cod. Apoc. N.T. II. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith’s Dict. of
the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of Crete
(where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name), and of
a royal Cretan family by birth. This tradition is late, and, of course,
of little authority, but at the same time, accords very well with all
that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no reason for denying
it in toto. According to 2 Tim. iv. 10, he went, or was sent, into
Dalmatia; but universal tradition ascribes his later life and his death
to Crete. Candia, the modern capital, claims the honor of being his
burial place (see Cave’sApostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63). Titus is a saint,
in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 4.

[609] Of Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in
the Acts, and only three times in Paul’s epistles (Col. iv. 14; Philem.
24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), from which passages we learn that he was a
physician, was one of Paul’s fellow-workers who was very dear to him,
and was with him during his last imprisonment. Irenaeus, who is the
first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Acts to this Luke, seems to
know nothing more about him personally. Eusebius is the first to record
that he was born at Antioch; but the tradition must have been
universally accepted in his day, as he states it without any misgivings
and with no qualifying phrase. Jerome (de vir. ill. 7) and many later
writers follow Eusebius in this statement. There is no intrinsic
improbability in the tradition, which seems, in fact, to be favored by
certain minor notices in the Acts (see Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 651).
Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 25) says that he labored in Achaia, and in
Orat. 4 he calls him a martyr. Jerome (ibid.) says that he was buried
in Constantinople. According to Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43) and later
writers, Luke was a painter of great skill; but this late tradition, of
which the earlier Fathers know nothing, is quite worthless. Epiphanius
(Haer. II. 11) makes him one of the Seventy, which does not accord with
Luke’s own words at the beginning of his Gospel, where he certainly
implies that he himself was not an eye-witness of the events which he
records. In the same connection, Epiphanius says that he labored in
Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia,–a tradition which has about as
much worth as most such traditions in regard to the fields of labor of
the various apostles and their followers. Theophylact (On Luke xxiv.
13-24) records that some supposed that he was one of the disciples with
whom Christ walked to Emmaus, and this ingenious but unfounded guess
has gained some modern supporters (e.g. Lange). He is a saint in the
Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated October 18.

[610] See Col. iv. 14

[611] Of Luke’s acquaintance with the other apostles we know nothing,
although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the ”We”
sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at the time he was
taken prisoner (Acts xxi.), when he met James at least, and possibly
others of the Twelve. It is not at all improbable that in the course of
his life he became acquainted with several of the apostles.

[612] The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although it
is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early. It was
used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and is
quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel is first distinctly
ascribed to Luke by Irenaeus (III. 1. 1) and by the Muratorian
Fragment. From that time on tradition was unanimous both as to its
authorship and its authority. The common opinion–still defended by the
great majority of conservative critics–has always been that the third
Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The radical
critics of the present century, however, bring its composition down to
a latter date–ranging all the way from 70 to 140 (the latter is Baur’s
date, which is now universally recognized as very wild). Many
conservative critics put its composition after the destruction of
Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its eschatological
discourses–e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80 (while putting
Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem). The traditional
and still prevalent opinion is that Luke’s Gospel was written later
than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various commentaries and New
Testament Introductions, and for a clear exhibition of the synoptical
problem in general, see Schaff’s Ch. Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in
particular, p. 648 sqq.

[613] Luke i. 2, 3.

[614] Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by
heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian
Fragment and Irenaeus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as the
author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been unanimous
in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case of
Photius (ad Amphil. Quaest. 123, ed. Migne), who states that the work
was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others
to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that Photius, in this
case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the date
of its composition. Irenaeus (III. 1. 1) seems (one cannot speak with
certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter and
Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts still later. The Muratorian
Fragment implies that the work was written at least after the death of
Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose that the work was written
during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 7), and this has
been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars ever since,
although many put the composition between the death of Paul and the
destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it after the
destruction of Jerusalem, though still assigning it to Luke. The
opposite school of critics deny Luke’s authorship, throwing the book
into the latter part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld, &c.),
or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath,
&c.). The Tuebingen School saw in the Acts a ”tendency-writing,” in
which the history was intentionally perverted. This theory finds few
supporters at present, even among the most extreme critics, all of
whom, however, consider the book a source of the second rank,
containing much that is legendary and distorted and irreconcilable with
Paul’s Epistles, which are looked upon as the only reliable source. The
question turns upon the relation of the author of the ”we” sections to
the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars agree with universal
tradition in identifying them (though this is not necessary in order to
maintain the historical accuracy of the work), while the opposite
school denies the identity, considering the ”we” sections authentic
historical accounts from the pen of a companion of Paul, which were
afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who was not a pupil of
Paul. The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is
now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries and New
Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare
especially Weizsaecker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss’
Einleitung, p. 569 sq.

[615] Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression
phasi, ”they say,” which seems to imply that the interpretation was a
common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen
also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to,
but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in
Origen’s works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in commenting
upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the words ”my
Gospel” to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the Gospel
written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from his
Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does
suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18. The
interpretation of the words ”according to my Gospel,” which Eusebius
represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome (de vir.
ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never uses the
word euangelion in such a sense, nor is it used by any New Testament
writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the written
Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of ”glad tidings,” or
to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of the gospel
revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Luke’s Gospel with
Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke’s connection with Paul,
and Irenaeus (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. S:2) says directly that
Luke recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian (Adv. Marcion.
IV. 5) tells us that Luke’s form of the Gospel is usually ascribed to
Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the
preaching of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the
apostles themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so
much stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mark
with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap. 24 Eusebius refers again to
Luke’s relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and so, too,
Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25. The Pauline nature of
the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still is by the majority of
scholars. This must not be carried so far, however, as to imply that
Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul himself was not an
eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his preface the causes which
induced him to write, and the sources from which he derived his
material. The influence of Paul is seen in Luke’s standpoint, and in
his general spirit–his Gospel is the Gospel of universal salvation.

[616] 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is eporeuthe, which
means simply ”went” or ”is gone.” That Paul had sent him as Eusebius
states (using the word steilEURmenos) is not implied in the epistle.
Instead of eis tas Gallias (or ten Gallian) most of the ancient mss. of
the New Testament have eis Galatian, which is the reading of the Textus
Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others. Some mss.,
however (including the Sinaitic), have Gallian, which Tischendorf
adopts; and some of the mss. of Eusebius also have this form, though
the majority read tas Gallias. Christophorsonus in his edition of
Eusebius reads epi ten Galatian, but entirely without ms. authority.
Epiphanius (Haer. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10 should be read
Gallia and not Galatia: ou gar en te Galati& 139; hos tines
planethentes nomizousin, alla en te Galli& 139;. Theodoret (in 2 Tim.
iv. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning tas Gallias: houto
gar ekalounto pEURlai.

[617] 2 Tim. iv. 21.

[618] See chap. 2, note 1, above.

[619] Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a
”fellow-soldier.” Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul’s references
to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom he
calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers was
a very important personage in the early Roman church, being known to
tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has played a prominent
part in Church history on account of the numerous writings which have
passed under his name. We know nothing certain about his life. Eusebius
identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul,–an
identification apparently made first by Origen, and after him repeated
by a great many writers. But the identification is, to say the least,
very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement in a very
common name deserves little consideration. It was quite customary in
the early Church to find Paul’s companions, whenever possible, in
responsible and influential positions during the latter part of the
first century. A more plausible theory, which, if true, would throw an
interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of his day, is that
which identifies him with the consul Flavius Clement, a relative of the
emperor Domitian (see below, chap. 18, note 6). Some good reasons for
the identification might be urged, and his rank would then explain well
Clement’s influential position in the Church. But as pointed out in
chap. 18, note 6, it is extremely improbable that the consul Flavius
Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal objection to the
identification (which is nevertheless adopted by Hilgenfeld and others)
is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of as a martyr until the
time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient writer identifies him or
connects him in any way with the consul, although Eusebius’ mention of
the latter in chap. 23 shows that he was a well-known person. When we
remember the tendency of the early Church to make all its heroes
martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the omission in this case
renders the identification, we may say, virtually impossible. More
probable is the conjecture of Lightfoot, that he was a freedman
belonging to the family of the consul Clement, whose name he bore. This
is simply conjecture, however, and is supported by no testimony.
Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very prominent position in the early
Roman church, and wrote an epistle to the Corinthians which is still
extant (see below, chap. 16; and upon the works falsely ascribed to
him, see chap. 38). In regard to his place in the succession of Roman
bishops, see chap. 2, note 1, above. For a full account of Clement, see
especially Harnack’s Prolegomena to his edition of Clement’s Epistle
(Patrum Apost. Opera, Vol. 1.), Salmon’s article, Clemens Romanus, in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog., Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. 636 sq., and
Donaldson’s Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, I. p. 90 sq.

[620] Acts xvii. 34. This Dionysius has played an important part in
Church history, as the pretended author of a series of very remarkable
writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the Areopagite, but
which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century and probably owe
their origin to the influence of Neo-Platonism. The first mention of
these writings is in the records of the Council of Constantinople (532
a.d.); but from that time on they were constantly used and unanimously
ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, until, in the seventeenth
century, their claims to so great antiquity were disputed. They are
still defended, however, in the face of the most positive evidence, by
many Roman Catholic writers. The influence of these works upon the
theology of the Middle Ages was prodigious. Scholasticism may be said
to be based upon them, for Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more than
any other source; so much so, that he has been said ”to have drawn his
whole theological system from Dionysius.” Our Dionysius has had the
further honor of being identified by tradition with Dionysius (St.
Denis), the patron saint of France,–an identification which we may
follow the most loyal of the French in accepting, if we will, though we
shall be obliged to suppose that our Dionysius lived to the good old
age of two to three hundred years. The statement of Dionysius of
Corinth that the Areopagite was bishop of Athens (repeated by Eusebius
again in Bk. IV. chap. 23) is the usual unwarranted throwing back of a
second century conception into the first century. That Dionysius held a
position of influence among the few Christians whom Paul left in Athens
is highly probable, and the tradition that later he was made the first
bishop there is quite natural. The church of Athens plays no part in
the history of the apostolic age, and it is improbable that there was
any organization there until many years after Paul’s visit; for even in
the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the church there seems to have been
extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV. chap. 23, S:2). Upon Dionysius
and the writings ascribed to him, see especially the article of Lupton
in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 841-848.

[621] Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.

Chapter V.–The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

1. After Nero had held the power thirteen years, [622] and Galba and
Otho had ruled a year and six months, [623] Vespasian, who had become
distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed
sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies
there. [624] Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted
the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus. [625]

2. For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to
their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could
against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, [626]
and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was
beheaded, [627] and finally James, the first that had obtained the
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in
the manner already described. [628] But the rest of the apostles, who
had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction,
and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to
preach the Gospel, [629] relying upon the power of Christ, who had said
to them, ”Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”

3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a
revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave
the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. [631]
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem,
then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were
entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook
those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles,
and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation
at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea
were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and
children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of
death innumerable,–all these things, as well as the many great sieges
which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive.
sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city
of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as
well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the
abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, [632] stood in
the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now
awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,–all these things any
one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by
Josephus. [633]

5. But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the
multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of the
Passover, to the number of three million souls, [634] were shut up in
Jerusalem ”as in a prison,” to use his own words.

6. For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of
God, that in those days, shut up ”as in a prison,” they should meet
with destruction at the hands of divine justice.

7. But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from
the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it
necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that
those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God was
not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against
the Christ of God.

[622] Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.

[623] Eusebius figures are incorrect. He omits Vitellius entirely,
while he stretches Galba’s and Otho’s reigns to make them cover a
period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from June 9,
68, to Jan. 15, 69; and Otho from Jan. 15 to April 20, 69). The total
of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about eighteen

[624] Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor in
Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea, and
then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was conquered by
Vespasian’s generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while Vespasian
himself went to Alexandria. The latter was immediately recognized by
the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 70. Eusebius is thus
approximately correct, though he is not exact as to details.

[625] Titus undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews after
his father’s departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to an end,
Sept. 8, 70 a.d.

[626] See Acts vii. 8 sqq.

[627] See Acts xii. 2

[628] See Bk. II. chap. 23.

[629] See chap. 1, note 1.

[630] See Matt. xxviii. 19.

[631] Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surrounding
population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus, B. J.
III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records
this flight of the Christians to Pella.

[632] Dan. ix. 27.

[633] Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.

[634] B. J.VI. 9, S:S:3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers.
Josephus in S:3 puts the number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the ”unclean
and the strangers” who were not allowed to eat the Passover. In the
same work, Bk. II. chap. 14, S:3, Josephus states that when Cestius
Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000 persons came about him to
enter complaint against the procurator Florus. These numbers are
grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the number in the city at the
time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above the truth.
The writer of the article Jerusalem, in Smith’s Bible Dict., estimates
that the city can never have had a population of more than 50,000
souls, and he concludes that at the time of the siege there cannot have
been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected within the walls. This is
probably too low an estimate, but shows how far out of the way the
figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be.

Chapter VI.–The Famine which oppressed them.

1. Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our hands,
let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred. [635]

2. ”For the wealthy,” he says, ”it was equally dangerous to remain. For
under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to death for
their wealth. The madness of the seditions increased with the famine
and both the miseries were inflamed more and more day by day.

3. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses men
searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they
tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had
anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground
that they had more carefully concealed it.

4. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the bodies
of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good condition
they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who were already
wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay those who were
on the point of perishing for want.

5. Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of
wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were
poorer. Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their
houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want,
while others baked it according as necessity and fear dictated.

6. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from
the fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a
lamentable spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an
abundance while the weaker mourned.

7. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing
so effectively as shame. For that which under other circumstances is
worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus women
snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children,
from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from
their babes. And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their
arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last drops that
supported life.

8. And even while they were eating thus they did not remain
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, to rob them even of
these portions of food. For whenever they saw a house shut up, they
regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food. And
immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what they
were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.

9. Old men who clung to their food were beaten, and if the women
concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing. There
was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the
babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the
ground. But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed what
they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if they
had been wronged by them.

10. And they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover
food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter
herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to
confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they
might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had
concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.

11. Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had
been driven to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of
exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves for
days to come.

12. And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the
outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to
meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they
seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the man
would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God,
adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk
of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was fortunate
if the one that was plundered was not also slain.”

13. To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the
following: [636] ”The possibility of going out of the city being
brought to an end, [637] all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off.
And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and
families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the
lanes of the city with the corpses of old men.

14. Children and youths, swollen with the famine, wandered about the
market-places like shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony
overtook them. The sick were not strong enough to bury even their own
relatives, and those who had the strength hesitated because of the
multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many,
indeed, died while they were burying others, and many betook themselves
to their graves before death came upon them.

15. There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes;
but the famine stifled the natural affections. Those that were dying a
lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their
rest before them. Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the

16. But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they
broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead
and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a
laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and
some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in
order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use
their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left to
be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed
upon the temple; and they left the seditious alive.

17. These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of
the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench. But
afterward, when they were not able to do this, they threw the bodies
from the walls into the trenches.

18. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the dead,
and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned aloud,
and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this was not his

19. After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:
[638] ”I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I
suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these
guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or
overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as destroyed
Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much more godless
than were those that suffered such punishment. By their madness indeed
was the whole people brought to destruction.”

20. And in the sixth book he writes as follows: [639] ”Of those that
perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow of
food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends
engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from
each other the most wretched supports of life.

21. Nor would they believe that even the dying were without food; but
the robbers would search them while they were expiring, lest any one
should feign death while concealing food in his bosom. With mouths
gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad
dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence
they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.

22. Necessity compelled them to eat anything they could find, and they
gathered and devoured things that were not fit even for the filthiest
of irrational beasts. Finally they did not abstain even from their
girdles and shoes, and they stripped the hides off their shields and
devoured them. Some used even wisps of old hay for food, and others
gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic
drachmae. [640]

23. ”But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed
during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going to relate a
fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to
relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have omitted
this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of
fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own age.
And besides, I should render my country poor service if I suppressed
the account of the sufferings which she endured.

24. ”There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan,
whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor [641] (which
signifies the house of hyssop). She was distinguished for her family
and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to
Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege.

25. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she
had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her
possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in daily
and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, and by
her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger of the
rapacious villains against herself.

26. But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she
grew weary of finding food for others to eat. The search, too, was
already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her
bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than
famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she
proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.

27. Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking at her breast, she said,
Oh, wretched child, in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I
preserve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are
allowed to live by them. But even slavery is anticipated by the famine,
and the rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food for me, a fury
for these rioters, [642] and a bye-word to the world, for this is all
that is wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews.

28. And when she had said this she slew her son; and having roasted
him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept
it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the
nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she
should show them what she had prepared. She replied that she had saved
an excellent portion for them, and with that she uncovered the remains
of the child.

29. They were immediately seized with horror and amazement and stood
transfixed at the sight. But she said This is my own son, and the deed
is mine. Eat for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman,
nor more compassionate than a mother. But if you are too pious and
shrink from my sacrifice, I have already [643] eaten of it; let the
rest also remain for me.

30. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being
affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the mother.
Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and as all
pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled as if
they had done it themselves.

31. Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death; and
blessed were they that had died before hearing and seeing miseries like

32. Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness
and impiety, against the Christ of God.

[635] Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, S:S:2 and 3.

[636] Ibid.chap. 12, S:S:3 and 4.

[637] Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city by
which all egress from the town was shut off. Josephus gives an account
of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.

[638] Ibid.chap. 13, S:6.

[639] Ibid.Bk. VI. chap. 3, S:S:3 and 4.

[640] ‘Attikon tessEURron; the word drachmon is to be supplied. An
Attic drachm, according to some authorities, was equal to about fifteen
cents, according to others (among them Liddell and Scott), to about
nineteen cents.

[641] bathezor. Some mss. have bathechor, and the mss. of Josephus have
bethezob, which Whiston translates Bethezub.

[642] ”In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death”

[643] ede. All the mss. of Eusebius read humon. Some of the mss. of
Josephus read ede, and Rufinus translates nam et ego prior comedi.
Valesius, without ms. authority (but apparently with the support of
some mss. of Josephus, for Whiston translates ”one-half”) reads hemisu,
a half, and he is followed by the English and German translators. Some
change from the reading of the mss. of Eusebius is certainly necessary;
and though the alteration made by Valesius produces very good sense and
seems quite natural, I have preferred to accept the reading which is
given by many of the mss. of Josephus, and which has the support of

Chapter VII.–The Predictions of Christ.

1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our
Saviour in which he foretold these very events.

2. His words are as follows: [644] ”Woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to
this time, no, nor ever shall be.”

3. The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that
eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, [645] and
that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other
after the taking of the city, were slain. [646] But the tallest of the
youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for
the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over
seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of
Egypt, [647] while still more were scattered through the provinces to
meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those
under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves,
and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. [648]

4. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the
reign of Vespasian, [649] in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if
they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the
statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he
uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: [650]

5. ”If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which
belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and
shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground.”

6. And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, [651] ”For
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” And again:
[652] ”When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know
that the desolation thereof is nigh.”

7. If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts
of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder,
and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour
were truly divine and marvellously strange. [653]

8. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish
nation after the Saviour’s passion and after the words which the
multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the
robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be
taken from their midst, [654] it is not necessary to add anything to
the account of the historian.

9. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited
the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their
destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,–during
which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the
first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord,
[655] were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the
surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved itself
long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for
what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in
addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful
signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not

10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the
historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for
the benefit of the readers of this work.

[644] Matt. xxiv. 19-21

[645] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, S:3. Josephus simply says that
the whole number of those that perished during the siege was 1,100,000;
he does not specify the manner of their death. On the accuracy of the
numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note 13.

[646] Ibid.S:2.

[647] eis ta kat’ ,’Aigupton zrga. The works meant are the great stone
quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt), which furnished
a considerable part of the finest marble used for building purposes in
Rome and elsewhere. The quarries were chiefly in the hands of the Roman
government, and the work of quarrying was done largely by captives
taken in war, as in the present case.

[648] Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves was
upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid. S:3) that the
number of captives taken during the whole war was 97,000, a number
which Eusebius, through an error, applies to the one class of prisoners
that were sold as slaves.

[649] In B. J. Bk. VI. 8. 5 and 10. 1 Josephus puts the completion of
the siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the
second passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian. Vespasian
was proclaimed emperor in Egypt July 1, 69, so that Sept. 8 of his
second year would be Sept. 8, a.d. 70. (Cf. Schuerer, N. T. Zeitgesch.
p. 347.)

[650] Luke xix. 42-44

[651] Ibid. xxi. 23, 24.

[652] Ibid. verse 20.

[653] It is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of
critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the
composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its
eschatological discourses seem to bear the mark of having been recorded
after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do in many
minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in Matthew
and Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted just above
from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are mentioned,
while in parallel passages in the other Gospels (Matt. xxiv. 15 and
Mark xiii. 14) not armies, but ”the abomination of desolation standing
in the holy place” is spoken of as the sign. Compare the various
commentaries upon these passages.

[654] Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11, Luke
xxii. 18.

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

Chapter VIII.–The Signs which preceded the War.

1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the
sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: [656] ”Thus were
the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false
prophets; [657] but they did not heed nor give credit to the visions
and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the contrary, as
if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor
understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God.

2. At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a
comet, which lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt and
before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were
gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month
Xanthicus, [658] at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone
about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day; and
this continued for half an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a good
sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending those
events which very soon took place.

3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and
very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty
men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the
ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.

5. And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month
Artemisium, [659] a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those
who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of
such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops
were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the
clouds and encircling the cities.

6. And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests entered
the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they
said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward
a voice as of a great multitude, saying, `Let us go hence.’ [660]

7. But what follows is still more terrible; for a certain Jesus, the
son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war, [661]
when the city was particularly prosperous and peaceful, came to the
feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple to
the honor of God, [662] and suddenly began to cry out: `A voice from
the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice
against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms and
brides, a voice against all the people.’ Day and night he went through
all the alleys crying thus.

8. But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous
cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But without
uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to
those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as

9. And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a
higher power, brought him before the Roman governor. [663] And then,
though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor
shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, `Woe, woe unto

10. The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than
this. He says [664] that a certain oracle was found in their sacred
writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go
forth from their country to rule the world. He himself understood that
this was fulfilled in Vespasian.

11. But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of
it which was subject to the Romans. With better right could it be
applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the Father, ”Ask of me, and I
will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of the
earth for thy possession.” [665] At that very time, indeed, the voice
of his holy apostles ”went throughout all the earth, and their words to
the end of the world.” [666]

[656] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, S:3.

[657] katapseudomenoi tou theou. In the previous paragraph Josephus
says that a great many false prophets were suborned by the tyrants to
impose on the people. It is to these false prophets therefore that he
refers here, and I have consequently felt at liberty thus to translate
the Greek word given above, instead of rendering merely ”liars against
God” (as Cruse does), which is indefinite, and might have various

[658] The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek
name of the month used here is xanthikos, which was the name of a
Macedonian month corresponding to our April. According to Whiston,
Josephus regularly used this name for the Jewish month Nisan (the first
month of the Jewish year), in which case this event took place six days
before the Passover, which began on the 14th of Nisan.

[659] ‘Artemisios. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan
and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month
(elaphebolion), which in turn corresponded to the latter part of our
March and the early part of April. According to Wieseler, Josephus used
the word to denote the second month of the Jewish year, the month Iyar.

[660] The majority of the mss. of Eusebius read metabainomen, ”we go
hence.” But at least one of the best mss. and a majority of the mss. of
Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who render migremus), read
metabainomen, ”let us go hence,” and I have followed Stephanus,
Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting
that reading.

[661] That is, in 62 a.d. for, according to Josephus, the war began in
66 a.d. A little further on, Josephus says that he continued his cry
for seven years and five months, when he was slain during the siege of
Jerusalem. This shows that he is here, as well as elsewhere, reckoning
the date of the beginning of the war as 66 a.d.

[662] That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.

[663] This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event,
and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was procurator from
61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23, note 35, and chap. 22,
note 1.

[664] See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.

[665] Ps. ii. 8.

[666] Ps. xix. 4.

Chapter IX.–Josephus and the Works which he has left.

1. After all this it is fitting that we should know something in regard
to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so much to
the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this point in
the following words: [667] ”Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest
of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the beginning
and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward.”

2. He was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among
his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by
the erection of a statue in Rome, [668] and his works were deemed
worthy of a place in the library. [669]

3. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews [670] in twenty
books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his
time, in seven books. [671] He himself testifies that the latter work
was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by
himself into his native tongue. [672] He is worthy of credit here
because of his truthfulness in other matters.

4. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth
reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews, [673] and in them he
replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a
treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to
vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.

5. In the first of these books he gives the number of the canonical
books of the so-called Old Testament. Apparently [674] drawing his
information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were accepted
without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.

[667] B. J.,Preface, S:1. We have an original source for the life of
Josephus, not only in his various works, in which he makes frequent
reference to himself, but also in his autobiography, which was written
after the year 100. The work was occasioned by the Chronicle of Justus
of Tiberias, which had represented him as more patriotic and more
hostile to the Romans than he liked, and he therefore felt impelled to
paint himself in the blackest of colors, as a traitor and
renegade,–probably much blacker than he really was. It is devoted
chiefly to an account of the intrigues and plots formed against him
while he was governor of Galilee, and contains little of general
biographical interest, except in the introduction and the conclusion.
Josephus was of a priestly family,–his father Matthias belonging to
the first of the twenty-four courses–and he was born in the first year
of Caius Caesar; i.e. in the year beginning March 16, 37 a.d. He played
a prominent part in the Jewish war, being entrusted with the duty, as
governor of Galilee and commander of the forces there, of meeting and
opposing Vespasian, who attacked that province first. He was, however,
defeated, and gave himself up to the victors, in the summer of 67. He
was treated with honor in the camp of the Romans, whom he served until
the end of the war, and became a favorite and flatterer of the
Vespasian house, incurring thereby the everlasting contempt of his
country men. He went to Rome at the close of the war, and lived in
prosperity there until early in the second century. His works are our
chief source for a knowledge of Jewish affairs from the time of the
Maccabees, and as such are, and will always remain, indispensable, and
their author immortal, whatever his character. He was a man of learning
and of talent, but of inordinate selfishness and self-esteem. He was
formerly accused of great inaccuracy, and his works were considered a
very poor historical source; but later investigations have increased
his credit, and he seems, upon the whole, to have been a historian of
unusual ability and conscientiousness.

[668] Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this
statue in Rome, and what authority there is for his statement we cannot

[669] In S:64 of his Life Josephus tells us that Titus was so much
pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his name
to them, and ordered them published (see the next chapter, S:8 sqq.,
where the passage is quoted). The first public library in Rome,
according to Pliny, was founded by Pollio (76 b.c.-4 a.d.). The one
referred to here is undoubtedly the imperial library, which, according
to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in the temple of
Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections,–one for Greek, and
the other for Latin works. It was greatly enlarged by Tiberius and

[670] ‘Ioudaike ‘Archaiologia, Antiquitates Judaicae. This work, which
is still extant, is Josephus’ most extensive work, and aims to give, in
twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time of Abraham
to the beginning of the great war with Rome. The object of the work is
mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place Judaism before Gentile
readers in as favorable a light as possible. It contains much legendary
matter, but is the main source for our knowledge of a long period of
Jewish history, and as such is invaluable. The work was completed,
according to his own statement (XX. 11. 2), in the thirteenth year of
Domitian (93-94 a.d.), and frequently corrects erroneous statements
made in his earlier work upon the Jewish war.

[671] ;;Istoria ‘Ioudaikou polemou pros ;;Romaious, de Bello Judaico.
This work, in seven books, constitutes our most complete and
trustworthy source for a knowledge of that great war, so momentous in
its consequences both to Judaism and to Christianity. The author wrote
from personal knowledge of many of the events described, and had,
besides, access to extensive and reliable written sources: and the
general accuracy of the work may therefore be accepted. He says that he
undertook the work for the purpose of giving a true narrative of the
war, in consequence of the many false and distorted accounts which had
already appeared in various quarters. He presented the work, when
finished, to Vespasian and Titus, and obtained their approval and
testimony to its trustworthiness: and hence it must have been written
during the reign of Vespasian, probably toward the end of it, as other
works upon the war had preceded his (B. J., Preface, S:1).

[672] The work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, S:1; and contra
Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own tongue,–Aramaic,–and
afterwards translated by himself into Greek, with the help of others.
Eusebius inverts the fact, making the Greek the original.

[673] The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus on
the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri archaiotetos ‘Ioudaion
kata ‘Apionos, De Antiquitate Judaeorum contra Apionem). It is
ordinarily cited simply as contra Apionem (Against Apion). It consists
of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else than an apology for Judaism
in general, and to a less extent, a defense of himself and his former
work (the Antiquities) against hostile critics. The common title,
contra Apionem, is rather misleading, as he is not once mentioned in
the first book, although in the first part of the second book he is
attacked with considerable bitterness and through him a large class of
enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon Apion, the famous Alexandrian
and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see above, Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5.)
The work is Josephus’ best effort from a literary point of view, and
shows both learning and ability, and in spite of its brevity contains
much of great value. It was written after his Antiquities (i.e. after
93 a.d.), how long afterward we cannot tell. These three works of
Josephus, with his autobiography already mentioned (note 1), are all
that are extant, although he seems to have written another work
relating to the history of the Seleucidae (cf. Ant. XIII. 2. 1, 2. 4,
4. 6, 5. 11) of which not a trace remains, and which is mentioned by no
one else. The other works planned by Josephus–On God and his Essence
(Ant. XX. 11. 3), and On the Laws of the Jews (ibid. and Ant. III. 5.
6, 8. 10)–seem never to have been written. (They are mentioned also by
Eusebius in the next chapter.) Other compositions attributed to him are
not from his hand. The best edition of the works of Josephus is that of
Benedict Niese (Berlin, 1885 sq.), of which the first two volumes have
been already issued, comprising ten books of the Antiquities. A good
complete edition is that of Dindorf (Paris, 1845-47, 2 vols.). That of
Bekker (Leipzig, 1855, 6 vols.) is very convenient. The only complete
English translation is by Whiston, unfortunately uncritical and
inaccurate. Traill’s translation of the Jewish War (London, 1862) is a
great improvement, but does not cover the remainder of Josephus’ works.
Upon Josephus and his writings, see the article of Edersheim in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 441-460, and compare the literature given

[674] hosEURn.

Chapter X.–The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.

1. [675] ”We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and
conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition
respecting the origin of man, and continue the history [676] down to
his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. [677]

3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded
Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the
history of their own times in thirteen books. [678] The other four
books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the life
of men.

4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been
recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that
we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been
during this time an exact succession of prophets. [679]

5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our
treatment of them. For although so great a period has already passed
by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it
is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the
teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully
to die for them.”

These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be
introduced in this connection.

6. Another work of no little merit has been produced by the same
writer, On the Supremacy of Reason, [680] which some have called
Maccabaicum, [681] because it contains an account of the struggles of
those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is
related in the books called Maccabees.

7. And at the end of the twentieth book of his Antiquities [682]
Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in four
books concerning God and his existence, according to the traditional
opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it is that they
permit some things while prohibiting others. [683] And the same writer
also mentions in his own works other books written by himself. [684]

8. In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words
that are found at the close of his Antiquities, [685] in confirmation
of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place
he attacks Justus of Tiberias, [686] who, like himself, had attempted
to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had
not written truthfully. Having brought many other accusations against
the man, he continues in these words: [687]

9. ”I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were,
[688] but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors
themselves when the events were almost under men’s eyes. For I was
conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was
not disappointed in my expectation of obtaining their attestation.

10. And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were
present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa [689] and some of
his relatives.

11. For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the
events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he
indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be
published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the
truthfulness of my account.” Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two.
[690] But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with
our history.

[675] Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the
first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44
sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This,
however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed before
the time of Judas Maccabaeus. Josephus is the earliest writer to give
us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently gives
not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted canon of
his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us that they
were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are able to
ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:– 1-5.
Books of Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10.
Chronicles. 11. Ezra and Nehemiah. 12. Esther. 13. Isaiah. 14. Jeremiah
and Lamentations. 15. Ezekiel. 16. Daniel. 17. Twelve Minor Prophets.
18. Job. 19. Psalms. 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes. 22. Song of Songs.
The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito
(given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:– Books of Moses
Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua Nave. Judges.
Ruth. Four of Kings. Chronicles. Psalms. Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song
of Songs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Twelve Minor Prophets. Daniel.
Ezekiel. Ezra. Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in
fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one. His list
really differs from Josephus’ only in omitting the Book of Esther. This
omission may be accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and
Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is
doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus’ canon. His
canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it
to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that
the omission of Esther was only accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI.
25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but
his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus. It is as follows:–
1-5. Books of Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9.
Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra I. and II. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs.
14. Ecclesiastes. 15. Song of Songs. 16. [Twelve Minor Prophets
(Rufinus).] 17. Isaiah. 18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle. 19.
Daniel. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Job. 22. Esther. ”Besides these also the
Maccabees.” The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the
Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The
former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he
wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is
no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they are needed to
make up the number twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was
simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber.
Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the
position there assigned to them is not the ordinary one. We should
expect to find them in connection with the other prophets; but the
various lists are by no means uniform in the order of the books. On the
other hand, the Greek Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in
the Hebrew canon, and can have been included by Origen here only
because he had been used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in
his copy of the LXX. (for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably
represent the original arrangement, it is given not as a part of
Baruch, but as an appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in
this book without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen
adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the
twenty-two books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud
and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was
probably the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained
by adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus
obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was
therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and
the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is
Strack’s view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is
advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is
easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how
the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to
the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and
gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the
three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be
seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen,
which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees)
include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old
Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from
the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a
regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is
not likely. An examination of Philo’s use of the Old Testament shows us
that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no apocryphal
books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in their
translation these other books which were held in high esteem, without
intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the canon or to
alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of it. But
however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider than that
of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and thus we see
them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a part of the
canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only one in the
West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both Athanasius and
Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of
Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any books
not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth
century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less. They were,
however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous
medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the
Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authoritative standard of
the Graeco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them. The Latin Church,
meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its
action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official
canon. See Strack’s article in Herzog, translated in Schaff-Herzog;
also Harman’s Introduction to the Holy Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The
subject is discussed in all Old Testament introductions.

[676] Literally, ”the tradition respecting the origin of man
(anthropogonias) down to his own death.” I have felt it necessary to
insert the words, ”and continue the history,” which are not found in
the Greek, but which are implied in the words, ”down to his own death.”

[677] Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world’s era was in use,
dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which
Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures are
often quite inconsistent,–probably owing, in large part, to the
corrupt state of the existing text,–and the confusion which results is
considerable. See Destinon’s Chronologie des Josephus.

[678] These thirteen books were:– 1. Joshua. 2. Judges and Ruth. 3.
Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8.
Isaiah. 9. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 10. Ezekiel. 11. Daniel. 12.
Twelve Minor Prophets. 13. Job. As will be seen, Josephus divided the
canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second,
the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa
(Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the
canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time,
his division is quite different from any other division known. Jerome’s
is as follows:– 1. Law: five books of Moses. 2. Prophets: Joshua,
Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books). 3. Hagiographa (Holy
writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel,
Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division which exists in our
Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome’s only in transferring Ruth
and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four
books. This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but
as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the LXX., which is
followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without
reference to the three divisions, solely according to their
subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his
looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to
include in the second division all the books which contained, as he
says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes.

[679] The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who
reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah
carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.
Malachi–the last of them–uttered his prophecies at the end of
Artaxerxes’ or at the beginning of Darius’ reign. It was commonly held
among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical
spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as
here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who
followed them.

[680] eis Makkabaious logos he peri autokrEURtoros logismou: De
Maccabaeis, seu de rationis imperio liber. This book is often called
the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly ascribed to Josephus. As
a consequence it is printed with his works in many editions. But it is
now universally acknowledged to be spurious, although who the author is
we cannot tell.

[681] Makkabaikon

[682] Ant.XX. 11. 3. See the previous chapter, note 7.

[683] See the same note.

[684] See the same note.

[685] The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in
his Life, S:65, and not in the Antiquities. But we can see from the
last paragraph of the Antiquities that he wrote his Life really as an
appendix to that work, and undoubtedly as Ewald suggests, issued it
with a second edition of the Antiquities about twenty years after the
first. In the mss. it is always found with the Antiquities, and hence
the whole might with justice be viewed as one work. It will be noticed
that Eusebius mentions no separate Life of Josephus, which shows that
he regarded it simply as a part of the Antiquities.

[686] Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that
city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while
Josephus was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused him
considerable trouble. He is mentioned frequently in Josephus’ Life, and
we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete idea of him–though
of course the account is that of an enemy. He wrote a work upon the
Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs of the Jewish war and in
which he attacked Josephus very severely. This work, which is no longer
extant, was read by Photius and is described by him in his Bibl. Cod.
33, under the title, basileis ‘Ioudaioi hoi en tois stemmasi. It was in
consequence of this work that Josephus felt obliged to publish his
Life, which is really little more than a defense of himself over
against the attacks of Justus. See above, note 1.

[687] Vita,S:65.

[688] Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph that Justus
had had his History written for twenty years, and yet had not published
it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa, and he
accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was afraid
that they would contradict his statements. Josephus then goes on to say
in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus, afraid to publish
his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in the war.

[689] Agrippa II. See above, Bk. II. chap. 19, note 3. Agrippa sided
with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and Titus in their
camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated efforts to induce
the people to give up their rebellion, that the war might be avoided.

[690] These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus in
his Vita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius. The
first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston’s translation):
”King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth greeting. I have
read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me that thou
hast done it much more accurately and with greater care than have the
other writers. Send me the rest of these books. Farewell, my dear

Chapter XI.–Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.

1. After the martyrdom of James [691] and the conquest of Jerusalem
which immediately followed, [692] it is said that those of the apostles
and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all
directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the
flesh [693] (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take
counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, [694] the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; [695] to be worthy of
the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of
the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of
Joseph. [696]

[691] 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.

[692] See ibid. note 40. The date of Symeon’s accession (assuming that
he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had done) cannot be
fixed. Eusebius himself, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 5, although
he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no information as to the
dates of their accession, or the length of their incumbency. He puts
Symeon’s accession after the destruction of Jerusalem, but he evidently
does that only because he supposed that it followed immediately upon
the death of James. Some (e.g. Lightfoot) think it probable that Symeon
was appointed immediately after James’ death, therefore before the
destruction of Jerusalem; others (e.g. Renan) suppose that in Pella
they had no bishop and appointed Symeon only after the return of the
church to Jerusalem.

[693] logos katechei. Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, below)
says that ”Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as
the cousin of our Lord.” Upon what authority Eusebius’ more definite
account rests we do not know. He introduces it with the formula logos
katechei, and we know of no other author who has put it as he does. It
may be that the simple statement of Hegesippus was the sole ground of
the more detailed tradition which Eusebius repeats in this chapter. The
reason of Symeon’s appointment as given by Hegesippus is quite
significant. It was the common Oriental custom to accord the highest
honors to all the members of a prophet’s or religious leader’s family,
and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his close physical relationship
to Christ that James enjoyed such prominence and influence in the
Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding even that of the apostles

[694] This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the
Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in
Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3). It is noticeable that Hegesippus
nowhere calls him the ”brother of the Lord,” though he does give James
that title in Bk. II. chap. 23. Clopas is mentioned in John xix. 25, as
the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the
mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Matt. xxvii.
56, Mark xv. 40, &c. If Hegesippus’ account be accepted as trustworthy
(and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon was the son of Clopas
and Mary, and therefore brother of James the Little and Joses. If,
then, Alphaeus and Clopas be the same, as many claim, James the Little
is to be identified with James the son of Alphaeus, the apostle, and
hence the latter was the brother of Symeon. This identification,
however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically difficult, and we
shall do better therefore to keep the men separate, as Renan does (see
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14). Upon the martyrdom of Symeon, see
below, chap. 32.

[695] In John xix. 25

[696] Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the
uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or
brother-in-law of Joseph. Eusebius evidently considered them own
brothers. Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or whether
Eusebius’ opinion is simply an inference from the words of Hegesippus
already referred to, we do not know. There is no objection to the
conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers, although it cannot
be proved from Hegesippus’ words that they were more than
brothers-in-law. From John xix. 25 it is at any rate plain that their
wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly maintained by so
many commentators. With the remaining possibilities of relationship we
do not need to concern ourselves.

Chapter XII.–Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be sought.

He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave
orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought
out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews;
and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over
the Jews. [697]

[697] It is not certain that Eusebius intends to give Hegesippus as his
authority for the statements of this chapter, inasmuch as he does not
mention his name. He gives the account, however, upon the authority of
some one else, and not as a direct historical statement, for the verb
is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to supply ;;Egesippos
historei, the last words of the preceding chapter, than to supply any
other phrase, such as logos katechei, which occurs two chapters
earlier. The translators are divided as to the words that are to be
supplied, but it seems to me beyond doubt that this account rests upon
the same authority as that of the previous chapter. There is in any
case nothing at all unlikely in the report, as Vespasian and his
successors kept a very close watch upon the Jews, and this would have
been a very natural method of endeavoring to prevent future
revolutions. The same course was pursued also by Domitian; see below,
chaps. 19 and 20. We hear from no other source of a persecution raised
against the Jews by Vespasian, and we may therefore conclude that it
cannot have amounted to much, if indeed it deserves to be called a
persecution at all.

Chapter XIII.–Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him.
[698] In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of
the church of Rome for twelve years, [699] delivered his office to
Anencletus. [700] But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after
he had reigned two years and the same number of months. [701]

[698] Vespasian reigned from July 1 (if his reign be dated from the
time he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of
Vitellius, Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 a.d.

[699] In his Chron. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus’
episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.
Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note 1.

[700] Of Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing
more than that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of
Rome. Hippolytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus, out of the
one man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic Church (see above,
chap. 2, note 1). According to chap. 15, Anencletus held office twelve

[701] Titus died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned two years and
six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius states.

Chapter XIV.–Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, [702] the first bishop of the
parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and
was succeeded by Abilius, [703] the second bishop.

[702] 85 a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

[703] ‘Abilios. According to one tradition Abilius was ordained
presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith and
Wace). According to another (Ap. Const. VII. 46) he was appointed
bishop by Luke. He held office thirteen years according to chap. 21,
below. Valesius claims that the name should be written Avilius,
regarding it as a Latin name, and citing in support of his opinion the
name of a prefect of Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned by Philo, and
the fact that the name of Avilius’ predecessor, Annianus, is also

Chapter XV.–Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus
[704] after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve
years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that
this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: [705]
”With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the
book of life.”

[704] On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.

[705] Phil. iv. 3. For an account of Clement, see above, chap. 4, note
19; and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops, see chap. 2,
note 1.

Chapter XVI.–The Epistle of Clement.

There is extant an epistle of this Clement [706] which is acknowledged
to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit.
[707] He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of
Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. [708] We know
that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches
both in former times and in our own. [709] And of the fact that a
sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred
to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. [710]

[706] This epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek mss.,
and in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine chapters, and is found
in all editions of the Apostolic Fathers. It purports to have been
written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, but bears the
name of no author. Unanimous tradition, however (beginning with
Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes it to Clement,
Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an exception, accept it as
his work. It was, in all probability, written immediately after the
persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the first century, and is
one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest, post-biblical works
which we have. It was held in very high repute in the early Church, and
in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among the canonical books as a part
of the New Testament (though this is exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above,
and chap. 25, below, in both of which this epistle is omitted, though
Eusebius is giving lists of New Testament books, both accepted and
disputed). We have had the epistle complete only since 1875, when
Bryennios discovered a ms. containing it and other valuable works.
Previously a part of the epistle had been wanting. In consequence the
older editions have been superseded by the more recent. See appendix to
Lightfoot’s edition (1877), which gives the recovered portions of the
text; so, also, the later editions of Gebhardt and Harnack’s, and of
Hilgenfeld’s Apostolic Fathers. The epistle is translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 5-21.

[707] megEURle te kai thaumasia.

[708] See the epistle itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3. It was these
seditions in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle.

[709] Compare the words of Dionysius of Corinth, in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
Though the epistle was held in high esteem, it was not looked upon as a
part of the New Testament canon.

[710] Hegesippus’ testimony upon this point is no longer extant.

Chapter XVII.–The Persecution under Domitian.

Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly
put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and
having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great
many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his
hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up
a persecution against us, [711] although his father Vespasian had
undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. [712]

[711] The persecutions under Nero and Domitian were not undertaken by
the state as such; they were simply personal matters, and established
no precedent as to the conduct of the state toward Christianity. They
were rather spasmodic outbursts of personal enmity, but were looked
upon with great horror as the first to which the Church was subjected.
There was no general persecution, which took in all parts of the
empire, until the reign of Decius (249-251), but Domitian’s cruelty and
ferocity were extreme, and many persons of the highest rank fell under
his condemnation and suffered banishment and even death, not especially
on account of Christianity, though there were Christians among them,
but on account of his jealousy, and for political reasons of various
sorts. That Domitian’s persecution of the Christians was not of long
duration is testified by Tertullian, Apol. 5. Upon the persecutions of
the Christians, see, among other works, Wieseler’s Die
Christenverfolgungen der Caesaren, hist. und chronolog. untersucht,
1878; Uhlhorn’s Der Kampf des Christenthums mit dem Heidenthum, English
translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; and especially the keen essay of
Overbeck, Gesetze der roemischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his
Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. (1875).

[712] The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian is
abundantly confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the opposite
effect. Compare Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 5, where the persecutions of
Nero and Domitian are recorded.

Chapter XVIII.–The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.

1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John,
who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in
consequence of his testimony to the divine word. [713]

2. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he
discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the
so-called Apocalypse of John, [714] speaks as follows concerning him:

3. ”If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the
present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the
revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”

4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at
that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did
not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the
martyrdoms which took place during it. [716]

5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded
that in the fifteenth year of Domitian [717] Flavia Domitilla, daughter
of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls
of Rome, [718] was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in
consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

[713] Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenaeus (V. 30. 3, quoted
just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of John
and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian. This was formerly
the common opinion, and is still held by some respectable writers, but
strong internal evidence has driven most modern scholars to the
conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore (upon the assumption
that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon which see chap. 24, note 19)
taking place under Nero instead of Domitian. If we accept this, we have
the remarkable phenomenon of an event taking place at an earlier date
than that assigned it by tradition, an exceptional and inexplicable
thing. We have too the difficulty of accounting for the erroneousness
of so early and unanimous a tradition. The case thus stood for years,
until in 1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Die Offenbarung des
Johannes, eine juedische Apocalypse in Christlicher Bearbeitung
(Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Band II. Heft. 3),
which if his theory were true, would reconcile external and internal
evidence in a most satisfactory manner, throwing the original into the
reign of Nero’s successor, and the Christian recension into the reign
of Domitian. Compare especially Harnack’s appendix to Vischer’s
pamphlet; and upon the Apocalypse itself, see chap. 24, below.

[714] Rev. xiii. 18. It will be noticed that Eusebius is careful not to
commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the
Apocalypse. See below, chap. 24, note 20.

[715] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap.

[716] Jerome, in his version of the Chron. of Eusebius (year of Abr.
2112), says that the historian and chronographer Bruttius recorded that
many of the Christians suffered martyrdom under Domitian. Since the
works of Bruttius are not extant, we have no means of verifying the
statement. Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) relates some of the banishments
which took place under Domitian, among them that of Flavia Domitilla,
who was, as we know, a Christian; but he does not himself say that any
of these people were Christians, nor does he speak of a persecution of
the Christians.

[717] We learn from Suetonius (Domit. chap. 15) that the events
referred to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the very end
of Domitian’s reign; that is, in the year 96 a.d., the fifteenth year
of his reign, as Eusebius says. Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14) puts
these events in the same year.

[718] Flavius Clemens was a cousin of Domitian, and his wife,
Domitilla, a niece of the emperor. They stood high in favor, and their
two sons were designated as heirs to the empire, while Flavius Clemens
himself was made Domitian’s colleague in the consulship. But
immediately afterward Clemens was put to death and Domitilla was
banished. Suetonius (Domit, chap. 15) accuses Clemens of contemtissimae
inertiae, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of atheism (atheotetos). These
accusations are just such as heathen writers of that age were fond of
making against the Christians (compare, for instance, Athenagoras’ Adv.
Gent. chap. 4, and Tertullian’s Apol. chap. 42). Accordingly it has
been very commonly held that both Flavius Clemens and Domitilla were
Christians, and were punished on that account. But early tradition
makes only Domitilla a Christian; and certainly if Clemens also–a man
of such high rank–had been a Christian, an early tradition to that
effect would be somewhere preserved. We must, therefore, conclude that
his offense was something else than Christianity. The very silence of
Christian tradition as to Clement is an argument for the truth of the
tradition in regard to Domitilla, and the heathen historians referred
to confirm its main points, though they differ in minor details. The
Acts of Martyrdom of Nereus and Achilles represent Domitilla as the
niece, not the wife, of Flavius Clemens, and Eusebius does the same.
More than that, while the heathen writers report that Domitilla was
banished to the island Pandeteria, these Acts, as well as Eusebius and
Jerome (Ep. adv. Eustachium, Migne’s ed., Ep. CVIII. 7), give the
island of Pontia as the place of banishment. Tillemont and other
writers have therefore assumed that there were two Domitillas,–aunt
and niece,–one banished to one island, the other to another. But this
is very improbable, and it is easier to suppose that there was but one
Domitilla and but one island, and that the discrepancies are due to
carelessness or to the mistakes of transcribers. Pandeteria and Pontia
were two small islands in the Mediterranean, just west of central
Italy, and were very frequently employed by the Roman emperors as
places of exile for prisoners.

Chapter XIX.–Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.

But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David
should be slain, an ancient tradition says [719] that some of the
heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to
have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the
ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to
Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.

[719] palaios katechei logos. It is noticeable that, although Eusebius
has the written authority of Hegesippus for this account, he still
speaks of it as supported by ”ancient tradition.” This is different
from his ordinary custom, and serves to make us careful in drawing
conclusions as to the nature of Eusebius’ authority for any statement
from the expression used in introducing it.