Eusebius, Church History (1st Century A.D. – first half of the 4th century A.D.)

Book III


Contents

Chapter I. The Parts of the World in Which the Apostles Preached Christ.

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

Chapter III. The Epistles of the Apostles.

Chapter IV. The First Successors of the Apostles.

Chapter V. The Last Siege of the Jews After Christ.

Chapter VI. The Famine Which Oppressed Them.

Chapter VII. The Predictions of Christ.

Chapter VIII. The Signs Which Preceded the War.

Chapter IX. Josephus and the Works Which He Has Left.

Chapter X. The Manner in Which Josephus Mentions the Divine Books.

Chapter XI. Symeon Rules the Church of Jerusalem After James.

Chapter XII. Vespasian Commands the Descendants of David to Be Sought.

Chapter XIII. Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

Chapter XIV. Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

Chapter XV. Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

Chapter XVI. The Epistle of Clement.

Chapter XVII. The Persecution Under Domitian.

Chapter XVIII. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.

Chapter XIX. Domitian Commands the Descendants of David to Be Slain.

Chapter XX. The Relatives of Our Saviour.

Chapter XXI. Cerdon Becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of Alexandria.

Chapter XXII. Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.

Chapter XXIII. Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.

Chapter XXIV. The Order of the Gospels.

Chapter XXV. The Divine Scriptures that are Accepted and Those that are Not.216

Chapter XXVI. Menander the Sorcerer.

Chapter XXVII. The Heresy of the Ebionites.262

Chapter XXVIII. Cerinthus the Heresiarch.

Chapter XXIX. Nicolaus and the Sect Named After Him.

Chapter XXX. The Apostles that Were Married.

Chapter XXXI. The Death of John and Philip.

Chapter XXXII. Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, Suffers Martyrdom.

Chapter XXXIII. Trajan Forbids the Christians to Be Sought After.

Chapter XXXIV. Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.

Chapter XXXV. Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.

Chapter XXXVI. Ignatius and His Epistles.

Chapter XXXVII. The Evangelists that Were Still Eminent at that Time.

Chapter XXXVIII. The Epistle of Clement and the Writings Falsely Ascribed to Him.

Chapter XXXIX. The Writings of Papias.


Book III.

Chapter I.

The Parts of the World in Which the Apostles Preached Christ.

1 Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world.1 Parthia,2 according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia3 to Andrew,4 and Asia5 to John,6 who, after he had lived some time there,7 died at Ephesus.

2 Peter appears to have preached8 in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia9 to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards;10 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,11 and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?12 These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.13

Chapter II.

The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

1 After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus14 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.15

Chapter III.

The Epistles of the Apostles.

1 One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine.16 And this the ancient elders17 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.18 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;19 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.20

2 The so-called Acts of Peter,21 however, and the Gospel22 which bears his name, and the Preaching23 and the Apocalypse,24 as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted,25 because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.26

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,27 and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings,28 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 genuine29 and acknowledged by the ancient elders.30

5 Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.31 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews,32 saying that it is disputed33 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.34 In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,35 I have not found them among the undisputed writings.36

6 But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans,37 has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd38 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.

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,39 and from theaccount which Luke has given in the Acts.40

2 And in how many provinces Peterpreached 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,41 in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.42

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 rounded 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,43 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.44

6 Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus,45 Titus of the churches in Crete.46

7 But Luke,47 who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession,48 and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles,49 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,50 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.51 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles52 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.”53

9 As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul;54 but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy55 as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.56

10 Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.57

11 Besides these, that Areopa gite, 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)58 is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth,59 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 history.

Chapter V.

The Last Siege of the Jews After Christ.

1 After Nero had held the power thirteen years,60 and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months,61 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.62 Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.63

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,64 and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded,65 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.66 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,67 relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”68

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.69 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,70 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.71

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,72 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.

Chapter VI.

The Famine Which Oppressed Them.

1 Taking the fifth book of the History ofJosephus again in our hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred.73

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 and6fear 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 froth 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:74 “The possibility of going out of the city being brought to an end,75 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 city.

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 thedead 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 doing.”

19 After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:76 “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:77 “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.78

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 Bathezor79 (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,80 and a byeword 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 already81 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 these.”

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

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:82 “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,83 and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain.84 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,85 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.86

4 These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian,87 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 be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said:88

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,89 “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:90 “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.91

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,92 it is not necessary to add anything to the 9 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,93 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 repent.

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.

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:94 “Thus were the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false prophets;95 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,96 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,97 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.’98

7 But what follows is still more7 terrible; for a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war,99 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,100 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 8 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 before.

9 And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a higher power, brought him before the Roman governor.101 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 Jerusalem.’”

10 The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than this. He says102 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 11 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.”103 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.”104

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:105 “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,106 and his works were deemed worthy of a place in the library.107

3 He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews108 in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books.109 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.110 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,111 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. Apparently112 drawing his information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were accepted without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.

Chapter X.

The Manner in Which Josephus Mentions the Divine Books.

1113 “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 history114 down to his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years.115

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.116 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.117

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,118 which some have called Maccabaicum,119 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 Antiquities120 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.121 And the same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by himself.122

8 In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words that are found at the close of his Antiquities,123 in confirmation of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place he attacks Justus of Tiberias,124 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:125

9 “I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were,126 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 Agrippa127 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.128 But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with our history.

Chapter XI.

Symeon Rules the Church of Jerusalem After James.

1 After the martyrdom of James129 and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed,130 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 flesh131 (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,132 the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention;133 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.134

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.135

Chapter XIII.

Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.

After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him.136 In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years,137 delivered his office to Anencletus.138 But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian after he had reigned two years and the same number of months.139

Chapter XIV.

Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.

In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus,140 the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius,141 the second bishop.

Chapter XV.

Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.

In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus142 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:143 “With Clement arid the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life.”

Chapter XVI.

The Epistle of Clement.

There is extant an epistle of this Clement144 which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit.145 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.146 We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own.147 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.148

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,149 although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.150

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.151

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,152 speaks as follows concerning him:153

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.154

5 And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian155 Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome,156 was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

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 says157 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.

Chapter XX.

The Relatives of Our Saviour.

1 “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.158

2 Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus.159 For Domitian feared the coming ing of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii,160

4 half of which belonged to each of them; and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes161 and supported themselves by their own labor.”162

5 Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6 And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7 Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8 But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses163 and were also relatives of the Lord.164 And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

9 Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words:165 “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence,166 he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.”

10 But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years,167 and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days,168 voted that Domitian’s honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time 11 that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.169

Chapter XXI.

Cerdon Becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of Alexandria.

1 After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year170 he was succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign that Abilius,171 who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon.172

2 He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus,173 who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter.

3 Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus,174

Chapter XXII.

Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.

11 At this time Ignatius175 was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first.176 Symeon177 likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.

Chapter XXIII.

Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.

1 At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on the island.178

2 And that he was still alive at that time179 may be established by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.180

3 The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes as follows:181 “And all the elders that associated with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan.”182

4 And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in the following words:183 “But the church in Ephesus also, which was founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition.”

5 Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved?184 indicates the time,185 and subjoins a narrative which is most attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and profitable. Take and read the account which rums as follows:186 “Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative187 concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured up in memory. For when, after the tyrant’s death,188 he returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one189 of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.

7 When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of which is given by some190 ), and had consoled the brethren in other matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of ardent temperament, he said, ‘This one I commit to thee in all earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.’ And when the bishop had accepted the Charge and had promised all, he repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and then departed for Ephesus.

8 But the presbyter191 taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized192 him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in putting upon him the seal of the Lord193 he had given him a perfect protection.

9 But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments; then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some greater crime.

10 He gradually became accustomed to such practices, and on account of the positiveness of his character,194 leaving the right path, and taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful horse, he rushed the more violently down into the depths.

11 And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel of them all.

12 Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John. But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which he had come, said, ‘Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest, being witness.’

13 But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor could he disbelieve John. But when he said, ‘I demand the young man and the soul of the brother,’ the old man, groaning deeply and at the same time bursting into tears, said, ‘He is dead.’ ‘How and what kind of death?’ ‘He is dead to God,’ he said; ‘for he turned wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he haunts the mountain with a band like himself.’

14 But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great lamentation, he said, ‘A fine guard I left for a brother’s soul! But let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.’ He rode away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was taken prisoner by the robbers’ outpost.

15 He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, but cried out, ‘For this did I come; lead me to your captain.’

16 The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.

17 But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might, crying out, ‘Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father, unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee will I give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.’

18 And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with tears, and concealing only his right hand.

19 But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees, kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.”

Chapter XXIV.

The Order of the Gospels.

1 This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.

2 And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine.195 That it has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way.

3 Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.

4 And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles,196 although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.197

5 And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples198 of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6 For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue,199 and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels,200 they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.201

8 And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,202 and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

9 For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.”203

10 Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.”204 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.”205

11 They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus";206 and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Aenon near Salim;207 where he states the matter clearly in the words: “For John was not yet cast into prison.”208

12 John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13 One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit.209

14 These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us.210

15 But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.211

16 So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them.

17 But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times.212 But the other two are disputed.213

18 In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided.214 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.215

Chapter XXV.

The Divine Scriptures that are Accepted
and Those that are Not.
216

1 Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;217 following them the Acts of the Apostles.218

2 After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul;219 next in order the extant former epistle of John,220 and likewise the epistle of Peter,221 must be maintained.222 After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John,223 concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time.224 These then belong among the accepted writings.225

3 Among the disputed writings,226 which are nevertheless recognized227 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James228 and that of Jude,229 also the second epistle of Peter,230 and those that are called the second and third of John,231 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

4 Among the rejected writings232 must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul,233 and the so-called Shepherd,234 and the Apocalypse of Peter,235 and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,236 and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;237 and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject,238 but which others class with the accepted books.239

5 And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews,240 with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.241

6 But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted,242 from those others which, although not canonical but disputed,243 are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers-we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter,244 of Thomas,245 of Matthias,246 or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew247 and John248 and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7 And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics.249 Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected250 writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.

Let us now proceed with our history.

Chapter XXVI.

Menander the Sorcerer.

1 Menander,251 who succeeded Simon Magus,252 showed himself in his conduct another instrument of diabolical power,253 not inferior to the former. He also was a Samaritan and carried his sorceries to no less an extent than his teacher had done, and at the same time reveled in still more marvelous tales than he.

2 For he said that he was himself the Saviour, who had been sent down from invisible aeons for the salvation of men;254 and he taught that no one could gain the mastery over the world-creating angels themselves255 unless he had first gone through the magical discipline imparted by him and had received baptism from him. Those who were deemed worthy of this would partake even in the present life of perpetual immortality, and would never die, but would remain here forever, and without growing old become immortal.256 These facts can be easily learned from the works of Irenaeus.257

3 And Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, gives an account of this man also, in the following words:258 “And we know that a certain Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the village of Capparattea,259 was a disciple of Simon, and that he also, being driven by the demons, came to Antioch260 and deceived many by his magical art. And he persuaded his followers that they should not die. And there are still some of them that assert this.”

4 And it was indeed an artifice of the devil to endeavor, by means of such sorcerers, who assumed the name of Christians, to defame the great mystery of godliness by magic art, and through them to make ridiculous the doctrines of the Church concerning the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the dead.261 But they that have chosen these men as their saviours have fallen away from the true hope.

Chapter XXVII.

The Heresy of the Ebionites.262

1 The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ.263

2 For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.264

3 There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name,265 but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed,266 being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law.267

4 These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law;268 and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews269 and made small account of the rest.

5 The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord’s days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour.270

6 Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.271

Chapter XXVIII.

Cerinthus the Heresiarch.

1 We have understood that at this time Cerinthus,272 the author of another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted above,273 in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as follows concerning this man:

2 “But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts, with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a thousand years274 for marriage festivals.”275

3 And Dionysius,276 who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from tradition, mentions this same man in the following words:277

4 “But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.

5 And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.”

6 These are the words of Dionysius. But Iranaeus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies,278 gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”279

Chapter XXIX.

Nicolaus and the Sect Named After Him.

1 At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the Apocalypse of John.280 They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor.281 Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following things concerning him.282

2 “They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, commit fornication without shame.

3 But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, ‘to abuse the flesh,’ he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord.283

4 But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge.”284 So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct.

Chapter XXX.

The Apostles that Were Married.

1 Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.285 “Or will they,” says he,286 “reject even the apostles? For Peter287 and Philip288 begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife,289 whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.”

2 And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows:290 “They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Oh thou, remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them.” This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

Chapter XXXI.

The Death of John and Philip.

1 The time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as their burial places, have been already shown by us.291

2 The time of John’s death has also been given in a general way,292 but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates293 (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor,294 bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words:295

3 “For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles,296 who sleeps in Hierapolis,297 and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus;298 and moreover John, who was both a witness299 and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the sacerdotal plate.300 He also sleeps at Ephesus.”301

4 So much concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which we mentioned a little above,302 Proclus,303 against whom he directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted,304 speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters: “After him305 there were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of their father.” Such is his statement.

5 But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of Philip who were at that time at Caesarea in Judea with their father, and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows: “We came unto Caesarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.”306

6 We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age, and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been publicly used by many in a great number of churches,307 and moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let us now proceed with our history.

Chapter XXXII.

Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, Suffers Martyrdom.

1 It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording,308 a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising.309 In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem,310 suffered martyrdom.

2 Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places,311 is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics312 he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.313

3 But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David314 and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years,315 while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”316

4 And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family.317 And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord,318 judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas,319 who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.320

5 The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded,321 in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.

6 He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church322 as witnesses323 and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan,324 and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause325 before the governor Atticus.326 And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.”

7 In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.

8 But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers,327 who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.’328

Chapter XXXIII.

Trajan Forbids the Christians to Be Sought After.

1 So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors, being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for their faith.329 At the same time, he informed him in his communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or contrary to the laws,-except that they arose at dawn330 and sang hymns to Christ as a God; but that they, renounced adultery and murder and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the laws.

2 In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished. On account of this the persecution which had threatened to be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm. Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular provinces,331 and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various forms.

3 We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian which we mentioned above.332 The translation runs as follows:333 “And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden.334 For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity,335 he was confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice,336 he had found no impiety in them.

4 And he reported this also, that the Christians arose337 early in the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose of preserving their discipline338 forbade murder, adultery, avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be punished.” Such were the events which took place at that time.

Chapter XXXIV.

Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.

1 In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above,339 Clement340 committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus,341 and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.

Chapter XXXV.

Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.

1 But when Symeon also had died in the manner described,342 a certain Jew by the name of Justus343 succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.

Chapter XXXVI.

Ignatius and His Epistles.

1 At that time Polycarp,344 a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.

2 And at the same time Papias,345 bishop of the parish of Hierapolis,346 became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.347 Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ.348

4 And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest military surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities where he stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the tradition of the apostles. Moreover, he thought it necessary to attest that tradition in writing, and to give it a fixed form for the sake of greater security.

5 So when he came to Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote an epistle to the church of Ephesus,349 in which he. mentions Onesimus, its pastor;350 and another to the church of Magnesia, situated upon the Maeander, in which he makes mention again of a bishop Damas; and finally one to the church of Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at that time Polybius.

6 In addition to these he wrote also to the church of Rome, entreating them not to secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob him of his earnest hope. In confirmation of what has been said it is proper to quote briefly from this epistle.

7 He writes as follows:351 “From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards352 that is, a company of soldiers who only become worse when they are well treated. In the midst of their wrongdoings, however, I am more fully learning discipleship, but I am not thereby justified.353

8 May I have joy of the beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray that I may find them ready; I will even coax them to devour me quickly that they may not treat me as they have some whom they have refused to touch through fear.354 And if they are unwilling, I will compel them. Forgive me.

9 I know what is expedient for me. Now do I begin to be a disciple. May naught of things visible and things invisible envy me;355 that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Let fire and cross and attacks of wild beasts, let wrenching of bones, cutting of limbs, crushing of the whole body, tortures of the devil,-let all these come upon me if only I may attain unto Jesus Christ.”

10 These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from Troas356 to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to care diligently for it.357

11 And the same man, writing to the Smyrnaeans, used the following words concerning Christ, taken I know not whence:358 “But I know and believe that he was in the flesh after the resurrection. And when he came to Peter and his companions he said to them, Take, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.359 And immediately they touched him and believed.”360

12 Irenaeus also knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in the following words:361 “As one of our people said, when he was condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony unto God, I am God’s wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I ground, that I may be found pure bread.”

13 Polycarp also mentions these letters in the epistle to the Philippians which is ascribed to him.362 His words are as follows:363 “I exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus,364 but also in others from among yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles; being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the present world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us.”

14 And afterwards he adds:365 “You have written to me, both you and Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he may carry with him the letters from you. And this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity, either I myself or one whom I send to be an ambassador for you also.

15 The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge. They are appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able to derive great advantage. For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind of edification that pertaineth to our Lord.” So much concerning Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros366 in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.

Chapter XXXVII.

The Evangelists that Were Still Eminent at that Time.

1 Among those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus,367 who, report says, was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for his prophetical gifts. And there were many others besides these who were known in those days, and who occupied the first place among the successors of the apostles. And they also, being illustrious disciples of such great men, built up the foundations of the churches which had been laid by the apostles in every place, and preached the Gospel more and more widely and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of heaven far and near throughout the whole world.368

2 For indeed most of the disciples of that time, animated by the divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy,369 had already fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods to the needy.370 Then starting out upon long journeys they performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the divine Gospels.

3 And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the grace and the co-operation of God. For a great many wonderful works were done through them by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at the first hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the Creator of the universe.

4 But since it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of all that became shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the world in the age immediately succeeding the apostles, we have recorded, as was fitting, the names of those only who have transmitted the apostolic doctrine to us in writings still extant.

Chapter XXXVIII.

The Epistle of Clement
and the Writings Falsely Ascribed to Him.

1 Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned,371 and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.372 In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.

2 Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this Clement himself, translated the epistle.

3 The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not very different.373

4 But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of it.374

5 And certain menhave lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion.375 But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The acknowledged writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of the works of Ignatius and Polycarp.376

Chapter XXXIX.

The Writings of Papias.

1 There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.377 Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him,378 in the following words:379 “These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him.” These are the words of Irenaeus.

2 But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends.380

3 He says: “But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations381 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver383 the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing from the truth itself.

4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion385 and the presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books387 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”

5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him.388 The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John’s.389 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John390

7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8 But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9 That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated.391 But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time392 one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10 The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: “And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said.”393

11 The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.394

12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.395 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding,396 as one can see from his discourses. but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.397

14 Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15 “This also the presbyter398 said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.399 For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” These things are related 16 by Papias concerning Mark. 16But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.

*************************

Footnotes

1 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 Apostolorurn 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.

2 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.

3 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.

4 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.

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

6 The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John’s later life to Ephesus: e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Hoer. 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, Holtz-mann, 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 Weizs,,cker 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. 4.

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

8 The language of Origen (kekhruxenai eoiken, instead of logoj exei or paradosij periexei) 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.

9 Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1.

10 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.

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

12 See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.

13 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.

14 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. Hoer. 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.

15 2Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenaeus, Adv. Hoer. III. 3.3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians (longer version), chap. 7.

16 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 hamologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely ungenuine. The Tübingen 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 Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.

17 oi palai presbuteroi. On the use of the term “elders” among the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.

18 wj anamfilektw.

19 ouk endiaqhkon men einai pareilhfamen. 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, §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 Zwölf 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.

20 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.

21 These praceij (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 twn apostolwn, 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.

22 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. I), 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 Docetoe, 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.

23 This Preaching of Peter (Khrugma Petrou,Proedicatio 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 khrugmata. 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 Preachings 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.

24 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. It 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 (§§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.

25 oud/ olw/ en kaqolikaij ismen paradedomena.

26 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.

27 twn antilegomenwn.

28 peri twn endiaqhkwn kai omologoumenwn.

29 wn monhn mian gnhsian egnwn.

30 As above; see note 2.

31 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 Tübingen 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 Watte in 1826, and the Tübingen 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 Tübingen 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. Weizsäcker 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 Tübingen 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 e ither Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsäcker 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, Weizsäcker, 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.

32 tinej hqethkasi. 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 au-thorship 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, antilegesqai, 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.

33 antilegesqai.

34 See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.

35 These praceij are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they are classed among the noqoi, 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 praceij 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.

36 ouoe mhn taj legomenaj autou praceij en anamfilektoij pareihfa.

37 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.

38 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. II). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it among the noqoi 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 Schürer, Gesch. des jüdischen 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 said 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.

39 Rom. xv. 19.

40 From Acts ix. on.

41 In chap. 3, §1.

42 1 Pet. i. 1.

43 Phil. ii. 25;Philem. 2.

44 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).

45 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 istoreitai, 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.

46 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’s Apostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63). Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 4.

47 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.

48 See Col. iv. 14.

49 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.

50 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 as first distinctly ascribed to Luke by Irenõus (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.

51 Luke I. 2.Luke I. 3.

52 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, Manichean’s, &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. Quoest. 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. I. I) 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 Tubingen 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 Weizsacker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 569 sq.

53 Rom. ii. 16Rom. xvi. 25;2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression fasi, “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 euaggelion 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. §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.

54 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is eporeuqh, which means simply “went” or “is gone.” That Paul had sent him as Eusebius states (using the word steilamenoj) is not implied in the epistle. Instead of eij taj Galliaj (or thn Gallian) most of the ancient mss. of the New Testament have eij 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 taj Galliaj. Christophorsonus in his edition of Eusebius reads epi thn Galatian, but entirely without ms. authority. Epiphanius (Hoer. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10 should be read Gallia and not Galatia: on gar en th Galatia wj planhqenthj nomisonsin, alla en th Gallia. Theodoret (in 2 Tim. IV. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning taj Galliaj: outw gar ekalounto palai.

55 2 Tim. iv. 21.

56 See chap. 2, note 1, above.

57 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. or 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.

58 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 partin 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, §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.

59 Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.

60 Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.

61 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 months.

62 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at Alexandria, July I, 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.

63 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.

64 SeeActs vii. 8 sqq.

65 SeeActs xii. 2.

66 See Bk. II. chap. 23.

67 See chap. 1, note 1.

68 SeeMatt. xxviii. 19.

69 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. I8, and Josephus, B. F. III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records this flight of the Christians to Pella.

70 Dan. ix. 27.

71 Josephus, B. F. Bks. V. and VI.

72 B. F. VI. 9,§§3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers. Josephus in §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, §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 articleFerusalem, in Smith'sBible 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.

73 Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§2 and 3.

74 Ibid. chap. 12, §§3 and 4.

75 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.

76 Ibid. chap. 13, §6.

77 Ibid. Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§3 and 4.

78 ‘Attikwn tessarwn; the word draxmwn 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.

79 bagezwr. Some mss. have baqexwr, and the mss. of Josephus have bhqezwb, which Whiston translates Bethezub.

80 “In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death” (Stroth).

81 hdh. All the mss. of Eusebius read umwn. Some of the mss. of Josephus read hdh, 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 hmisu, 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 Rufinus.

82 Matt. xxiv. 19-21.

83 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, §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.

84 Ibid. §2.

85 eij ta kat= sAigupton erga. 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.

86 Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves was upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid. §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.

87 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. Schürer, N. T. Zeitgesch. p. 347.)

88 Luke xix. 42-44.

89 Ibid. xxi. 23, xxi. 24.

90 Ibid. verse 20.

91 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.

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

93 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

94 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, §3.

95 katayeudomenoi tou qeou. 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 Crusè does), which is indefinite, and might have various meanings.

96 The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek name of the month used here is canqikoj, 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.

97 Artemisioj. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month (elafhboliwn), 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.

98 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 metabainwmen, “let us go hence,” and I have followed Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting that reading.

99 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.

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

101 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 I.

102 See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.

103 Ps. ii. 8.

104 Ps. xix. 4.

105 B. J., Preface, §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.

106 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 tell.

107 In §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, §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 Domitian.

108 ‘Iondaikh ‘Arxailogia, Antiquitates Judaicoe. 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.

109 9Istoria, ‘Ioudaikou prolemou proj 9Rwmaiouj, 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, §1).

110 The work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, §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.

111 The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri arxaisthtoj ‘Ioudaiwn kata ‘Apiwnoj, 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 there.

112 wsan.

113 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:-

Genesis.

Books of Moses

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 inclnded by Origen here only because be 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 anthorita-rive 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.

114 Literally, “the tradition respecting the origin of man (anqrwpogoniaj) 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.”

115 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.

116 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.

117 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.

118 eij Makkabaiouj logoj h peri autokratoroj 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.

119 Makkabaikon.

120 Ant. XX. 11. 3. See the previous chapter, note 7.

121 See the same note.

122 See the same note.

123 The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in his Life, §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.

124 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, basileij ‘Ioudaioi oi en toij 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.

125 Vita, §65.

126 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.

127 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.

128 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 friend.”

129 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.

130 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.

131 logoj katexei. 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 logoj katexei, 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 themselves.

132 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 Alphaaeus, 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.

133 In John xix. 25.

134 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.

135 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 9Hghsippoj istorei, the last words of the preceding chapter, than to supply any other phrase, such as logoj katexei, 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.

136 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.

137 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.

138 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 years.

139 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.

140 85 a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

141 ‘Abilioj. 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 Latin.

142 On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.

143 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.

144 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. Unanimons 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.

145 megalh te kai qaumasia.

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

147 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.

148 Hegesippus’ testimony upon this point is no longer extant.

149 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 Cäsaren, 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 römischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in his Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. (1875).

150 The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasianis 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.

151 Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenaaeus (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 jüdische 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.

152 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.

153 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap. 8.

154 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.

155 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.

156 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 (aqethtoj). 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.

157 palaioj katexei logoj. 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.

158 This Jude was the brother of James, “the brother of the Lord,” who is mentioned in Jude 1, and is to be distinguished from Jude (Thaddeus-Lebbaeus), one of the Twelve, whose name appears in the catalogues of Luke (Luke vi. 14 and Acts i. 13) as the son of James (not his brother, as the A.V. translates: the Greek words are ‘Ioudaj ‘Iakwbou). For a discussion of the relationship of these men to Christ, see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. Of the son of Jude and father of the young men mentioned in this chapter we know nothing.

159 According to Andrew’s Lexicon, “An Evocatus was a soldier who, having served out his time, was called upon to do military duty as a volunteer.”

This suspiciousness is perfectly in keeping with the character of Domitian. The same thing is told also of Vespasian, in chap. 12; but in his case the political situation was far more serious, and revolutions under the lead of one of the royal family might most naturally be expected just after the terrible destruction. The same act is also mentioned in connection with Trajan, in chap. 32, and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness, for the Jews were well known as a most rebellious and troublesome people.

160 A denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen, or, according to others, about nineteen, cents.

161 “Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the land” (Val.).

162 Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Crusè, &c.) regard the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through §8; but it really ends here, and from this point on Eusebius reproduces the sense in his own words (and so Bright gives it in his edition). This is perfectly clear, for in the first place, the infinitive epideiknunai occurs in the next sentence, a form possible only in indirect discourse: and secondly, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the statement of §8 is repeated in chap. 32, §6, and there in the exact language of Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of §8 to show that the latter is a free reproduction.

163 marturaj. On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.

164 Compare Renan’s Les Evangiles, p. 466.

165 Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5.

166 ti sunesewj. Lat. sed qua et homo.

167 Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d., to Sept. 18, 96.

168 See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius' Domitian, chap. 23.

169 Literally, “the word of the ancients among us” (o twn par hmin arxaiwn logoj).) On the tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.

170 From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d.

171 On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.

172 According to the legendary Acts of St. Mark, Cerdo was one of the presbyters ordained by Mark. According to Eusebius (H. E. IV. I and Chron.) he held office until the twelfth year of Trajan.

173 On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.

174 On the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see above, chap. 2, note 1. Paul and Peter are here placed together by Eusebius, as co-bishops of Rome. Compare the association of the two apostles by Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap. 25).

175 On Ignatius’ life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap. 36.

176 We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make him the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the Apost. Const. VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement of Rome). The fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old and too strong to be set aside. Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. On their chronology, see Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatuis, and cf. Salmon’s article Evodius, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.

177 On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.

178 See chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note 1.

179 That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.

180 The test of a man’s trustworthiness in Eusebius’ mind-and not in his alone-was his orthodoxy. Irenæus has always been looked upon as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church, which reckoned him among the saints. His name, however, was omitted in the Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground that his orthodoxy was open to suspicion.

181 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II. 22. 5.

182 It is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John’s continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6). Irenaeus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in III. 3, 4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion as to Christ’s age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the preceding paragraph of Irenaeus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of John viii. 56, John viii. 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony (which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion) is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted. Such a fact as John’s own presence in Ephesus at a certain period could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of Eusebius’ method that he omits entirely Irenaeus’ statement as to the length of Christ’s ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk. I. chap. 10), while extracting from his statement the single fact which he wishes here to establish. The falsity of the context he must have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenaeus, the great maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it. The information which John is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the “presbyters of Asia” is that Christ lived to old age. The whole passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition. Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in the determination of the truth of history.

183 Adv. Haer. III. 3, 4.

184 tij o swzomenoj plousioj: Quis Dives salvetur. This able and interesting little treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still extant, and is found in the various editions of Clement’s works; English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p.591-604. The sound common sense of the book, and its freedom from undue asceticism are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing contrast to most of the writings of that age.

185 He indicates the time only by saying “after the tyrant was dead,” which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero. But the mention of John a little below as “an aged man” would seem to point to the end of the century rather than to Nero’s time. At any rate, Eusebius understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in the presence of unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence of any counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him otherwise.

186 Quis Dives salvetur, chap. 42.

187 muqon ou muqon, alla onta logon. Clement in these words asserts the truth of the story which he relates. We cannot regard it as very strongly corroborated, for no one else records it, and yet we can hardly doubt that Clement gives it in good faith. It may have been an invention of some early Christian, but it is so fully in accord with what we know of John’s character that there exists no reason for refusing to believe that at least a groundwork of truth underlies it, even though the story may have gained in the telling of it. It is certainly beautiful, and fully worthy of the “beloved disciple.”

188 See note 8.

189 klhrw ena ge tina klhrwswn. Compare the note of Heinichen in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word klhroj in the early Church, see Baur’s Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2d ed., p. 266 sq., and especially Ritschl’s Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, 2d ed., p. 388 sq. Ritschl shows that the word klhroj was originally used by the Fathers in the general sense of order or rank (Reihe, Rang), and that from this arose its later use to denote church officers as a class,-the clergy. As he remarks, the word is employed in this later specific sense for the first time in this passage of Clement’s Quis Dives salvetur. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian are the next ones to use it in the same sense. Ritschl remarks in connection with this passage: “Da für eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das Loos alle sonstigen Beweisen fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden Satze die Einsetzung yon einer Mehrzahl von episkopoi durch den Apostel ohne jede Methode erwähnt wird, so fällt jeder Grund hinweg, dass bei der Wahl einzelner Beamten das Mittel des Loosens angewandt sein sollte, zumal bei dieser Deutung ein Pleonasmus vorausgesetzt w_rde. Es ist vielmehr zu erkl,,ren, dass Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte zugleich eingesetzt, an andetch Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand, dem Beamtenstande je ein Mitglied eingereiht habe.”

190 According to Stroth the Chronicon Paschale gives Smyrna as the name of this city, and it has been suggested that Clement withholds the name in order to spare the reputation of Polycarp, who, according to tradition, was appointed bishop of that city by John.

191 The same man that is called a bishop just above is here called a presbyter. It is such passages-and they are not uncommon in the early Fathers-that have seemed to many to demonstrate conclusively the original identity of presbyters and bishops, an identity which is maintained by most Presbyterians, and is admitted by many Episcopalians (e.g. by Lightfoot in his essay on the Christian Ministry, printed in his Commentary on Philippians). On the other hand, the passages which reveal a distinction between presbyters and bishops are very early, and are adduced not merely by prelatists, but by such disinterested scholars as Harnack (in his translation of Hatch’s Organization of the Early Christian Churches) as proving that there was from the beginning a difference of some sort between a bishop and a presbyter. I cannot enter here into a discussion of the various views in regard to the original relation between bishops and presbyters. I desire simply to suggest a theory of my own, leaving the fuller exposition of it for some future time. My theory is that the word presbuteroj was originally employed in the most general sense to indicate any church officer, thus practically equivalent to the hgoumenoj of Heb. xiii. 17, and the poimhn of Eph. iv. 11. The terms episkopoj and diakonoj, on the other hand, were employed to designate specific church officers charged with the performance of specific duties. If this were so, we should expect the general term to be used before the particular designations, and this is just what we find in the New Testament. We should expect further that the general term and the specific terms might be used by the same person in the same context, according as he thought of the officers in general or of a particular division of the officers; on the other hand the general term and one of the specific terms could never be coordinated (we could never find “presbyter and bishop,” “presbyter and deacon"), but we should expect to find the specific terms thus coordinated ("bishops and deacons"). An examination of the Epistle to the Philippians, of the Pastoral Epistles, of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, and of the Didache will show that our expectations are fully realized. This theory explains the fact that so frequently presbyters and bishops seem to be identical (the general and the specific term might of course in many cases be used interchangeably), and also the fact that so frequently they seem to be quite distinct. It explains still further the remarkable fact that while in the first century we never find a distinction in official rank between bishops and presbyters, that distinction appears early in the second. In many churches it must early have become necessary to appoint some of the officers as a special committee to take charge of the economic affairs of the congregation. The members of such a committee might very naturally be given the special name episkopoi (see Hatch’s discussion of the use of this word in his work already referred to). In some churches the duties might be of such a character that the bishops would need assistants (to whom it would be natural to give the name diakonoj), and such assistants would of course be closely associated with the bishops, as we find them actually associated with them in the second and following centuries (a fact which Hatch has emphasized). Of course where the bishops constituted a special and smaller committee of the general body, entrusted with such important duties, they would naturally acquire especial influence and power, and thus the chairman of the committee-the chairman of the bishops as such, not of the presbyters, though he might be that also-would in time, as a central authority was more and more felt to be necessary, gradually assume the supremacy, retaining his original name episkopoj. As the power was thus concentrated in his hands, the committee of bishops as such would cease to be necessary, and he would require only the deacons, who should carry out his directions in economic matters, as we find them doing in the second century. The elevation of the bishop would of course separate him from the other officers in such a way that although still a presbyter (i.e. an officer), he would cease to be called longer by the general name. In the same way the deacons obliged to devote themselves to their specific duties, would cease to have much to do with the more general functions of the other officers, to whom finally the name presbyter-originally a general term-would be confined, and thus become a distinctive name for part of the officers. In their hands would remain the general disciplinary functions which had belonged from the beginning to the entire body of officers as such, and their rank would naturally be second only to that of the bishop, for the deacons as assistants only, not independent officers, could not outrank them (though they struggled hard in the third and fourth centuries to do so). It is of course likely that in a great many churches the simple undivided office would long remain, and that bishops and deacons as specific officers distinguished from the general body would not exist. But after the distinction between the three orders had been sharply drawn in one part of Christendom, it must soon spread throughout the Church and become established even in places where it had not been produced by a natural process of evolution. The Church organization of the second century is thus complete, and its further development need not concern us here, for it is not matter of controversy. Nor is this the place to show how the local church officers gradually assumed the spiritual functions which belonged originally to apostles, prophets, and teachers. The Didache is the document which has shed most light upon that process, and Hernack in his edition of it has done most to make the matter clear.

192 efwtise: literally, “enlightened him.” The verb fwtizw was very commonly used among the Fathers, with the meaning “to baptize.” See Suicer’s Thesaurus, where numerous examples of this use of the word by Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and others, are given.

193 thn sfragida kuriou. The word sfragij was very widely used in the primitive Church to denote baptism, See Suicer’s Thesaurus for examples. Gregory Nazianzen, in his Orat. XL., gives the reason for this use of the word: “We call baptism a seal,” he says, “because it is a preservative and a sign of ownership.” Chrysostom, in his third Homily on 2 Cor. §7, says, “So also art thou thyself made king and priest and prophet in the laver; a king, having dashed to earth all the deeds of wickedness and slain thy sins; a priest, in that thou offerest thyself to God, having sacrificed thy body and being thyself slain also; ...a prophet, knowing what shall be, and being inspired by God, and sealed. For as upon soldiers a seal, so is also the Spirit put upon the faithful. And if thou desert, thou art manifest to all. For the Jews had circumcision for a seal, but we the earnest of the Spirit.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII. p. 293.)

194 Literally, “greatness of his nature” (megeqoj fusewj).

195 The testimony of antiquity,-both orthodox and heretical,-to the authenticity of John’s Gospel is universal, with the exception of a single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who denied the Johanninc authorship on account of the Logos doctrine, which they rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the Gnostic Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus’ views is so apparent that Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) even supposed John to have written the Gospel against Cerinthus. The writings of the second century are full of the spirit of John’s Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels in language too close to be mistaken; while from the last quarter of the second century on it is universally and expressly ascribed to John (Theophilus of Antioch and the Muratorian Fragment being the first to name him as its author). The Church never entertained a doubt of its authenticity until the end of the seventeenth century, when it was first questioned by the English Deists; but its genuineness was vindicated, and only scattering and occasional attacks were made upon it until the rise of the Tübingen school, since which time its authenticity has been one of the most fiercely contested points in apostolic history. Its opponents have been obliged gradually to throw back the date of its origin, until now no sensible critic thinks of assigning it to a time later than the early part of the second century, which is a great gain over the position of Baur and his immediate followers, who threw it into the latter half of the century. See Schaff’s Ch. Hist. I. 701-724 for a full defense of its authenticity and a comprehensive account of the controversy; also p. 406-411 for the literature of the subject. For the most complete summary of the external evidence, see Ezra Abbott’s The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1880. Among recent works, compare Weiss' Leben Jesu, I. 84-124, and his N. T. Einleitung, 586-620, for a defense of the Gospel, and upon the other side Holtzmann’s Einleitung, 413-460, and Weizsäcker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p. 531-558.

196 Overbeck remarks that Eusebius in this passage is the first to tell us that Paul wrote no more than what we have in the canon. But this is a mistake, for Origen (quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below) states it just as distinctly as Eusebius does. The truth is, neither of them says it directly, and yet it is clear enough when this passage is taken in connection with chapter 3, that it is what Eusebius meant, and the same idea underlies the statement of the Muratorian Fragment. Of course this does not prove that Paul wrote only the epistles which we have (which is indeed contrary to fact), but it shows what the idea of the early Church was.

197 See 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.

198 The majority of the mss., followed by Burton, Schwegler, and Laemmer, read diatribwn instead of maqhtwn; and Burton therefore translates, sed tamen ex his omnibus sole Matthaeus et Joannes nobis reliquerunt commentarios de vita et sermonibus Domini, “but of all these only Matthew and John have left us commentaries on the life and conversations of the Lord.” Two important mss., however, read maqhtwn, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusè.

199 That Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, although denied by many, is at present the prevailing opinion among scholars, and may be accepted as a fact both on account of its intrinsic probability and of the testimony of the Fathers, which begins with the statement of Papias, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 39, below, is confirmed by Irenaeus (III. 1. 1, quoted below, V. 8, §2),-whether independently of Papias or not, we cannot say,-by Pantaenus (but see below, Bk. V. chap. 10), by Origen (see below, VI. 25), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 3),-who says that a copy of it still existed in the library at Caesarea,-and by Epiphanius (Haer. XXIX. 9). The question as to the relation of this Hebrew original to our present Greek Matthew is much more difficult. That our Greek Matthew is a mere translation of the original Hebrew was once a prevailing theory, but is now completely abandoned. That Matthew himself wrote both is a common conservative position, but is denied by most critical scholars, many of whom deny him the composition even of the Hebrew original. Upon the theory that the original Hebrew Matthew was identical with the “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” see chap. 27, note 8. Upon the synoptic problem, see above, II. 15, note 4; and see the works mentioned there for a discussion of this original Matthew, and in addition the recent works by Gla, Original-Sprache des Matt. Evang., 1887, and Resch, Agrapha, Leipzig, 1889.

The very natural reason which Eusebius gives for the composition of Matthew’s Gospel-viz. that, when on the point of going to other nations, he committed it to writing, and thus compensated them for the loss of his presence-occurs in none of the earlier reports of the composition of the Gospel which we now possess. It was probably a fact which he took from common tradition, as he remarks in the previous sentence that tradition says “they undertook it from necessity.”

200 Upon the date and authorship of the Gospel of Luke, see above, chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Upon Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

201 No writer before Eusebius’ time, so far as is known, assigned the reason given by him for the composition of John’s Gospel. Jerome, de vir. ill. chap. 9, repeats the view, combining with it the anti-heretical purpose. The indefinite expression, “they say,” shows that Eusebius was recording tradition commonly received in his time, and does not involve the authority of any particular writer. This object-viz. the supplementing and filling out of the accounts of the Synoptists-is assumed as the real object by some modern scholars; but it is untenable, for though the book serves this purpose to a great extent, the author’s real aim was much higher,-viz. the establishment of belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Christ (John xx. 31 sqq.),-and he chose his materials accordingly. The Muratorian Fragment says, “The Fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, ‘Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to us.0’ On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.” Irenaeus (III. 11. 1) supposes John to have written his Gospel as a polemic against Cerinthus. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says that John wrote a spiritual Gospel, as a supplement to the other Gospels, which had sufficiently described the external facts. The opinion of Eusebius is very superficial. Upon examination of the Gospels it will be seen that, of the events which John relates independently of the synoptists, but a small portion occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist. John’s Gospel certainly does incidentally supplement the Synoptists in a remarkable manner, but not in any such intentional and artificial way as Eusebius supposes. Compare Weiss' Einleitung, p. 602 sqq., and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 680 sqq.

202 The Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ’s public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the additional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the early Fathers,-e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, &c. John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps four, passovers, so that Christ’s ministry lasted either two or three years. Upon comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be seen that the events which they record are not all comprised within a single year, as Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over the whole period of his ministry, although confined to his work in Galilee up to the time of his last journey to Judea, six months before his crucifixion. The distinction between John and the Synoptists, as to the events recorded, is therefore rather that of place than of time: but the distinction is not absolute.

203 Matt. iv. 12.

204 Mark i. 14.

205 Luke iii. 20.

206 John ii. 11. The arguments of Eusebius, whether original or borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingenious, and he makes out apparently quite a strong case for his opinion; but a careful harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.

207 John iii. 23.

208 Ibid. verse 24.

209 Eusebius approaches here the opinion of Clement of Alexandria. mentioned in note 7, above, who considered John’s Gospel a spiritual supplement to the others,-a position which the Gospel certainly fills most admirably.

210 See Bk. II. chap. 15.

211 See Luke i. 1-4. Eusebius puts the case more strongly than Luke himself. Luke does not say that others had rashly undertaken the composition of their narratives, nor does he say that he himself writes in order to free his readers from the uncertain suppositions of others; but at the same time the interpretation which Eusebius gives is though not an exact, yet certainly a natural one, and we have no right to accuse him, as has been done, of intentional falsification of the text of the Gospel. Eusebius also augments Luke’s statement by the mention of the source from which the latter gained his knowledge viz., “from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and from his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.” If Eusebius intended to convey the impression that Luke said this, he is of course inexcusable, but we have no reason to suppose this to be the case. It is simply the explanation on the part of Eusebius of an indefinite statement of Luke’s by a fact which was universally assumed as true. That he was adding to Luke’s own account probably never occurred to him. He does not pretend to quote Luke’s exact words.

212 The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand with that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note 1, above). But we can find still clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second century than of the Gespel (e.g. in Polycarp’s Epistle, where traces of the Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap. 39, below). The writings of the second century are full of the spirit of the Epistle as well as of the Gospel and exhibit frequent parallels in language too close to be mistaken. The first express testimony as to its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment. The first systematic attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in 1820, in connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The T_bingen school likewise rejected both. Before Bretschneider there had been a few critics (e.g. Lange, 1797) who had rejected the Epistle while accepting the Gospel and since then a few have accepted the Epistle while rejecting the Gospel; but these are exceptional cases. The Gospel and Epistle have almost universally, and quite rightly, been regarded as the work of the same author, and may be said to stand or fall together. Cf. the works cited in note 1, and also Westcott’s Epistles of St. John. (On the use of protera instead of prwth, see p. 388, note.)

213 The Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles to John. Citations from the second Epistle appear first in Irenaeus, though he does not distinguish it from the first. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 15) quotes from 1 John under the formula “John says in his larger Epistle,” showing that he knew of a second. The lack of citations from the second and third Epistles is easily explained by their brevity and the minor importance of their doctrinal contents. The second and third Epistles belong to the seven Antilegomena. Origen cites the first Epistle often, the second and third never, and of the latter he says “not all agree that they are genuine” (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25), and apparently he himself did not consider them of apostolic origin (cf. Weiss' Einleitung, p. 87). Origen’s treatment of the Catholic Epistles was implicitly followed by his pupil Dionysius and by succeeding generations. Eusebius himself does not express his own judgment in the matter, but simply records the state of tradition which was a mere repetition of Origen’s position in regard to them. Jerome (de vir. ill. 9 and 18) says that most writers ascribe them to the presbyter John-an opinion which evidently arose upon the basis of the author’s self-designation in 2 John 1, and 3 John 1, and some modern critics (among them Reuss and Wieseler) have done the same. Eusebius himself in the next chapter implies that such an opinion existed in his day, though he does not express his own view on the matter. He placed them, however, among the Antilegomena. (On the presbyter John, see below chap. 39, note 4.) That the two epistles fell originally into the class of Antilegomena was due doubtless to the peculiar self-designation mentioned, which seemed to distinguish the author from the apostle, and also to their private and doctrinally unimportant character. But in spite of the slight external testimony to the epistles the conclusion of Weiss seems correct, that “inasmuch as the second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch as the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirely aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription of them both to the author of the first, viz. to the apostle.” (ibid. p. 469.)

214 The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the New Testament. It was used by Papias and others of the earliest Fathers, and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the apostle John. (Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Eusebius, V. 1.) Tradition, so far as we have it is unanimous (with the except on of the Alogi, an insignificant heretical sect of the second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel to Cerinthus. Caius is not an exception: see below, chap. 28, note 4) in ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John, until Dionysius of Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe literary criticism (see below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the assumption of the genuineness of the Gospel and the first Epistle, doubted its authenticity on account of its divergence from these writings both in spirit and in style. He says (VII. 25, §2) that some others before him had denied the Johannine authorship and ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but the way in which he speaks of them shows that there cannot have been a ruling tradition to that effect. He may have referred simply to the Alogi, or he may have included others of whom we do not know. He himself rejects this hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been written by some John, not the apostle (by what John he does not decide), and does not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of the book. Dionysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocalypse (which was as well supported by tradition as any book of the New Testament) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and materialistic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the spiritualizing tendencies of the Alexandrian school, and the offensiveness increased with time. Although Dionysius held the work as inspired and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had been already excluded, although Origen held it to be inspired and anthoritative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse to be,-i.e. as composed by an apostle’s pupil, not by an apostle. Apocalyptic literature did not belong properly to the New Testament, but rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament; but the number of the Old Testament prophets was already complete (according to the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic writing (e.g. Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand, could it be made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic. The same was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which kept the Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic authorship. It was received as a part of the New Testament not because it was apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the criticism of Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the canon. John’s Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by Justin as grafh (so also by the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Eusebius, V. 1), and this because of its prophetic character. It must have been (according to their opinion) either a true prophecy (and therefore inspired by the Holy Spirit) or a forgery. Its authenticity being accepted, the former alternative necessarily followed, and it was placed upon a line with the Old Testament prophets, i.e. with the grafh. After Dionysius’ time doubts of its authenticity became quite widespread in the Eastern Church, and among the doubters was Eusebius, who evidently wished to ascribe it to the mysterious presbyter John, whose existence he supposed to be established by Papias in a passage quoted in chap. 39, §4, below (compare the note on the passage). Eusebius’ treatment of the book is hesitating. He evidently himself discredited its apostolic authority, but at the same time he realized (as a historian more keenly than Dionysius the theologian) the great weight of external testimony to its authenticity, and therefore he gives his readers the liberty (in the next chapter) of putting it either with the Homologoumena or with the noqoi. It legitimately belonged among the Homologoumena, but Donysius’ attitude toward it doubtless led Eusebius to think that it might at some time in the future be thrown out of the canon, and of course his own objections to its contents and his doubts as to its apostolicity caused him to contemplate such a possibility not without pleasure (see the next chapter, note 1). In chapter 18, above, he speaks of it as the “so-called” Apocalypse of John, but in other places he repeats many testimonies in favor of its authenticity (see the next note), and only in chapter 39 does he state clearly his own opinion in the matter, which even there he does not press as a fixed conviction. The reason for the doubts of the book’s genuineness on the part of Eusebius and so many others lay evidently most of all in objections to the contents of the book, which seemed to favor chiliasm, and had been greatly abused for the advancement of the crassest chiliastic views. Many, like Dionysius of Alexandria were no doubt influenced also by the idea that it was impossible that the Gospel and the Apocalypse could be the works of one author, and they preferred to sacrifice the latter rather than the former. The book has found objectors in almost every age of the Church, but has continued to hold its place in the canon (its position was never disturbed in the Western Church. and only for some two or three centuries after Eusebius in parts of the Eastern Church) as an authentic work of the apostle John. The T_bingen school exalted the Apocalypse to the honorable position of one of the five genuine monuments of the apostolic age, and from it as a basis conducted their attacks upon the other Johannine writings. The more modern critical school is doubtful about it as well as the rest of the Johannine literature, and the latest theory makes the Apocalypse a Jewish document in a Christianized form (see above, chap. 18, note 1). Compare especially Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 411-413, and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 93.

215 See Bk. VII. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy discussion of the Apocalypse by Dionysius of Alexandria. He also cites opinions favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from Justin (in IV. 18, below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Irenaeus (V. 8), and Origen (VI. 25), but such scattered testimonies can hardly be regarded as the fulfillment of the definite promise which he makes in this passage.

216 This chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to treat the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an historian, not as a critic. He is endeavoring to give an accurate statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day in regard to the number and names of its sacred books. He does not, in this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of canonicity further than their acceptance as canonical by the orthodox Church. He simply records the state of the canon; he does not endeavor to form a canon. He has nothing to do, therefore; with the nature and origin of the books which the church accepts. As remarked by Weiss (Einleitung in das N. T., p. 96), the influence of Eusebius in the formation of the canon is very commonly overestimated. He contributed himself very little; his office was to record the usage of the church of his age, not to mould it.

The church whose judgment he takes is, in the main, the church of the Orient, and in that church at this time all the works which we now call canonical (and only those) were already commonly accepted, or were becoming more and more widely accepted as such. From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius divided the works which he mentions in this chapter into two classes: the canonical (including the Homologoumena and the Antilogomena) and the uncanonical (including the noqoi and the anaplasmata airetikwn andrwn). But the noqoi he connects much more closely with the Homologoumena and Antilegomena than with the heretical works, which are, in fact, separated from all the rest and placed in a class by themselves. What, then, is the relation of the Homologoumena, Antilegomena, and noqoi to each other, as Eusebius classifies them? The crucial point is the relation of the noqoi to the antilegomena. Lücke (Ueber den N. T. Kanon des Eusebius, p. 11 sq.) identified the two, but such identification is impossible in this passage. The passages which he cites to confirm his view prove only that the word Antilegomena is commonly employed by Eusebius in a general sense to include all disputed works, and therefore, of course, the noqoi also; that is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical with noqoi, but as inclusive of it. This, however, establishes nothing as to Eusebius’ technical use of the words in the present passage, where be is endeavoring to draw close distinctions. Various views have been taken since L_cke’s time upon the relation of these terms to each other in this connection; but, to me at least, none of them seem satisfactory, and I have been led to adopt the following simple explanation. The Antilegomena, in the narrower sense peculiar to this summary, were works which, in Eusebius’ day, were, as he believed, commonly accepted by the Eastern Church as canonical, but which, nevertheless, as he well knew, had not always been thus accepted, and, indeed, were not even then universally accepted as such. The tendency, however, was distinctly in the direction of their ever-wider acceptance. On the other hand, the noqoi were works which, although they had been used by the Fathers and were quoted as grafh by some of them, were, at this time, not acknowledged as canonical. Although perhaps not universally rejected from the canon, yet they were commonly so rejected, and the tendency was distinctly in the direction of their ever-wider rejection. Whatever their merit, and whatever their antiquity and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius could not place them among the canonical books. The term noqoi, then, in this passage, must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean spurious or unauthentic, but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense, as against the canonical Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that Eusebius, as I believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense is perfectly legitimate. In using it he passes no judgment upon the authenticity of the works referred to; that, in the present case, is not his concern. As an historian he observed tendecies, and judged accordingly. He saw tbat the authority of the Antilegomena was on the increase, that of the noqoi on the decrease, and already he could draw a sharp distinction between them, as Clement of Alexandria could not do a century before. The distinction drawn has no relation to the authenticity or original authority of the works of the two classes, but only to their canonicity or uncanonicity at the time Eusebius wrote.

This interpretation will help us to understand the peculiar way in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse, and thus his treatment of it becomes an argument in favor of the interpretation. He puts it, first among the Homologoumena with an eige faneih, and then among the noqoi with an ei faneih. No one, so far as I know, has explained why it should be put among the noqoi as an alternative to the Homologoumena, instead of among the Antilegomena, which, on the common interpretation of the relation of the classes, might be naturally expected. If the view presented is correct, the reason is clear. The Antilegomena were those works which had been dis-puled but were becoming more and more widely accepted as canonical. The Apocalypse could not trader any circumstances fall into this class, for the doubts raised against it in the orthodox Church were of recent date. It occupied, in fact, a peculiar position, for there was no other work which, while accepted as canonical, was doubted in the present more than in the past. Eusebius then must either put it into a special class or put it conditionally into two different classes, as he does. If the doubts should become so widespread as to destroy its canonicity, it would fall naturally into the noqoi, for then it would hold the same position as the other works of that class. As an historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and un-doubtely has the idea that the Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of the same class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), become one of the noqoi, one of the works which, formerly accepted, is at length commonly denied to be canonical: and so, as an historian, he presents the alternative. The Apocalypse was the only work in regard to which any doubt could exist.

Eusebius’ failure to mention explicitly in this passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has caused considerable misunderstanding. The explanation, if the view presented be adopted, is simple. Eusebius included it, I believe, among the epistles of Paul, and did not especially mention it, simply because there was no dispute about its canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had been widely disputed as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various theories had been proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had not been doubted in the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to the authorship of it did not in the least endanger its place among the Homologoumena, as used here in a technical sense; and since Eusebius was simply stating the works of each class, not discussing the nature and origin of those works, he could, in perfect fairness, include it in Paul’s epistles (where he himself believed it belonged) without entering upon any discussion of it.

Another noticeable omission is that of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. All efforts to find a satisfactory reason for this are fruitless. It should have been placed among the noqoi with the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as Easebius’ treatment of it in other passages shows. It must be assumed, with Holtzmann, that the omission of it was nothing more nor less than an oversight.

Eusebius, then, classifies the works mentioned in this chapter upon two principles: first, in relation to canonicity, into the canonical and the uncanonical; and secondly, in relation to character, into the orthodox (Homologoumena, Antilegomena, which are canonical, and noqoi, which are uncanonical), and heterodox (which are not, and never have been, canonical, never have been accepted as of use or authority). The Homologoumena and Antilegomena, then, are both canonical and orthodox, the anaplasmata airetikwn andrwn are neither canonical nor orthodox, while the noqoi occupy a peculiar position, being orthodox but not canonical. The last-named are much more closely related to the canonical than to the heterodox works, because when the canon was a less concrete and exact thing than it had at length become, they were associated with the other orthodox works as, like them, useful for edification and instruction. With the heretical works they had never been associated, and possessed in common with them only the negative characteristic of non-canonicity. Eusebius naturally connects them closely with the former, and severs them completely from the latter. The only reason for mentioning the latter at all was the fact that they bore the names of apostles, and thus might be supposed, as they often had been-by Christians, as well as by unbelievers-to be sacred books like the rest. The statement of the canon gives Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against them.

Upon Eusebius’ New Testament Canon, see especially the work of Lucke referred to above, also Westcott’s Canon of the New Testament, 5th ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 6 sq., Holtzmann’s Einleitung in das N.T., p. 154 sq., and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 92 sq.

The greater part of the present note was read before the American Society of Church History in December, 1888, and is printed in Vol. I. of that Society’s papers, New York, 1889, p. 251 sq.

217 On Matthew, see the previous chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4; on Luke, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on John, the previous chapter, note 1.

218 See above, chap. 4, note 14.

219 See chap. 3, note 16. Ensebius evidently means to include the Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul’s epistles at this point, for he mentions it nowhere else in this chapter (see above, note 1).

220 See the previous chapter, note 18.

221 See chap. 3, note 1.

222 kurwteon.

223 See the previous chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius’ treatment in this chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1, above.

224 Compare the previous chapter, note 21.

225 en omologoumenoij.

226 twn antilegomenwn.

227 gnwrimwn.

228 See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46.

229 See ibid. note 47.

230 See above, chap. 3, note 4.

231 See the previous chapter, note 19.

232 en toij noqoij.

233 See above, chap. 3, note 20.

234 Ibid. note 23.

235 Ibid. note 9.

236 The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown. No name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which enable us to ascribe it to any known writer. External testimony, without a dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul. But this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very strong nor very extensive. The first to use the epistle is Clement of Alexandria, who expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas the companion of Paul. Origen quotes from the epistle twice, calling it the Epistle of Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment as to its authenticity, and without defining its author more closely. Jerome (de vir. ill. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but placed it nevertheless among the Apocrypha, and his opinion prevailed down to the seventeenth century. It is difficult to decide what Eusebius thought in regard to its authorship. His putting it among the noqoi here does not prove that he considered it unauthentic (see note 1, above); nor, on the other hand, does his classing it among the Antilegomena just below prove that he considered it authentic, but non-apostolic, as some have claimed. Although, therefore, the direct external testimony which we have is in favor of the apostolic Barnabas as its author, it is to be noticed that there must have existed a widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during the first three centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from the canon before the time of Eusebius. That this rejection arose from the fact that Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apostles cannot be. For apostolic authorship was not the sole test of canonicity, and Barnabas stood in close enough relation to the apostles to have secured his work a place in the canon, during the period of its gradual formation, had its authenticity been undoubted. We may therefore set this inference over against the direct external testimony for Barnabas’ authorship. When we come to internal testimony, the arguments are conclusive against “the Levite Barnabas” as the author of the epistle. These arguments have been well stated by Donaldson, in his History of Christian Literature, I. p. 204 sqq. Milligan, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., endeavors to break the force of these arguments, and concludes that the authenticity of the epistle is highly probable; but his positions are far from conclusive, and he may be said to stand almost alone among modern scholars. Especially during the last few years, the verdict against the epistle’s authenticity has become practically unanimous. Some have supposed the author to have been an unknown man by the name of Barnabas: but this is pure conjecture. That the author lived in Alexandria is apparently the ruling opinion, and is quite probable. It is certain that the epistle was written between the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the time of Clement of Alexandria: almost certain that it was written before the building of Aelia Capitolina; and probable that it was written between 100 and 120, though dates ranging all the way from the beginning of Vespasian’s reign to the end of Hadrian’s have been, and are still, defended by able scholars. The epistle is still extant in a corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation. It is contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt and Harnack’s second edition, 1876, and Hilgenfeld’s edition of 1877). An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 133 sqq. For the most important literature, see Schaff, Ch. Hist. II. p. 671 sqq., and Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition, p. xl. sqq.

237 twn apostolwn ai legomenai didaxai. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Didaxh twn dwdeka apostolwn, a brief document in sixteen chapters, was published in 1884 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia, from a ms. discovered by him in the Jerusalem convent in Constantinople in 1873. The discovery threw the whole theological world into a state of excitement, and the books and articles upon the subject from America and from every nation in Europe have appeared by the hundred. No such important find has been made for many years. The light which the little document has thrown upon early Church history is very great, while at the same time the questions which it has opened are numerous and weighty. Although many points in regard to its origin and nature are still undecided, the following general positions may be accepted as practically established. It is composed of two parts, of which the former (chaps. 1-6) is a redaction of an independent moral treatise, probably of Jewish origin, entitled the Two Ways, which was known and used in Alexandria, and there formed the basis of other writings (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps. 18-21, and the Ecclesiastical Canons) which were at first supposed to have been based upon the Teaching itself. (Bryennios, Harnack, and others supposed that the Teaching was based upon Barnabas, but this view has never been widely accepted.) This (Jewish) Two Ways which was in existence certainly before the end of the first century (how much earlier we do not know) was early in the second century (if not before) made a part of a primitive church manual, viz. our present Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Two Ways, both before and at the time of (perhaps after) its incorporation into the Teaching, received important additions, partly of a Christian character. The completed Teaching dates from Syria, though this is denied by many writers (e.g. by Harnack), who prefer, upon what seem to me insufficient grounds, Egypt as the place of composition. The completed Teaching formed the basis of a part of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which originated in Syria in the fourth century. The most complete and useful edition is that of Schaff (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 3d ed., New York, 1889), which contains the Greek text with English translation and a very full discussion of the work itself and of the various questions which are affected by its discovery. Harnack’s important edition Die Lehre der zwölff Apostel (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geseh. der altchrist. Lit., II. 1 and 2, 1884) is still the standard German work upon the subject, though it represents many positions in regard to the origin and history of the work which have since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has given up. His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Die Apostel-Lehre und die jüdischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should therefore be compared with his original work. Schaff’s book contains a very complete digest of the literature down to the close of 1888. As to the position which the Teaching occupied in the canon we know very little, on account of the very sparing use of it made by the early Fathers. Clement of Alexandria cites it once as Scripture (grafh), but no other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way, and yet Eusebius’ mention of it among the nofoi shows that it must have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time and have been accepted by at least a portion of the Church as a book worthy to be read in divine service, and thus in a certain sense as a part of the canon. In Eusebius’ time, however, its canonicity had been denied (though according to Athanasius Fest. Ep. 39, it was still used in catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged to relegate it to a position among the noqoi. Upon Eusebius’ use of the plural didaxai, see the writer’s article in the Andover Review, April, 1886, p. 439 sq.

238 afetousin. See the previous chapter, note 20.

239 toij omologoumenoij. See note 1, above.

240 This Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer extant, but we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which are collected by Grabe, Spic. I. 15-31, and by Hilgenfeld, N. T. Extra Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which to base a judgment as to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its relation to our canonical gospels is very limited. It is certain, however, that it cannot in its original form have been a working over of our canonical Matthew (as many have thought); it contains too many little marks of originality over against our Greek Matthew to admit of such a supposition. That it was, on the other hand, the original of which our Greek Matthew is the translation is also impossible; a comparison of its fragments with our Matthew is sufficient to prove this. That it was the original source from which Matthew and Luke derived their common matter is possible-more cannot be said. Lipsius (Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. 709-712) and Westcott (Hist. of the Canon, p. 515 sqq.) give the various quotations which are supposed to have been made from it. How many of them are actually to be traced back to it as their source is not certain. It is possible, but not certain, that Papias had seen it (see chap. 39, note 28), possible also that Ignatius had, but the passage relied on to establish the fact fails to do so (see chap. 36, note 14). It was probably used by Justin (see Westcott, ibid. p. 516, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 712), undoubtedly by Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22), and was perhaps known to Pantaenus (see below, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 8). Clement of Alexandria (Strom. II. 9) and Origen (in Johan. II. 6 and often) are the first to bear explicit testimony to the existence of such a gospel. Eusebius also was personally acquainted with it, as may be gathered from his references to it in III. 39 and IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the Syriac version of) his Theophany, IV. 13 (Lee’s trans. p. 234), and in the Greek Theophany, §22 (Migne, VI. 685). The latter also shows the high respect in which he held the work. Jerome’s testimony in regard to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the gospel had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his time, and as known to him was very different from the original form (cf. Lipsius, ibid. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of it cannot be applied to the original without limitation. Epiphanius has a good deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen it, and his reports of it are very confused and misleading. The statement of Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was reckoned by many among the Homologoumena, is incorrect; e/ toutoij refers rather to the noqoi among which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the Church, but present uncanonicity, places it by right. Irenaeus expressly states that there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Haer. III. 2, 8), so also Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV. 5), while Clement of Alexandria cites the gospel with the same formula which he uses for the Scriptures in general, and evidently looked upon it as, if not quite, at least almost, on a par with the other four Gospels. Origen on the other hand (in Johan. II. 6, Hom. in Jer. XV. 4, and often) clearly places it upon a footing lower than that of the four canonical Gospels. Upon the use of the gospel by the Ebionites and upon its relation to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see chap. 27, note 8.

The literature upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews is very extensive. Among recent discussions the most important are by Hilgenfeld, in his Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung (1854); in the Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theol., 1863, p. 345 sqq.; in his N. T. extra Canon. rec. (2d ed. 1884); and in his Einleitung z. N. T. (1875); by Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879); and finally, a very thorough discussion of the subject, which reached me after the composition of the above note, by Handmann, Das Hebräer-Evangelium (Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888). This work gives the older literature of the subject with great fullness. Still more recently Resch’s Agrapha (ibid. V. 4, Leipzig, 1889) has come to hand. It discusses the Gospel on p. 322 sq.

241 twn antilegomenwn.

242 anwmologhmenaj.

243 ouk endiafhkouz men, alla kai antilegomenaj. Eusebius, in this clause, refers to the noqoi, which, of course, while distinguishedfrom the canonical Antilegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and hence belong as truly as they to the more general class of Antilegomena. This, of course, explains how, in so many places in his History, he can use the words noqoi and antilegomena interchangeably (as e.g. in chap. 31, §6). In the present passage the noqoi, as both uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical writings,-including both the universally accepted and the disputed, - which are here thrown together without distinction. The point to be emphasized is that he is separating here the uncanonical from the canonical, without regard to the character of the individual writings within the latter class.

244 See chap. 3, note 5.

245 The Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly Docetic. It was written probably in the second century. The original Gnostic form is no longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic recensions of it in both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits are expunged with more or less care. The gosvel contained many very fabulous stories about the childhood of Jesus. It is mentioned frequently by the Fathers from Origen down, but always as an heretical work. The Greek text is given by Tischendorf, p. 36 sqq., and an English translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 395-405. See Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 703-705.

246 This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by Jerome (Praaef. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The gospel is no longer extant, though some gragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom. III. 4 (quoted below in chap. 30), and Strom. VII. 13, which show that it had a high moral tone and emphasized asceticism. We know very little about it, but Lipsius conjectures that it was “identical with the paradoseij Matqiou which were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among the Basilidaeans.” See Lipsius, ibid. p. 716.

247 Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and Augustine (see Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.). The Acts of Andrew (Acta Andraeae) were of Gnostic origin and circulated among that sect in numerous editions. The oldest extant portions (both in Greek and somewhat fragmentary) are the Acts of Andrew and Matthew (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 517-525) and the Acts of Peter and Andrew (ibid. 526-527). The Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy Apostle Andrew (ibid. 511-516), or the so-called Epistle of the Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the Passion of Andrew, is a later work, still extant in a Catholic recension in both Greek and Latin. The fragments of these three are given by Tischendorf in his Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and 132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc. p. 161 sq. See Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30.

248 Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to refer to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius, Photius, Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tichendrof, ibid. p. lxxiii.). They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few fragments (collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Lencio Charino conscriptorum, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract very much abridged, but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is given by Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560-564).

The last two works mentioned belong. to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly ascribed to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary author of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature. From the fourth century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts whose number must have been enormous. Although no direct references are made to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them are found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which make it probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it may at any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from the third century and some of them even from the second century. See Salmon’s article Leucius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 703-707, and Lipsius’ article in the same work, I. 28.

249 airetikwn andrwn anaplasmata.

250 en nofoij.

251 Justin, in the passage quoted just below, is the first one to tell us about Menander. According to him, he was a Samaritan and a disciple of Simon Magus, and, like him, deceived many by the practice of magic arts. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 23) gives a somewhat fuller account of him, very likely Based upon Justin’s work against heresies which the latter mentions in his Apol. I. 26, and from which Irenaeus quotes in IV. 6. 2 (at least he quotes from a Contra Marcionem, which was in all probability a part of the same work; see Bk. IV. chap. 11, note 22), and perhaps in V. 26. 2. From this account of Irenaeus that of Eusebius is drawn, and no new particulars are added. Tertullian also mentions Menander (De Anima, 23, 50) and his resurrection doctrine, but evidently knows only what Irenaes has already told; and so the accounts of all the early Fathers rest wholly upon Justin and Irenaeus, and probably ultimately upon Justin alone. See Salmon’s article Menander in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

252 Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.

253 “Instrument of diabolical power,” is an embellishment of Eusebius’ own, quite in keeping with his usual treatment of heretics. It is evident, however, that neither Justin nor Irenaeus looked upon Menander with any greater degree of allowance.

254 Simon (Irenaeus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the Supreme Power; but Menander, according to Irenaeus (ibid. §5), taught that the Supreme Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself (as Eusebius here says) was sent forth as a saviour for the deliverance of men.

255 He agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed by angels who had taken their origin from the Ennoea of the Supreme Power, and that the magical power which he imparted enabled is followers to overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of himself before him.

256 This baptism (according to Irenaeus “into his own name"), and the promise of the resurrection as a result, seem to have been an original addition of Menander’s. The exemption from death taught by Menander was evidently understood by Irenaeus, Tertullian (De Anima, 50), and Eusebius in its physical, literal sense; but the followers of Menander must of course have put a spiritual meaning upon it, or the sect could not have continued in existence for any length of time. It is certain that it was flourishing at the time of Justin; how much longer we do not know. Justin himself does not emphasize the physical element, and he undoubtedly understood that the immortality taught was spiritual simply. Hegesippus (quoted below, in Bk. IV. chap. 22) mentions the Menandrianists, but this does not imply that he was himself acquainted with them, for he draws his information largely from Justin Martyr.

257 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 23. 5. In III. 4. 3 he mentions Menander again, making him the father of all the Gnostics.

258 Justin, Apol. I. 26.

259 The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See Harnack’s Quellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p. 84.

260 Menander’s Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin. It is probable, therefore, that Tertullian used Irenaeus alone in writing his account of Menander, for it is unlikely that both of them would have omitted the same fact if they drew independently from Justin.

261 Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII. 1) says that the denial of the resurrection of the body was a peculiarly Samaritan heresy, and it would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6); evidently, however, this was not Eusebius’ idea. He probably looked upon them as discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by teaching a physical immortality, which of course was soon proved contrary to truth, and which thus, being confounded by the masses with the doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into contempt, and threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of every kind.

262 The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as by Jewish Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity; but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47). For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a doctrinal heresy, but an anti-Christian principle of life. But the natural result of these Judaizing tendencies and of the involved hostility to the apostle of the Gentiles was the ever more tenacious clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah; and as the Church, in its strife with Gnosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress upon Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and these Jewish Christians became ever more apparent until finally left far behind by the Church in its rapid development, they were looked upon as heretics. And so in Irenaeus (I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical sect called Ebionites,whose Christology is like that of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Paul, use the Gospel of Matthew only and still cling to the observance of the Jewish law; but the distinction which Justin draws between the milder and stricter class is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of heretics, because of their heretical Christology (cf. ibid. III. 21. 1; IV. 33. 4; V. 1. 3). In Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the orthodox Christology is still more clearly emphasized, and their relation to the Jewish law drops still further into the background (cf. Hippolytus, Phil. VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.). So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as an heretical sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was possessed by Irenaeus who lived far away from their chief centre, he distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn by Justin. This distinction of Origen’s between those Ebionites who accepted and those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by Eusebius (see below, §3). Epiphanius (Haer. XXIX. sqq.) is the first to make two distinct heretical sects-the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. It has been the custom of historians to carry this distinction back into apostolic, times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the continuous existence of a milder party-the Nazarenes-and of a stricter party-the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch (Dogmengesch. p. 37 sqq.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The division which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if he himself had any clear knowledge of a distinction, his reports are so contradictory. The Ebionites known to him were most pronounced heretics; but he had heard of others who were said to be less heretical, and the conclusion that they formed another sect was most natural. Jerome’s use of the two words is fluctuating; but it is clear enough that they were not looked upon by him as two distinct sects. The word “Nazarenes” was, in fact, in the beginning a general name given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5), and as such synonymous with “Ebionites.” Upon the later syncretistic Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note 1. Upon the general subject of Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 226 sqq.

263 The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew wyb)

, which signifies “poor.” Different explanations more or less fanciful have been given of the reason for the use of the word in this connection. It occurs first in Irenaeus (I. 26. 2), but without a definition of its meaning. Origen, who uses the term often, gives different explanations, e.g., in Contra Celsum, II. 1, he says that the Jewish converts received their name from the poverty of the law, “for Ebion signifies poor among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites.” In De Prin. IV. 1. 22, and elsewhere, he explains the name as referring to the poverty of their understanding. The explanation given by Eusebius refers to their assertion that Christ was only a common man, born by natural generation, and applied only to the first class of Ebionites, a description of whom follows. For the same name as applied to the second class (but see note 9) who accepted Christ’s supernatural birth, he gives a different reason at the end of the chapter, the same which Origen gives for the application of the name to Ebionites in general. The explanation given in this place is so far as we know original with Eusebius (something similar occurs again in Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. 17), and he shows considerable ingenuity in thus treating the name differently in the two cases. The various reasons do not of course account for the existence of the name, for most of them could have become reasons only long after the name was in use. Tertullian (De Praescr. Haer. 33, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.) and Hippolytus (in his Syntagma,-as can be gathered from Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. Haer. chap. 3, and Epiph. Haer. XXX.,-and also in his Phil. chap. 23, where he mentions Ebion incidentally) are the first to tell us of the existence of a certain Ebion from whom the sect derived its name, and Epiphanius and later writers are well acquainted with the man. But Ebion is a myth invented simply for the purpose of explaining the origin of Ebionism. The name Ebionite was probably used in Jerusalem as a designation of the Christians there, either applied to them by their enemies as a term of ridicule on account of their poverty in worldly goods, or, what is more probable, assumed by themselves as a term of honor,-"the poor in spirit,”-or (as Epiphanius XXX. 17, says the Ebionites of his day claimed) on account of their voluntarily taking poverty upon themselves by laying their goods at the feet of the apostles. But, however the name originated, it became soon, as Christianity spread outside of Palestine, the special designation of Jewish Christians as such, and thus when they began to be looked upon as heretical, it became the name of the sect.

264 wj mh an dia monhj thj eij tdn xoiston pistewj kai tou kat authn biou swfhsomenoij. The addition of the last clause reveals the difference between the doctrine of Eusebius’ time and the doctrine of Paul. Not until the Reformation was Paul understood and the true formula, dia monhj thj eij ton xriston pistewj, restored.

265 Eusebius clearly knew of no distinction in name between these two classes of Ebionites such as is commonly made between Nazarenes and Ebionites,-nor did Origen, whom he follows (see note 1, above).

266 That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to the birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra Cels. V. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his pre-existence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence of the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenaeus on. Irenaeus, as remarked above (note 1), knows of no such difference as Eusebius here mentions: and that the denial of the supernatural birth even in the time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to the Ebionites in general, without a distinction of the two classes, is seen by Origen’s words in his Hom. in Luc. XVII.

267 There seems to have been no difference between these two classes in regard to their relation to the law; the distinction made by Justin is no longer noticed.

268 This is mentioned by Irenaeus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen (Cont. Cels. V. 65 and Hom. in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a general characteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the Fathers, from the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their relations to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background, as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus with that of Irenaeus).

The “these” (onroi de) here would seem to refer only to the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very nature of the case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this conduct was true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may have been referring only to the second, cannot have intended to exclude the first class in making the statement.

269 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenaeus (Adv. Hae. I. 26. 2, III. 11. 7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25, note 18), this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical Matthew. Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of Irenaeus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel (for the Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an outgrowth of the canonical Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25, note 24). The former is much more probable, and the difficulty may be most simply explained by supposing that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identical with the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5), or at least that it passed among the earliest Jewish Christians under Matthew’s name, and that Irenaeus, who was personally acquainted with the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally supposed it to he identical with the canonical Gospel. In the time of Jerome a Hebrew “Gospel according to the Hebrews” was used by the “Nazarenes and Ebionites” as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII. 13; Contra Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear from his words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states in chap. 2. Epiphanius (Haer. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still preserved the original Hebrew Matthew m full, while the Ebionites (XXX. 13) had a Gospel of Matthew “not complete, but spurious and mutilated"; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used the Gospel of Matthew and called it the “Gospel according to the Hebrews.” It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, ie. the Gospel according to the Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius’ treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he considered them two different gospels (cf. e.g. his mention of the former in chap. 25 and in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that the former was not identical with the canonical Matthew, and hence, naturally supposing that the Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, he could not do otherwise than make a distinction between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must therefore make the change which he did in Irenaeus’ statement in mentioning the Gospel used by the Ebionites, as he knew them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI. chap. 17, the Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of Matthew (of course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only confirm Eusebius in his opinion that Irenaeus was mistaken, and that the Ebionites did not use the Gospel of Matthew.

But none of these facts militate against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews in its original form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, or at least passed originally under his name among Jewish Christians. For it is by no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew is no argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original Gospel according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially since it was in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more heretical, and that, therefore, its resemblance to the canonical Matthew may have been even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome than at the beginning. It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew, which Jerome claims to have seen in the library at Caesarea (de vir. ill. chap. 3), may have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy of the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Since the writing of this note, Handmann’s work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Das Hebräer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchugen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I find that he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds that the Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply “the Gospel,” or some general name of the kind, and that it received from others the name “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” because it was used by them. This may well be, but does not militate at all against the existence of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that Matthew was the author of their only gospel Handmann makes the Gospel according to the Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels alongside of the “Ur-Marcus,” (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far as to suggest that it is to be identified with the logia of Papias (cf. the writer’s notice of Handmann’s book, in the Presbyterian Review, July, 1889). For the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25, note 24. I find that Resch in his Agrapha emphasizes the apocryphal character of the Gospel in its original form, and makes it later than and in part dependent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with him.

270 The question again arises whether Eusebius is referring here to the second class of Ebionites only, and is contrasting their conduct in regard to Sabbath observance with that of the first class, or whether he refers to all Ebionites, and contrasts them with the Jews. The subject remains the same as in the previous sentence; but the persons referred to are contrasted with ekeinoi, whom they resemble in their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but from whom they differ in their observance of the Lord’s day. The most natural interpretation of the Greek is that which makes the outoi de refer to the second class of Ebionites, and the ekeinoi to the first; and yet we hear from no one else of two sharply defined classes separated by religious customs, in addition to doctrinal opinions, and it is not likely that they existed. If this interpretation, however, seems necessary, we may conclude that some of them observed the Lord’s day, while others did not, and that Eusebius naturally identified the former with the more, and the latter with the less, orthodox class, without any especial information upon the subject. It is easier, too, to explain Eusebius’ suggestion of a second derivation for the name of Ebionite, if we assume that he is distinguishing here between the two classes. Having given above a reason for calling the first class by that name, he now gives the reason for calling the second class by the same.

271 See note 2.

272 The earliest account which we have of Cerinthus is that of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. I. 26. 1; cf. III. 3. 4, quoted at the end of this chapter, and 11. 1), according to which Cerinthus, a man educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power distinct from him. He denied the supernatural birth of Jesus, making him the son of Joseph and Mary, and distinguishing him from Christ, who descended upon him at baptism and left him again at his crucifixion. He was thus Ebionitic in his Christology, but Gnostic in his doctrine of the creation. He claimed no supernatural power for himself as did Simon Magus and Menander, but pretended to angelic revelations, as recorded by Caius in this paragraph. Irenaeus (who is followed by Hippolytus, VII. 21 and X. 17) says nothing of his chiliastic views, but these are mentioned by Caius in the present paragraph, by Dionysius (quoted by Eusebius, VII. 25, below), by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. II. 3), and by Augustine (De Haer. I. 8), from which accounts we can see that those views were very sensual. The fullest description which we have of Cerinthus and his followers is that of Epiphanius (Haer. XXVIII.), who records a great many traditions as to his life (e.g. that he was one of the false apostles who opposed Paul, and one of the circumcision who rebuked Peter for eating with Cornelius, &c.), and also many details as to his system, some of which are quite contradictory. It is clear, however, that he was Jewish in his training and sympathies, while at the same time possessed of Gnostic tendencies. He represents a position of transition from Judaistic Ebionism to Gnosticism, and may be regarded as the earliest Judaizing Gnostic. Of his death tradition tells us nothing, and as to his dates we can say only that he lived about the end of the first century. Irenaeus (III. 2. 1) supposed John to have written his gospel and epistle in opposition to Cerinthus. On the other hand, Cerinthus himself was regarded by some as the author of the Apocalypse (see Bk. VII. chap. 25, below), and most absurdly as the author of the Fourth Gospel also (see above, chap. 24, note 1).

273 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §7. Upon Caius, see the note given there. The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that passage.

274 Cf. Rev. xx. 4. On chiliasm in the early Church, see below, chap. 39, note 19.

275 It is a commonly accepted opinion founded upon this passage that Caius rejected the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse and considered it a work of Cerinthus. But the quotation by no means implies this. Had he believed that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse commonly ascribed to John, he would certainly have said so plainly, and Eusebius would just as certainly have quoted his opinion, prejudiced as he was himself against the Apocalypse. Caius simply means that Cerinthus abused and misinterpreted the vision of the Apocalypse for his own sensual purposes. That this is the meaning is plain from the words “being an enemy to the Divine Scriptures,” and especially from the fact that in the Johannine Apocalypse itself occur no such sensual visions as Caius mentions here. The sensuality was evidently superimposed by the interpretation of Cerinthus. Cf. Weiss' N. T. Einleitung, p. 82.

276 Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.

277 The same passage is quoted with its context in Bk. VII. chap. 25, below. The verbs in the portion of the passage quoted here are all in the infinitive, and we see, from Bk. VII. chap. 25, that they depend upon an indefinite legousin, “they say"; so that Eusebius is quite right here in saying that Dionysius is drawing from tradition in making the remarks which he does. Inasmuch as the verbs are not independent, and the statement is not, therefore, Dionysius’ own, I have inserted, at the beginning of the quotation, the words “they say that,” which really govern all the verbs of the passage. Dionysius himself rejected the theory of Cerinthus’ authorship of the Apocalypse, as may be seen from Bk. VII. chap. 25, §7.

278 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 26. 1.

279 See ibid. III. 3. 4. This story is repeated by Eusebius, in Bk. IV. chap. 14. There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence fits well the character of John as a “son of thunder,” and shows the same spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 14). But the story is not very well authenticated, as Irenaeus did not himself hear it from Polycarp, but only from others to whom Polycarp had told it. The unreliability of such second-hand tradition is illustrated abundantly in the case of Irenaeus himself, who gives some reports, very far from true, upon the authority of certain presbyters (e.g. that Christ lived fifty years; II. 22. 5). This same story, with much more fullness of detail, is repeated by Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 24), but of Ebion (who never existed), instead of Cerinthus. This shows that the story was a very common one, while, at the same time, so vague in its details as to admit of an application to any heretic who suited the purpose. That somebody met somebody in a bath seems quite probable, and there is nothing to prevent our accepting the story as it stands in Irenaeus, if we choose to do so. One thing, at least, is certain, that Cerinthus is a historical character, who in all probability was, for at least a part of his life, contemporary with John, and thus associated with him in tradition, whether or not he ever came into personal contact with him.

280 Rev. ii. 6, Rev. ii. 15. Salmon, in his article Nicolaitans, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., states, as I think, quite correctly, that “there really is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so called after the death of the apostle John"; and in this he is in agreement with many modern scholars. An examination of extant accounts of this sect seems to show that nothing more was known of the Nicolaitans by any of the Fathers than what is told in the Apocalypse. Justin, whose lost work against heretics Irenaeus follows in his description of heresies, seems to have made no mention of the Nicolaitans, for they are dragged in by Irenaeus at the close of the text, quite out of their chronological place. Irenaeus (I. 26. 3; III. 11. 1) seems to have made up his account from the Apocalypse, and to have been the sole source for later writers upon this subject. That the sect was licentious is told us by the Apocalypse. That Nicolas, one of the Seven, was their founder is stated by Irenaeus (I. 26. 3), Hippolytus (VII. 24), Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Haer. chap. 1), and Epiphanius (Haer. 25), the last two undoubtedly drawing their account from Hippolytus, and he in turn from Irenaeus. Jerome and the writers of his time and later accept this view, believing that Nicolas became licentious and fell into the greatest wickedness. Whether the sect really claimed Nicolas as their founder, or whether the combination was made by Irenaeus in consequence of the identity of his name with the name of a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor have we any idea, in the latter case, where the sect got the name which they bore. Clement of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just below, gives us quite a different account of the character of Nicolas; and as be is a more reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as his statement explains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas’ authority, without impeaching his character, which certainly his position among the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good enough to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as the true one, and denying that Nicolas himself bore the character which marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as Clement says, have arisen from abusing a saying of Nicolas which had been uttered with a good motive.

281 See Acts vi.

282 Stromata, III. 4.

283 Compare Matt. vi. 24.

284 This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the paradoseij Matqiou, mentioned in chap. 25 (see note 30 on that chapter).

285 A chapter intervenes between the quotation given by Eusebius just above and the one which follows. In it Clement had referred to two classes of heretics,-without giving their names,-one of which encouraged all sorts of license, while the other taught celibacy. Having in that place refuted the former class, he devotes the chapter from which the following quotation is taken to a refutation of the latter, deducing against them the fact that some of the apostles were married. Clement here, as in his Quis dives salvetur (quoted in chap. 23), shows his good common sense which led him to avoid the extreme of asceticism as well as that of license. He was in this an exception to most of the Fathers of his own and subsequent ages, who in their reaction from the licentiousness of the times advised and often encouraged by their own example the most rigid asceticism, and thus laid the foundation for monasticism.

286 Strom. III. 6.

287 Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 5). Tradition also tells us of a daughter, St. Petronilla. She is first called St. Peter’s daughter in the Apocryphal Acts of SS. Nereus and Achilles, which give a legendary account of her life and death. In the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was buried an Aurelia Petronilla filia dulcissima, and Petronilla being taken as a diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been a daughter of Peter. It is probable that this was the origin of the popular tradition. Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Petrus, and it is probable that this woman was one of the Aurelian gens and a relative of Flavia Domitilla. Compare the article Petronilla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Petronilla has played a prominent rôle in art. The immense painting by Guercino in the Palace of the Conservators in Rome attracts the attention of all visitors.

288 It is probable that Clement here confounds Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle. See the next chapter, note 6.

Philip the evangelist, according to Acts xxi. 9, had four daughters who were virgins. Clement (assuming that he is speaking of the same Philip) is the only one to tell us that they afterward married, and he tells us nothing about their husbands. Polycrates in the next chapter states that two of them at least remained virgins. If so, Clement’s statement can apply at most only to the other two. Whether his report is correct as respects them we cannot tell.

289 The passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in this connection is 1 Cor. ix. 5; but this by no means proves that Paul was married, and 1 Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite, though the words might be used if he were a widower. The words of Phil. iv. 3 are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is no authority for such a reference. Clement is the only Father who reports that Paul was married; many of them expressly deny it; e.g. Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. The authority of these later Fathers is of course of little account. But Clement’s conclusion is based solely upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is no argument for the truth of the report.

290 Strom. VII. 11. Clement, so far as we know, is the only one to relate this story, but he bases it upon tradition, and although its truth cannot be proved, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in it.

291 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§5 sqq.

292 See chap. 23, §§3, 4.

293 Upon Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.

294 Upon Victor, see ibid. note 1.

295 This epistle is the only writing of Polycrates which is preserved to us. This passage, with considerably more of the same epistle, is quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 24. From that chapter we see that the epistle was written in connection with the Quarto-deciman controversy, and after saying, “We therefore observe the genuine day,” Polycrates goes on in the words quoted here to mention the “great lights of Asia” as confirming his own practice. (See the notes upon the epistle in Bk. V. chap. 24.) The citation here of this incidental passage from a letter upon a wholly different subject illustrates Eusebius’ great diligence in searching out all historical notices which could in any way contribute to his history.

296 Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here confounded. That they were really two different men is clear enough from Luke’s account in the Acts (cf. Acts vi. 2-5, Acts viii. 14-17, and Acts xxi. 8). That it was the evangelist, and not the apostle, that was buried in Hierapolis may be assumed upon the following grounds: (1) The evangelist (according to Acts xxi. 8) had four daughters, who were virgins and prophetesses. Polycrates speaks here of three daughters, at least two of whom were virgins, and Proclus, just below, speaks of four daughters who were prophetesses. (2) Eusebius, just below, expressly identifies the apostle and evangelist, showing that in his time there was no separate tradition of the two men. Lightfoot (Colossians, p. 45) maintains that Polycrates is correct, and that it was the apostle, not the evangelist, that was buried in Hierapolis; but the reasons which he gives are trivial and will hardly convince scbolars in general. Certainly we need strong grounds to justify the separation of two men so remarkably similar so far as their families are concerned. But the truth is, there is nothing more natural than that later generations should identify the evangelist with the apostle of the same name, and should assume the presence of the latter wherever the former was known to have been. This identification would in itself be a welcome one to the inhabitants of Hierapolis, and hence it would be assumed there more readily than anywhere else. Of course it is not impossible that Philip the apostle also had daughters who were virgins and prophetesses, but it is far more probable that Polycrates (and possibly Clement too; see the previous chapter) confounded him with the evangelist,-as every one may have done for some generations before them. Eusebius at any rate, historian though he was, saw no difficulty in making the identification, and certainly it was just as easy for Polycrates and Clement to do the same. Lightfoot makes something of the fact that Polycrates mentions only three daughters, instead of four. But the latter’s words by no means imply that there had not been a fourth daughter (see note 8, below).

297 Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about five miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it is mentioned in Col. iv. 13. The ruins of this city are quite extensive, and its site is occupied by a village called Pambouk Kelessi.

298 The fact that only three of Philip’s daughters are mentioned here, when from the Acts we know he had four, shows that the fourth had died elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from Polycrates’ purpose to mention her, since, as we see from Bk. V. chap. 24, he was citing only those who had lived in Asia (the province), and had agreed as to the date of the Passover. The separate mention of this third daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to arise from the fact that she was married, while the other two remained virgins. This is, however, not at all implied, as the fact that she was buried in a different place would be enough to cause the separate mention of her. Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the preceding chapter) reports that Philip’s daughters were married, and inasmuch as Polycrates expressly states that two of them were virgins, it is quite possible that she (as well as the fourth daughter, not mentioned here) may have been a married woman, which would, perhaps, account for her living in Ephesus and being buried there, instead of with her father and sister in Hierapolis. It is noticeable that while two of the daughters are expressly called virgins, the third is not.

299 martuj; see chap. 32, note 15.

300 The Greek word is petagon, which occurs in the LXX. as the technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cr. Ex. xxviii. 36, &c.). What is meant by the word in the present connection is uncertain. Epiphanius (Haer. LXXVII. 14) says the same thing of James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor John was a Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in neither case. Valesius and others have thought that John and James, and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore sotnething resembling the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable. The words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning that John bore the character of a priest,-i.e. the high priest of Christ as his most beloved disciple,-or, as Hefele suggests, the report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the second Jewish war. See Kraus' Real-Encyclopaedie der christlichen Alterthümer, Band II. p. 212 sq.

301 Upon John’s Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk. III. chap. 1, note 6.

302 Bk. II. chap. 25, §6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, §1. Upon Caius and his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.

303 Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II chap. 25, note 12.

304 The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Polycrates reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one at Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis. But the report of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of Proclus, because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than Proclus; in the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard to imagine how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more detailed report of Polyerates could have arisen, while on the other hand it is quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but inexact account of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip and his daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be combined the fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus’ version was complete. In the third place, Polycrates’ report bears the stamp of truth as contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only three daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four.

How Eusebius could have overlooked the contradiction it is more difficult to explain. He can hardly have failed to notice it, but was undoubtedly unable to account for the difference, and probably considered it too small a matter to concern himself about. He was quite prone to accept earlier accounts just as they stood, whether contradictory or not. The fact that they had been recorded was usually enough for him, if they contained no improbable or fabulous stories. He cannot be accused of intentional deception at this point, for he gives the true accounts side by side, so that every reader might judge of the agreement for himself. Upon the confusion of the apostle and evangelist, see above, note 6.

305 I read meta touton with the majority of the mss., with Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of meta touto, which occurs in some mss. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by Valesius, Crusèe, and others. As Burton says, the copyists of Eusebius, not knowing to whom Proclus here referred, changed touton to touto; but if we had the preceding context we should find that Proclus had been referring to some prophetic man such as the Montanists were fond of appealing to in support of their position. Schwegler suggests that it may have been the Quadratus mentioned in chap. 37, but this is a mere guess. As the sentence stands isolated from its connection, touton is the harder reading, and could therefore have more easily been changed into touto than the latter into touton.

306 Acts xxi. 8, Acts xxi. 9. Eusebius clearly enough considers Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. Upon this identification, see note 6, above.

307 ierwn grammatwn, kai twn antilegomenwn men, omwj ...dedhmosieumenwn. The classification here is not inconsistent with that given in chap. 25, but is less complete than it, inasmuch as here Eusebius draws no distinction between antilegomena and noqoi, but uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it both the particular classes (Antilegomena and noqoi) of chap. 25 (see note 27 on that chapter).

308 Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d.

309 Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next chapter, with the notes.

310 See chap. 11.

311 Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 11. Upon his life and writings, see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 1.

312 In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, §4, Hegesippus speaks of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted there directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus.

313 That is, by crucifixion, as stated in §6.

314 It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the imperial authorities, but was accused to them as a descendant of David and as a Christian. The former accusation shows with what suspicion all members of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible instigators of a revolution (cf. chap. 20, note 2); the latter shows that in the eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see the next chapter, note 6). In the next paragraph it is stated that search was made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal family. This was quite natural, after the attention of the government had been officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon.

315 The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain. It has been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Ignatius) to the year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius' Chron., which is supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth year of Trajan’s reign. But an examination of the passage in the Chron., where Eusebius groups together these two events and the persecutions in Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the exact date of any of them, and simply put them together as three similar events known to have occurred during the reign of Trajan (cf. Lightfoot’s Ignatius, II. p. 447 sqq.). The year of Atticus’ proconsulship we unfortunately do not know, although Wieseler, in his Christen-Verfolgungen der Caesaren, p. 126, cites Waddington as his authority for the statement that Herodes Atticus was proconsul of Palestine from 105 to 107; but all that Waddington says (Fastes des prov. Asiat., p. 720) is, that since the proconsul for the years 105 to 107 is not known, and Eusebius puts the death of Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, we may assume that this was the date of Atticus’ proconsulship. This, of course, furnishes no support for the common opinion. Lightfoot, on account of the fact that Symeon was the son of Clopas, wishes to put the martyrdom earlier in Trajan’s reign, and it is probable that it occurred earlier rather than later; more cannot be said. The great age of Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too well authenticated to admit of doubt; at the same time, the figure 120 may well be an exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks. Renan (Les Evangiles, p. 466) considers it very improbable that Symeon could have had so long a life and episcopate, and therefore invents a second Symeon, a great-grandson of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and makes him the martyr mentioned here. But there is nothing improbable in the survival of a contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and there is no warrant for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous in calling Symeon the son of Clopas, and also in emphasizing his great age.

316 epi Traianou kaisaroj kai upatikou ‘Attikou. The nouns being without the article, the phrase is to be translated, “while Trajan was emperor, and Atticus governor.” In §6, below, where the article is used, we must translate, “before Atticus the governor” (see Lightfoot’s Ignatius, 1. p. 59).

The word upatikoj is an adjective signifying “consular, pertaining to a consul.” It “came to be used in the second century especially of provincial governors who had held the consulship, and at a later date of such governors even though they might not have been consuls” (Lightfoot, p. 59, who refers to Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, I. 409).

317 This is a peculiar statement. Members of the house of David would hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he belonged to that house. The statement is, however, quite indefinite. We are not told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that they really were of David’s line, although the wsan with which Eusebius introduces the charge does not imply any doubt in his own mind, as Lightfoot quite rightly remarks. It is possible that some who were of the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of being a member of that family, but only of being a Christian, and that the report of the occurrence may have become afterward confused.

318 This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must have been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the conclusion.

319 Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in John xix. 25.

320 See above, chap. 11.

321 See above, chap. 20.

322 See p. 389, note.

323 marturej. The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense of “witnesses,” referring to those who testified to Christ even if they did not seal their testimony with death. This was the original use of the word, and continued very common during the first two centuries, after which it became the technical term for persons actually martyred and was confined to them, while omologhthj, “confessor,” gradually came into use as the technical term for those who bad borne testimony in the midst of persecution, but had not suffered death. As early as the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and Rev. ii. 13) martuj was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing them from other witnesses to the truth. See the remarks of Lightfoot, in his edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46.

324 This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius’ own words in chap. 20, §8. See note 5 on that chapter.

325 epi tw autw logw, that is, was accused for the same reason that the grandsons of Judas (whom Hegesippus had mentioned just before) were: namely, because he belonged to the line of David. See chap. 20; but compare also the remarks made in note 10, above.

326 epi ‘Attikou tou upatikou. See above, note 9.

327 On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

328 thn yeudonumon gnwsin; 1 Tim. vi. 20. A few mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusè, add the words (in substance): “Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But let us proced with the course of our history.” The majority of the mss., however, endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed by Burton, Heinichen, and most of the editors, omit the words, which are clearly an interpolation.

329 Plinius Caecilius Secundus, commonly called “Pliny the younger” to distinguish him from his uncle, Plinius Secundus the elder, was a man of great literary attainments and an intimate friend of the Emperor Trajan. Of his literary remains the most important are his epistles, collected in ten books. The epistle of which Eusebius speaks in this chapter is No. 96 (97), and the reply of Trajan No. 97 (98) of the tenth book. The epistle was written from Bithynia, probably within a year after Pliny became governor there, which was in 110 or 111. It reads as follows: “It is my custom, my Lord, to refer to thee all questions concerning which I am in doubt; for who can better direct my hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at judicial examinations of the Christians; therefore I am ignorant how and to what extent it is customary to punish or to search for them. And I have hesitated greatly as to whether any distinction should be made on the ground of age, or whether the weak should be treated in the same way as the strong; whether pardon should be granted to the penitent, or he who has ever been a Christian gain nothing by renouncing it; whether the mere name, if unaccompanied with crimes, or crimes associated with the name, should be punished. Meanwhile, with those who have been brought before me as Christians I have pursued the following course. I have asked them if they were Christians, and if they have confessed, I have asked them a second and third time, threatening them with punishment; if they have persisted, I have commanded them to be led away to punishment. For I did not doubt that whatever that might be which they confessed, at any rate pertinacious and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There have been others afflicted with like insanity who as Roman citizens I have decided should be sent to Rome. In the course of the proceedings, as commonly happens, the crime was extended, and many varieties of cases appeared. An anonymous document was published, containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians I thought ought to be released, when they had followed my example in invoking the gods and offering incense and wine to thine image,-which I had for that purpose ordered brought with the images of the gods,-and when they had besides cursed Christ-things which they say that those who are truly Christians cannot be compelled to do. Others, accused by an informer, first said that they were Christians and afterwards denied it, saying that they had indeed been Christians, but had ceased to be, some three years, some several years, and one even twenty years before. All adored thine image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ. Moreover, they affirmed that this was the sum of their guilt or error; that they had been accustomed to come together on a fixed day before daylight and to sing responsively a song unto Christ as God; and to bind themselves with an oath, not with a view to the commission of some crime, but, on the contrary, that they would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, that they would not break faith, nor refuse to restore a deposit when asked for it. When they had done these things, their custom was to separate and to assemble again to partake of a meal, common yet harmless (which is not the characteristic of a nefarious superstition); but this they had ceased to do after my edict, in which according to thy demands I had prohibited fraternities. I therefore considered it the more necessary to examine, even with the use of torture, two female slaves who were called deaconesses (ministrae), in order to ascertain the truth. But I found nothing except a superstition depraved and immoderate; and therefore, postponing further inquiry, I have turned to thee for advice. For the matter seems to me worth consulting about, especially on account of the number of persons involved. For many of every age and of every rank and of both sexes have been already, and will be brought to trial. For the contagion of this superstition has permeated not only the cities, but also the villages and even the country districts. Yet it can apparently be arrested and corrected. At any rate, it is certainly a fact that the temples, which were almost deserted, are now beginning to be frequented, and the sacred rites, which were for a long time interrupted, to be resumed, and fodder for the victims to be sold, for which previously hardly a purchaser was to be found. From which it is easy to gather how great a multitude of men may be reformed if there is given a chance for repentance.”

The reply of Trajan-commonly called “Trajan’s Rescript"-reads as follows: “Thou hast followed the right course, my Secundus, in treating the cases of those who have been brought before thee as Christians. For no fixed rule can be laid down which shall be applicable to all cases. They are not to be searched for; if they are accused and convicted, they are to be punished; nevertheless, with the proviso that he who denies that he is a Christian, and proves it by his act (re ipsa),-i.e. by making supplication to our gods,-although suspected in regard to the past, may by repentance obtain pardon. Anonymous accusations ought not to be admitted in any proceedings; for they are of most evil precedent, and are not in accord with our age.”

330 ama th ew diegeiromenouj. See note 9, below.

331 This is a very good statement of the case. There was nothing approaching a universal persecution,-that is a persecution simultaneously carried on in all parts of the empire, until the time of Decius.

332 Mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 2. On the translation of Tertullian’s Apology employed by Eusebius, see note 9 on that chapter. The present passage is rendered, on the whole, with considerable fidelity; much more accurately than in the two cases noticed in the previous book.

333 Apol. chap. 2.

334 The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan’s rescript is that it was, on the whole, favorable,-that the Christians stood after it in a better state in relation to the law than before,-and this interpretation of the edict was adopted by all the early Fathers, and is, as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius (and so he entitles this chapter, not “Trajan commands the Christians to be punished, if they persist in their Christianity,” but “Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after,” thus implying that the rescript is favorable). But this interpretation is a decided mistake. Trajan’s rescript expressly made Christianity a religio iilicita, and from that time on it was a crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian; whereas, before that time, the matter had not been finally determined, and it had been left for each ruler to act just as he pleased. Trajan, it is true, advises moderation in the execution of the law; but that does not alter the fact that his rescript is an unfavorable one, which makes the profession of Christianity-what it had not been before-a direct violation of an established law. Compare, further, Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 14.

335 katakrinaj xristianouj tinaj kai thj aciaj ekbalwn. The Latin original reads: damnatis quibusdam christianis, quibusdam gradu pulsis. The Greek translator loses entirely the antithesis of quibusdam ...quibusdam (some he condemned, others he deprived of their dignity). He renders gradu by thj aciaj, which is quite allowable; but Thelwall, in his English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, renders the second phrase, “and driven some from their steadfastness,” in which the other sense of gradus is adopted.

336 Greek: ecw tou mh boulesqai autouj eidwlolatrein. Latin original: praeter obstinationem non sacrificandi. The eidwlolatrein is quite indefinite, and might refer to any kind of idolatry; but the Latin sacrificandi is definite, referring clearly to the sacrifices which the accused Christians were required to offer in the presence of the governor, if they wished to save their lives. I have, therefore, translated the Greek word in the light of the Latin word which it is employed to reproduce.

337 Greek: anistasqai ewqen. Latin original: caetus antelucanos. The Latin speaks of “assemblies” (which is justified by the ante lucem convenire of Pliny’s epistle), while the Greek (both here and in §1, above) speaks only of “arising,” and thus fails to reproduce the full sense of the original.

338 Greek: proj to thn episthmhn autwn diafulassein. Latin original: ad confaederandum disciplinam. The Greek translation is again somewhat inaccurate. episthmh (literally, “experience,” “knowledge") expresses certain meanings of the word disciplina, but does not strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter word is used in this passage; namely, in the sense of moral discipline. I have again translated the Greek version in the light of its Latin original.

339 The Emperor Trajan.

340 On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.

341 In Bk. IV. chap. 1, Eusebius gives eight years as the duration of Evarestus’ episcopate; but in his Chron. he gives seven. Other catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession and the duration of his episcopate. The truth is, as the monarchical episcopate was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to fix his dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who lived before the second quarter of the second century.

342 See above, chap. 32.

343 Of this Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells us here. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas.

344 On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.

345 Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very little. He is mentioned by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33. 3 and 4, who informs us that he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the apostle John. The latter statement is in all probability incorrect (see chap. 39. note 4): but there is no reason to question the truth of the former. Papias’ dates we cannot ascertain with any great degree of accuracy. A notice in the Chron. Paschale, which makes him a martyr and connects his death with that of Polycarp, assigning both to the year 164 a.d. has been shown by Lightfoot (Contemp. Review, 1875, II. p. 381) to rest upon a confusion of names, and to be, therefore, entirely untrustworthy. We learn, however, from chap. 39, below, that Papias was acquainted with personal followers of the Lord (e.g. with Aristion and the “presbyter John"), and also with the daughters of Philip. He must, therefore, have reached years of maturity before the end of the first century. On the other hand, the five books of his Expositions cannot have been written very long before the middle of the second century, for some of the extant fragments seem to show traces of the existence of Gnosticism in a somewhat advanced form at the time he wrote. With these data we shall not be far wrong in saying that he was born in the neighborhood of 70 a.d., and died before the middle of the second century. He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap. 39, note 19), and according to Eusebius, a man of limited understanding (see chap. 39, note 20); but the claim of the Tübingen school that he was an Ebionite is not supported by extant evidence (see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 384). On the writings of Papias, see below, chap. 39, note 1.

346 Four mss. insert at this point the words anhr ta panta oti malista logiwtatoj kai thj grafhj eidhmwn ("a man of the greatest learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures"), which are accepted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusè. The large majority of the best mss., however, supported by Rufinus, and followed by Valesius (in his notes), Stroth, Laemmer, Burton, and the German translator, Stigloher, omit the words, which are undoubtedly to be regarded as an interpolation, intended perhaps to offset the derogatory words used by Eusebius in respect to Papias in chap. 39, §13. In discussing the genuineness of these words, critics (among them Heinichen) have concerned themselves too much with the question whether the opinion of Papias expressed here contradicts that expressed in chap. 39, and therefore, whether Eusebius can have written these words. Even if it be possible to reconcile the two passages and to show that Papins may have been a learned man, while at the same time he was of “limited judgment,” as Eusebius informs us, the fact nevertheless remains that the weight of ms. authority is heavily against the genuineness of the words, and that it is much easier to understand the interpolation than the omission of such an expression in praise of one of the apostolic Fathers, especially when the lack of any commendation here and in chap. 39 must be unpleasantly noticeable.

347 Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second (see above, chap. 22, note 2). Granting the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned below), the fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria is established by Ep. ad Rom. 9, compared with ad Smyr. 11 and ad Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied, these passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church of Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable.

There are few more prominent figures in early Church history than Ignatius, and yet there are few about whom we have less unquestioned knowledge. He is known in history pre-eminently as a martyr. The greater part of his life is buried in complete obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to death for his profession of Christianity that he comes out into the light, and it is with him in this character and with the martyrdom which followed that tradition has busied itself. There are extant various Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed accounts of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements, and have been conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable and to furnish no trustworthy information on the subject in hand. From writers before Eusebius we have but four notices of Ignatius (Polycarp’s Ep. ad Phil. 9, 13; Irenaeus' Adv. Haer. V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in Cant., and Hom. VI. in Luc.). These furnish us with very little information. If the notice in Polycarp’s epistle be genuine (and though it has been widely attacked, there is no good reason to doubt it), it furnishes us with our earliest testimony to the martyrdom of a certain Ignatius and to the existence of epistles written by him. Irenaeus does not name Ignatius, but he testifies to the existence of the Epistle to the Romans which bears his name, and to the martyrdom of the author of that epistle. Origen informs us that Ignatius, the author of certain epistles, was second bishop of the church of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. Eusebius, in the present chapter, is the first one to give us an extended account of Ignatius, and his account contains no information beyond what he might have drawn from the Ignatian epistles themselves as they lay before him, except the statements, already made by Origen, that Ignatius was the second bishop of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. The former statement must have rested on a tradition, at least in part, independent of the epistles (for they imply only the fact of his Antiochian episcopacy, without specifying the time); the latter might have arisen from the epistles themselves (in which it is clearly stated that the writer is on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom), for of course it would be natural to assume that his expectation was realized.

The connection in which Eusebius records the martyrdom implies that he believed that it took place in the reign of Trajan, and in his Chronicle he gives precise dates for the beginning of his episcopate (the 212th Olympiad, i.e. 69-72 a.d.) and for his martyrdom (the tenth year of Trajan, i.e. 107 a.d.). Subsequent notices of Ignatius are either quite worthless or are based solely upon the epistles themselves or upon the statements of Eusebius. The information, independent of the epistles, which has reached us from the time of Eusebius or earlier, consequently narrows itself down to the report that Ignatius was second bishop of Antioch, and that he was bishop from about 70 to 107 a.d. The former date may be regarded as entirely unreliable. Even were it granted that there could have been a bishop at the head of the Antiochian church at so early a date (and there is no warrant for such a supposition), it would nevertheless be impossible to place any reliance upon the date given by Eusebius, as it is impossible to place any reliance upon the dates given for the so-called bishops of other cities during the first century (see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 1). But the date of Ignatius’ martyrdom given by Eusebius seems at first sight to rest upon a more reliable tradition, and has been accepted by many scholars as correct. Its accuracy, however, has been impugned, especially by Zahn and Lightfoot, who leave the date of Ignatius’ death uncertain, claiming simply that he died under Trajan; and by Harnack, who puts his death into the reign of Hadrian. We shall refer to this again further on. Meanwhile, since the information which we have of Ignatius, independent of the Ignatian epistles, is so small in amount, we are obliged to turn to those epistles for our chief knowledge of his life and character.

But at this point a difficulty confronts us. There are extant three different recensions of epistles ascribed to Ignatius. Are any of them genuine, and if so, which? The first, or longer Greek recension, as it is called, consists of fifteen epistles, which were first published in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Of these fifteen, eight are clearly spurious, and seven are at least largely interpolated. The genuineness of the former and the integrity of the latter now find no defenders among scholars. The second, or shorter Greek recension, contains seven of the fifteen epistles of the longer recension, in a much shorter form. Their titles are the same that are given by Eusebius in this chapter. They were first discovered and published in the seventeenth century. The third, or Syriac recension, contains three of these seven epistles (to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans), in a still shorter form, and was discovered in the present century. Since its discovery, opinions have been divided between it and the shorter Greek recension; but the defense of the genuineness of the latter by Zahn and Lightfoot may be regarded as finally settling the matter, and establishing the originality of the shorter Greek recension as over against that represented by the Syriac version. The former, therefore, alone comes into consideration in discussing the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles. Their genuineness is still stoutly denied by some; but the evidence in their favor, external and internal, is too strong to be set aside; and since the appearance of Lightfoot’s great work, candid scholars almost unanimously admit that the question is settled, and their genuineness triumphantly established. The great difficulties which have stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are, first and chiefly, the highly developed form of church government which they reveal; and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in them. Both of these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later than the reign of Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius’ martyrdom. Harnack regards these two difficulties as very serious, if not absolutely fatal to the supposition that the epistles were written during the reign of Trajan; but in a very keen tract, entitled Die Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig, 1878), he has endeavored to show that the common tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is worthless, and he therefore brings the martyrdom down into the reign of Hadrian, and thus does away with most of the internal diffculties which beset the acceptance of the epistles. Whether or not Harnack’s explanation of Eusebius’ chronology of the Antiochian bishops be accepted as correct (and the number of its adherents is not great), he has, at least, shown that the tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is not as strong as it has been commonly supposed to be, and that it is possible to question seriously its reliability. Lightfoot, who discusses Harnack’s theory at considerable length (II. p. 450-469), rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died sometime during the reign of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he gives up the traditional date of 107 a.d., which is found in the Chronicle of Eusebius, and has been very commonly accepted as reliable. Lightfoot, however, remarks that the genuineness of the epistles is much more certain than the chronology of Ignatius, and that, therefore, if it is a question between the rejection of the epistles and the relegation of Ignatius’ death to the reign of Hadrian (which he, however, denies), the latter alternative must be chosen without hesitation. A final decision upon this knotty point has not yet been, and perhaps never will be, reached; but Harnack’s theory that the epistles were written during the reign of Hadrian deserves even more careful consideration than it has yet received.

Granting the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are still in possession of no great amount of information in regard to his life. We know from them only that he was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria, and had been condemned to martyrdom, and that he was, at the time of their composition, on his way to Rome to suffer death in the arena. His character and opinions, however, are very clearly exhibited in his writings. To quote from Schaff, “Ignatius stands out in history as the ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the earliest advocate of the hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil points. As a writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness, and force of ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious style; but in apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity, and governmental wisdom of the Roman character. Ignatius glows with the fire and impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond the bounds of sobriety. He was a very uncommon man, and made a powerful impression upon his age. He is the incarnation, as it were, of the three closely connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism. Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian charity and churchly exclusiveness, are typically represented in Ignatius.”

The literature on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy is very extensive. The principal editions to be consulted are Cureton’s The Ancient Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the Romans, with English translation and notes (the editio princeps of the Syriac version), London and Berlin, 1845; Zahn’s Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulae, Martyria fragmenta, Lips. 1876 (Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Vol. II); Bishop Lightfoot’s St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp (The Apostolic Fathers, Part II.), London, 1885. This edition (in two volumes) is the most complete and exhaustive edition of Ignatius’ epistles which has yet appeared, and contains a very full and able discussion of all questions connected with Ignatius and his writings. It contains the text of the longer Greek recension and of the Syriac version, in addition to that of the seven genuine epistles, and practically supersedes all earlier editions. An English translation of all the epistles of Ignatius (Syriac and Greek, in both recensions) is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45-126. The principal discussions which it is necessary to refer to here are those of Lightfoot in his edition of the Ignatian epistles just referred to; Zahn’s Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873 (very full and able); Harnack’s Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878; and the reviews of Lightfoot’s edition contributed by Harnack to the Expositor, December, 1885, January and March, 1886. For a more extended list of works on the subject, and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schaff’s Church History, Vol. II. p. 651-664.

348 That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under condemnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many passages of the epistles themselves. Whether the tradition, as Eusebius calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was independent of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements made in them, we cannot tell. Whichever is the case, we may regard the tradition as reliable. That he suffered martyrdom somewhere is too well attested to be doubted for a moment; and there exists no tradition in favor of any other city as the place of his martyrdom, except a late one reported by John Malalas, which names Antioch as the place. This is accepted by Volkmar and by the author of Supernatural Religion, but its falsity has been conclusively shown by Zahn (see his edition of the Ignatian epistles, p. xii. 343, 381).

349 The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are mentioned by Eusebius in this chapter) fall into two groups, four having been written from one place and three from another. The first four-to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Traillians, and Romans-were written from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as we can learn from notices in the epistles themselves, and as is stated below by Eusebius, who probably took his information from the statements of the epistles, as we take ours. Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles lay to the south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways of Asia Minor. But Ignatius was taken by a road which lay further north, passing through Philadelphia and Sardis (see Lightfoot, I. 33 sq.). and thus did not visit the three cities to which he now sends epistles from Smyrna. The four epistles written from Smyrna contain no indication of the chronological order in which they were written, and whether Eusebius in his enumeration followed the manuscript of the epistles which he used (our present mss. give an entirely different order, which is not at all chronological and does not even keep the two groups distinct), or whether he exercised his own judgment, we do not know.

350 Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just below, we know nothing more.

351 Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.

352 lepardoij. This is the earliest use of this word in any extant writing, and an argument has been drawn from this fact against the authenticity of the epistle. For a careful discussion of the matter, see Lightfoot’s edition, Vol. II. p. 212.

353 Compare 1 Cor. iv. 4.

354 Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. I, §42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.

355 The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot’s, who prefers with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative zhlwsai instead of the infinitive zhlwsai, which is found in most of the mss. and is given by Heinichen and the majority of the other editors. The sense seems to require, as Lightfoot asserts, the optative rather than the infinitive.

356 That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnaeans, and to Polycarp is clear from indications in the epistles themselves. The chronological order in which the three were written is uncertain. He had visited both churches upon his journey to Troas and had seen Polycarp in Smyrna.

357 See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.

358 Ep. ad Smyr. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this passage from Ignatius in his de vir. ill. 16, refers it to the gospel which had lately been translated by him (according to de vir. ill. 3), viz.: the Gospel of the Nazarenes (or the Gospel according to the Hebrews). In his Comment. in Isaiam, Bk. XVIII. introd., Jerome quotes the same passage again, referring it to the same gospel (Evangelium quod Hebraeorum lectitant Nazaraei). But in Origen de prin. praef. 8, the phrase is quoted as taken from the Teaching of Peter (”qui Petri doctrina apellatur“). Eusebius’ various references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above, chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to suppose that if this passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according to the Hebrews he should not have known it. We seem then to be driven to the conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but was later incorporated either from the Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some common source or oral tradition.

359 daimonion aswmaton.

360 Compare Luke xxiv. 39.

361 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 28. 4.

362 On Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.

363 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.

364 Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.

365 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 13. The genuineness of this chapter, which bears such strong testimony to the Ignatian epistles, has been questioned by some scholars, but without good grounds. See below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.

366 According to Eusebius' Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.), and was succeeded by Cornelius in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d.). In the History he is mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given. The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable (see on the dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius). Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information. His name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.

367 This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as may be gathered from Eusebius’ mention of him here, and also from the reference to him in the anonymous work against the Montanists (see below, Bk. V. chap. 16). We know nothing about this Quadratus except what is told us in these two passages, unless we identify him, as many do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned below, in Bk. IV. chap. 3. This identification is possible, but by no means certain. See Bk. IV. chap. 3, note 2.

368 This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius, although he says there were “many others” that were well known in those days, was unacquainted with the names of such persons as we, too, are unacquainted with them. None will deny that there may have been some men of prominence in the Church at this time, but Eusebius apparently had no more information to impart in regard to them than he gives us in this chapter, and he makes up for his lack of facts in a way which is not at all uncommon.

369 That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

370 See Matt. xix. 21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers, and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.

371 In chap. 36, above.

372 See above, chap. 16.

373 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.

374 Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle (whether the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in common circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine. This epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian ms., complete in the ms. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in 1875. The publication of the complete work proves, what had long been suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, but a homily. It cannot have been written by the author of the first epistle of Clement, nor can it belong to the first century. It was probably written in Rome about the middle of the second century (see Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264-283 and 329-364), and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses considerable interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement. It is published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is necessary to mention only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn’s Patrum Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876, in which Harnack’s prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and the appendix to Lighffoot’s edition of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to above.

375 There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of the third and following centuries, the chief among which purports to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, and an account of Clement’s family history and of his travels with Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical romance. This exists now in three forms (the Homilies, Recognitions, and Epitome), all of which are closely related; though whether the first two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first) are drawn from a common original, or whether one of them is the original of the other, is not certain. The works are more or less Ebionitic in character, and play an important part in the history of early Christian literature. For a careful discussion of them, see Salmon’s article Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christian Biography; and for the literature of the subject, which is very extensive, see especially Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 435 sq.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Homilies contain extended conversations purporting to have been held between Clement and Apion, the famous antagonist of the Jews (see Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5). It is quite possible that the “wordy and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,” which Eusebius refers to here may be identical with the Homilies, in which case we must suppose Eusebius’ language to be somewhat inexact; for the dialogues in the Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not between Peter and Apion. It seems more probable, however, when we realize the vast number of works of a similar character which were in circulation during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius refers here to another work, belonging to the same general class, which is now lost. If such a work existed, it may well have formed a basis for the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the Homilies. In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we must leave the matter quite undecided. It is not necessary here to enumerate the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant. Compare Schaff’s Church History, II. 648 sq. Clement’s name was a favorite one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all kinds were published under his name. The most complete collection of these spurious works is found in Migne’s Patr. Graec. Vols. I. and II.

376 In chap. 36, above.

377 logiwn kuriakwn echghseij. This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenaeus, Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn’s edition, Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacrae, I. p. 3-16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of Papias’ work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text; secondly, “the interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work"; and thirdly, the oral traditions, which “were subordinate to the interpretation” (Contemporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a description of the plan of Papias’ work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the word logia, see below, note 26. As remarked there, logia cannot be confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the “oracles” which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels. In the absence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely accepted. It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias’ work, as we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot’s article already referred to for a discussion of this question. The date of the composition of Papias’ work is now commonly fixed at about the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a.d. The books and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numerous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, which has been already referred to, we should mention also Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christian Biography, Schleiermacher’s essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735 sq.,-the first critical discussion of Papias’ testimony in regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,-dissertations by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift fur wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, I879. See also p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.

378 wj monwn autw grafentwn. Irenaeus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says “For five books have been written by him” (esti gar autw pente biblia suntetagmena). Eusebius’ interpretation of Irenaeus’ words is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenaeus’ meaning.

379 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4.

380 The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenaeus, has been questioned by many, who have held that, in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is meant in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. p. 697 sq. A careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons bearing the same name,-John. In fact, no other conclusion can be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand, if we accept Eusebius’ interpretation, we are met by a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived in Asia Minor, early in the second century a man to whom Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is mentioned by no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise an entirely unknown personage. And still further, no reader of Papias work, before the time of Eusebius, gathered from that work, so far as we know, a single hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was any other than the apostle John. These difficulties are so serious that they have led many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a second John, in spite of his apparently clear reference to such a person. Among those who deny this second John’s existence are such scholars as Zahn and Salmon. (Compare, for instance, the latter’s able article on Joannes the Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian Biography.) In reply to their arguments, it may be said that the silence of all other early writers does not necessarily disprove the existence of a second John; for it is quite conceivable that all trace of him should be swallowed up in the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in the same place. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing for those who were well acquainted with both Johns, may have had no suspicion that any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle, and would imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was speaking of his personal friend John; and therefore he would have no reason for stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for expressly distinguishing the one from the other. It was, then, quite natural that Irenaeus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a John in Papias’ works, should simply take for granted that the same John was meant; for by his time the lesser John may easily, in the minds of most people, have become lost in the tradition of his greater namesake. In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such violence to Papias’ language as is required to identify the two Johns mentioned by him in the passage quoted below. Among those who accept Eusebius’ conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are such scholars as Tischendorf, Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If Eusebius has recovered for us from the ancient history of the Church an otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he has corrected an error committed by all his predecessors. In this case, as in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius’ wide information, sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of traditionalism receive triumphant vindication and we may accept his conclusion that Papias was personally acquainted with a second John, who was familiarly known as “the Presbyter,” and thus distinguished from the apostle John, who could be called a presbyter or elder only in the general sense in which all the leading men of his generation were elders (see below, note 6), and could not be designated emphatically as ”the presbyter.” In regard to the connection of this “presbyter John” with the Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although Papias distinguishes, as we may conclude, between two Johns in the passage referred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces himself a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow that Irenaeus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the apostle John; for Irenaeus may have based his statement upon information received from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias, and not upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias may have been a hearer of both Johns. At the same time, it must be said that if Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely have failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and if he had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked it. The conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius is right in correcting Irenaeus’ statement, and that the latter based his report upon a misinterpretation of Papias’ own words. In that case, we have no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of John the apostle.

381 This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral traditions did not form the basis of Papias’ work, but that the basis consisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he then added the oral traditions which he refers to here. See Contemporary Review, 1885, II. p. 388 sq. The words words taij ermhneiaij have been translated by some scholars, “the interpretations of them,” thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions with interpretations of them. But this translation is not warranted by the Greek, and the also at the beginning of the sentence shows that the work must have contained other matter which preceded these oral traditions and to which the “interpretations” belong.

382 As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.), Papias uses the term “elders” in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the Church in the generations preceding his own. It thus includes both the apostles and their immediate disciples. The term was thus used in a general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations earlier than the writers themselves. The term, therefore, cannot be confined to the apostles alone, nor can it be confined, as some have thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das Papias Fragment), to ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense. Where the word presbuteroj is used in connection with the second John (at the close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its official sense. At least we cannot otherwise easily understand how it could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should distinguish him from the other John. For in the general sense of the word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders. Compare Lightfoot’s words in the passage referred to above.

383 paraginomenoij, instead of paraginomenaj, agreeing with entolaj. The latter is the common reading, but is not so well supported by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to be rejected in favor of the former. See the note of Heinichen in loco.

384 That is, “to those that believe, to those that are possessed of faith.”

385 Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this mention of him by Papias.

386 See above, note 6.

387 ek twn bibliwn. These words have been interpreted by many critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel accounts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred to them the oral traditions which he picked up from “the elders.” But as Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural interpretation of Papias’ words, and makes him practically stultify and contradict himself. He cannot have considered the written documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value, nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which he refers to in this chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of which he praises for its accuracy, as inferior to the oral traditions, which came to him at best only at second hand. It is necessary to refer the twn bibliwn, as Lightfoot does, to “interpretations” of the Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which Papias prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has received from the disciples of the apostles. This interpretation of the word alone saves us from difficulties and Papias from self-stultification.

388 See above, note 4.

389 The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap. 25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter, however, says that some regard them both as memorials of the one John, the apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to prove that a church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot where John was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of the house in which he had resided, and that thus two spots were consecrated to the memory of a single John. The proof which he brings in support of this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions, and yet after reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that the existence of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius, Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means proves that more than one John was buried there.

390 A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The suggestion is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend to be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse must have been written by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact itself; but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to think that it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle. He is therefore led to suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some other John. He does not pretend to say who that John was, but thinks it must have been some John that resided in Asia; and he then adds that there were said to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John,-evidently implying, though he does not say it, that he is inclined to think that this second John thus commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse. It is plain from this that he had no tradition whatever in favor of this theory, that it was solely an hypothesis arising from critical difficulties standing in the way of the ascription of the book to the apostle John. Eusebius sees in this suggestion a very welcome solution of the difficulties with which he feels the acceptance of the book to be beset, and at once states it as a possibility that this “presbyter John,” whom he has discovered in the writings of Papias, may have been the author of the book. But the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too firmly established to be shaken by such critical and theological difficulties as influenced Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and in consequence nothing came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius. In the present century, however, the “presbyter John” has again played an important part among some critics as the possible author of certain of the Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse has (until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most negative critics that the “presbyter John” has not figured at all as the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future.

391 In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the apostle Philip, see that chapter, note 6.

392 That is, in the time of Philip.

393 Acts i. 23.

394 Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. V. 32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to the fertility of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in its nature, and evidently apocryphal. “The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty measures of wine,” &c.

395 Chiliasm, or millennarianism,-that is, the belief in a visible reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the general judgment, -was very widespread in the early Church. Jewish chiliasm was very common at about the beginning of the Christian era, and is represented in the voluminous apocalyptic literature of that day. Christian chiliasm was an outgrowth of the Jewish, but spiritualized it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of the first, coming of Christ. The chief Biblical support for this doctrine is found in Rev. xx. 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius, Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the doctrine were Caius, Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. After the time of Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy, and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead the doctrine, which from his time on was commonly accepted in the Church, that the millennium is the present reign of Christ, which began with his resurrection. See Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 613 sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for the literature of the subject.

396 sfodra smikroz ton noun. Eusebius’ judgment of Papias may have been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strongchiliasm of he latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fagments of Papias’ writings wiil lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words in his praise, given by some mss., in chap. 36, §2, see note 3 on that chapter.

397 See above, note 19.

398 We cannot, in the abscence of the context, say with certainty that the presbyter here refered to is the “presbyter John,” of whom Papias has so much to say, and who ia mentioned in the previous paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach’s Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Mattaeus, p. 26 sq.

399 Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark wih Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by tshose who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical ospel has been a very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias. Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other sources (e.g. Justin Martyr’s Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose composition Papias here speaks. He may have written a Gospel which afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have written what is commonly known as the “Ur-Marcus” (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we cannot decide with absolute certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the tradition which he gives to refer to our Gospel of Mark. The exact significance of the word ermhneuthj as used in this sentence has been much disputed. It seems best to give it its usual significance,-the significance which we attach to the English word “interpreter.” See Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 sq. It may be, supposing the report to be correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he labored to assist him in his preaching. What language it was for which he needed an interpreter we cannot say. We might think naturally of Latin, but it is not impossible that Greek or that both languages were meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in it with perfect ease. The words “though not indeed in order” (ou mentoi tacei) have also caused considerable controversy. But they seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps to a lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds of Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics have supposed that this accusation of a “lack of order” implies the existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order, with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Light-foot, Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural supposition, but it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of order is not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order of events which he had received from tradition as the true one.

---

A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

---

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.


Archbishop Gregory
Dormition Skete
P.O. Box 3177
Buena Vista, CO 81211-3177
USA
Contact: Archbishop Gregory Valid CSS!Valid XHTML
            1.0 Transitional
Copyright 2005
All rights reserved.