Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
Advanced Information
Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1890 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book II.
Introduction.
1. We have discussed in the preceding book those subjects in
ecclesiastical history which it was necessary to treat by way of
introduction, and have accompanied them with brief proofs. Such were
the divinity of the saving Word, and the antiquity of the doctrines
which we teach, as well as of that evangelical life which is led by
Christians, together with the events which have taken place in
connection with Christ's recent appearance, and in connection with his
passion and with the choice of the apostles.
2. In the present book let us examine the events which took place
after his ascension, confirming some of them from the divine
Scriptures, and others from such writings as we shall refer to from
time to time.
Chapter I.--The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of
Christ.
1. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, [233]
who, as has been shown [234] was also one of the Seventy, was chosen
to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, [235]
for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of
the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom
Stephen was one. [236] He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death
at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had
been promoted for this very purpose. [237] And thus he was the first
to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, [238] which belongs
to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.
2. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just [239] on account of
the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be
made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the
brother of the Lord [240] because he was known as a son of Joseph,
[241] and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the
Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy
Ghost before they came together," [242] as the account of the holy
Gospels shows.
3. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes [243] writes thus:
"For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our
Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but
chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem." [244]
4. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates
also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his
resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and
Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest
of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. [245] But
there were two Jameses: [246] one called the Just, who was thrown from
the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a
fuller, [247] and another who was beheaded." [248] Paul also makes
mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, "Other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." [249]
5. At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the
Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent
Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the religion of
Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there.
[250]
7. When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ;
and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of
mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of
Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour's teaching. And from
that time down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been
devoted to the name of Christ, [251] offering no common proof of the
beneficence of our Saviour toward them also.
8. These things have been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now
turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and greatest
persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem
in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the
disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and
Samaria, [252] some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as
Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart
the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the
Jews alone. [253]
9. During this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and
entering the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and
committing them to prison. [254]
10. Philip also, one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with
the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down
to Samaria, [255] and being filled with the divine power, he first
preached the word to the inhabitants of that country. And divine grace
worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus with many others was
attracted by his words. [256]
11. Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his
jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he
was thought to be the great power of God. [257] But at this time,
being amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the
divine power, he feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going
so far as to receive baptism. [258]
12. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by
those who follow his most impure heresy. [259] For they, after the
manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a
pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they
are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in
themselves. [260] The most of these have been expelled as soon as they
have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected
by Peter, received the merited punishment. [261]
13. But as the preaching of the Saviour's Gospel was daily advancing,
a certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of
the queen of that country, [262] for Ethiopia even to the present day
is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among
the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip
in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of
believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on
returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the
universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men; [263]
so that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment,
which declares that "Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God." [264]
14. In addition to these, Paul, that "chosen vessel," [265] "not of
men neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself
and of God the Father who raised him from the dead," [266] was
appointed an apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by
a voice which was uttered in a revelation from heaven. [267]
Footnotes
[233] See Acts i. 23-26.
[234] Bk. I. chap. 12, §2.
[235] The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenæus
(adv. Hær. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64.
3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the
third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only
seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since
almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification are urged
this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties
assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words
diakonia and diakonein in connection with the "Seven" in Acts vi. It
must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously
in favor of the identification, for Chrysostom (Homily XIV. on Acts)
denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later
deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the
financial affairs of the Jerusalem church, while the latter acted
simply as bishops' assistants. In fact, it was the bishop of the
second century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church
finances. And finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms
diakonein and diakonia in connection with the Seven, for these words
are used always in a general, never in an official sense in other
parts of the Acts and of the New Testament, and, what is still more
decisive, the same word (diakonia) is used in the same passage in
connection with the apostles; the Seven are "to serve tables"
(diakonein tais trapezais,) the apostles are to give themselves to
"the service of the word" (diakonia tou logou.) There is just as much
reason, therefore, on linguistic grounds, for calling the apostles
"deacons" as for giving that name to the Seven. On the other hand,
against the opinion that the Seven were deacons, are to be urged the
facts that they are never called "deacons" by Luke or by any other New
Testament writer; that we are nowhere told, in the New Testament or
out of it, that there were deacons in the Jerusalem church, although
Luke had many opportunities to call the Seven "deacons" if he had
considered them such; and finally, that according to Epiphanius (Hær.
XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of Palestine in his time had only
presbyters and Archisynagogi (chiefs of the synagogue). These
Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries who refused to
advance with the Church catholic in its normal development; it is
therefore at least significant that there were no deacons among them
in the fourth century. In view of these considerations I feel
compelled to doubt the traditional identification, although it is
accepted without dissent by almost all scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot's
article on The Christian Ministry in his Commentary on Philippians).
There remain but two possibilities: either the Seven constituted a
merely temporary committee (as held by Chrysostom, and in modern
times, among others, by Vitringa, in his celebrated work on the
Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on the Apostolic Age); or they
were the originals of permanent officers in the Church, other than
deacons. The former alternative is possible, but the emphasis which
Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also the fact that
the very duties which these men were chosen to perform were such as
would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the Church, and
such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and similar
committee if the old were not continued. In favor of the second
alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of
this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be
urged: First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of
men in the Jerusalem church known as "elders." Of the appointment of
these elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot
have been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of
the Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and
influential men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the
subsequent Chapters of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to
find them referred to with the apostles, it is always the "elders"
that are mentioned. Finally, when the elders appear for the first time
(Acts xi. 30), we find them entrusted with the same duties which the
Seven were originally appointed to perform: they receive the alms sent
by the church of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very
natural conclusion that these "elders" occupy the office of whose
institution we read in Acts vi. Against this identification of the
Seven with the elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged:
First, that Luke does not call them elders. But it is quite possible
that they were not called by that name at first, and yet later
acquired it; and in that case, in referring to them in later times,
people would naturally call the first appointed "the Seven," to
distinguish them from their successors, "the elders,"--the well-known
and frequently mentioned officers whose number may well have been
increased as the church grew. It is thus easier to account for Luke's
omission of the name "elder," than it would be to account for his
omission of the name "deacon," if they were deacons. In the second
place, it might be objected that the duties which the Seven were
appointed to perform were not commensurate with those which fell to
the lot of the elders as known to us. This objection, however, loses
its weight when we realize that the same kind of a development went on
in connection with the bishop, as has been most clearly pointed out by
Hatch in his Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and by
Harnack in his translation of that work and in his edition of the
Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case of the Seven, who were
evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem church after the apostles,
and at the same time were "full of the Spirit," it was very natural
that, as the apostles gradually scattered, the successors of these
Seven should have committed to them other duties besides the purely
financial ones. The theory presented in this note is not a novel one.
It was suggested first by Böhmer (in his Diss. Juris eccles.), who was
followed by Ritschl (in his Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche), and has
been accepted in a somewhat modified form by Lange (in his
Apostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his Apost. und Nachapost.
Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had been proposed by
others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in a more
elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association in the
spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been
increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent
scholars referred to above.
[236] See Acts vi. 1-6.
[237] See Acts vii
[238] stephanos, "a crown."
[239] James is not called the "Just" in the New Testament, but
Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called thus
by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and it
is by this name that he is known throughout history.
[240] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13.
[241] Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for
had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in
this way.
[242] Matt. i. 18.
[243] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. On
Clement's life and writings, see Bk. V. chap. 11.
[244] all' 'IEURkobon ton dikaion episkopon ton ;;Ierosolumon
helesthai, as the majority of the mss. and editions read. Laemmer,
followed by Heinichen, substitutes genesthai for helesthaion the
authority of two important codices. The other reading, however, is as
well, if not better, supported. How soon after the ascension of
Christ, James the Just assumed a leading position in the church of
Jerusalem, we do not know. He undoubtedly became prominent very soon,
as Paul in 37 (or 40) a.d. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting
Jerusalem. But we do not know of his having a position of leadership
until the Jerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is
one of the three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in
influence with Peter and John. But this very expression "three pillars
of the Church" excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the
Church in the modern sense of the term--he was only one of the rulers
of the Church. Indeed, we have abundant evidence from other sources
that the monarchical episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age.
It was the custom of all writers of the second century and later to
throw back into the apostolic age their own church organization, and
hence we hear of bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches
where we know that the episcopacy was a second century growth.
[245] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 3.
[246] Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord,
with James, the son of Alphæus (compare the words just above: "These
delivered it to the rest of the apostles," in which the word
"apostles," on account of the "Seventy" just following, seems to be
used in a narrow sense, and therefore this James to be one of the
Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis
(see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment
given by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus
(quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many
of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to
distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement
with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in
regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction,
indeed, appears only upon careful examination.
[247] Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The
account of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius
in chap. 23, below, which see.
[248] James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I.,
44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9 below.
[249] Gal. i. 19.
[250] See above, Bk. I. chap. 13.
[251] The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not
known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat
of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius' time was filled
with magnificent churches and monasteries.
[252] See Acts viii. 1
[253] See Acts xi. 19
[254] See Acts viii. 3
[255] See Acts viii. 5
[256] See Acts viii. 9 sqq. Upon Simon, see chap. 13, note 3.
[257] ten megEURlen dunamin tou theou. Compare Acts viii. 10, which
has he dunamis tou theou he kaloumene. According to Irenæus (I. 23. 1)
he was called "the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father
over all things" (sublissimam virtutem, hoc est, eum qui sit nuper
omnia Pater); according to Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 (see below,
chap. 13), ton proton theon; according to the Clementine Homilies (II.
22) he wished to be called "a certain supreme power of God" (anotEURte
tis dunamis.) According to the Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was
called the "Standing one" (hinc ergo Stans appellatur).
[258] Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church,
which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the
founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back
into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward
distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say
that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it
be implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to
purchase the gift of God with money.
[259] Eusebius may refer here to the Simonians, an heretical sect
(mentioned by Justin, Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and others),
which recognized him as its founder and leader (though they originated
probably at a later date), and even looked upon him as a God. They
were exceedingly licentious and immoral. Their teachings gradually
assumed a decidedly Gnostic character, and Simon came to be looked
upon as the father of all Gnostics (compare Irenæus, I. 27. 4), and
hence of heretics in general, and as himself the arch-heretic.
Eusebius, therefore, perhaps refers in this place simply to the
Gnostics, or to the heretics in general.
[260] Another instance of the external and artificial conception of
heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.
[261] Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further
than the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a
curse, and which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a
deserved punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing
him to destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).
[262] Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the
Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but
of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroë, an island formed by two
branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. N. VI. 35 (Delphin
edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54 (Müller's
edit., Paris, 1877).
[263] Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned to
Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far as I know, is
the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him. The first
certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into
Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and Ædesius, of
whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable
that Christianity existed there long before this time. Compare
Neander's Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also H. R. Reynolds'
article upon the "Ethiopian Church" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of
Christian Biography, II. 232 sqq.
[264] Psa. xviii. 31.
[265] Acts ix. 15.
[266] Gal. i. 1.
[267] See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; xxii. 6 sqq.; xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16; 1
Cor. xv. 8-10
Chapter II.--How Tiberius was affected when informed by Pilate
concerning Christ.
1. And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour
were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which
prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the
emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that
nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius [268] of
the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning
the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.
2. He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of
him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now
believed by many to be a God. [269] They say that Tiberius referred
the matter to the Senate, [270] but that they rejected it, ostensibly
because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient
law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by
a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving
teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and
recommendation of men.
3. But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made
in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he
had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.
[271]
4. These things are recorded by Tertullian, [272] a man well versed in
the laws of the Romans, [273] and in other respects of high repute,
and one of those especially distinguished in Rome. [274] In his
apology for the Christians, [275] which was written by him in the
Latin language, and has been translated into Greek, [276] he writes as
follows: [277]
5. "But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their
origin, it was an ancient decree [278] that no one should be
consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its
approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol,
Alburnus. [279] And this is a point in favor of our doctrine, [280]
that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God
does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this
custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.
6. Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry
into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine,
where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to
them that he was pleased with the doctrine. [281] But the Senate,
since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius
continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the
accusers of the Christians." [282] Heavenly providence had wisely
instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel,
unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout
the world.
Footnotes
[268] That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also
by Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin
Martyr (Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate
as well known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are
still extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of
these Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the
Gospel of Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles
of Pilate addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant
Acts and Epistles are collected in Tischendorf's Evang. Apoc., and
most of them are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See
also the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the
excellent article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf,
p. lxii sqq.
[269] The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius' description,
containing as it does a detailed account of Christ's miracles and of
his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its
present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely
based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by
interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf
referred to in the previous note.
[270] See below, note 12.
[271] That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but
this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and
not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.
[272] Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second
century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius
pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some
even into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst
Nöldechen in the Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1886,
Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about
230. Tertullian's father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became
a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity
probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a
presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or
in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly
spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in
Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his
writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200
a.d.), and died at an advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter
rests only upon the authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is
denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical
celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of
works,--apologetic, polemic, and practical--a few in Greek, but most
of them in Latin,--and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The
best edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes.
Vol. III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of
Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is
given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1-125. Our main
sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome's
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of
the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A.
Hauck, Tertullian's Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the
literature, see Schaff's Church Hist. II. p. 818.
[273] His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not
very conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a
lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of
resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his
own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have
been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the
acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.
[274] Kai ton mEURlista epi ;;Romes lampron. Rufinus translates inter
nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores
celeberrimus, taking epi ;;Romes to mean the Latin language. But this
is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says
expressly, one of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his
work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent
some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would
imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law
and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.
[275] Tertullian's Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is
"one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church"
(Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it
must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and
almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204.
Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften Tertullian's,
Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte,
1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Nöldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte
und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning
its composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197,
its date may be accepted as practically established.
[276] Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this
passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he
quotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the
Latin language appears to have been very limited. He must have had
some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian's rescript to
Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8;
but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would
not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good
reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For
instance, the only work of Tertullian's which he quotes is his
Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not
unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian's works, or at least
the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not
enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with
any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his
knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he
shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not
once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important Latin
works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed
in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen's note in his edition of
Eusebius' History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of
Tertullian's Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen
from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II.
chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius
himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible.
[277] Tertullian's Apology, chap. 5.
[278] Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian's Apology, p.
56) that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero's De Legibus
in the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas
nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.
[279] MEURrkos 'Aimilios houtos peri tinos eidolou pepoieken
'Albournou. Latin: Scit M. Æmilius de deo suo Alburno. In Adv.
commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et
Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus
Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non
regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that this eidolos or Deus
Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I
find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.
[280] Literally, "This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of)
our doctrine" (kai touto huper tou hemon logou pepoietai); but the
freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
The original Latin reads: facit et hoc ad causam nostram.
[281] This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and
cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably,
as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents
from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from
original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long
after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention
these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical
historian. Compare Neander's remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p.
93 sqq. (Torrey's Translation).
[282] Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan's rescript and all
subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable.
Chapter III.--The Doctrine of Christ soon spread throughout All the
World.
1. Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine
co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun,
quickly illumined the whole world; [283] and straightway, in
accordance with the divine Scriptures, [284] the voice of the inspired
evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world.
2. In every city and village, churches were quickly established,
filled with multitudes of people like a replenished threshing-floor.
And those whose minds, in consequence of errors which had descended to
them from their forefathers, were fettered by the ancient disease of
idolatrous superstition, were, by the power of Christ operating
through the teaching and the wonderful works of his disciples, set
free, as it were, from terrible masters, and found a release from the
most cruel bondage. They renounced with abhorrence every species of
demoniacal polytheism, and confessed that there was only one God, the
creator of all things, and him they honored with the rites of true
piety, through the inspired and rational worship which has been
planted by our Saviour among men.
3. But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the
nations, Cornelius, of Cæsarea in Palestine, with his whole house,
through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received
faith in Christ; [285] and after him a multitude of other Greeks in
Antioch, [286] to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of
Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now
increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem
were on the ground, [287] among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition
many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,
[288] as from a fresh and life-giving fountain. [289]
4. And Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a
prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place, [290]
and Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the
brethren. [291]
Footnotes
[283] Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over the
whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the
statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a
historical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that
the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of
him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles preached in all
parts of the world is to be traced back to the same cause.
[284] Ps. xix. 4.
[285] See Acts x. 1 sq.
[286] See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads
at this point ;;EllenistEURs, a reading which is strongly supported by
external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the internal
evidence seems to demand ;'Ellenas, and this reading is found in some
of the oldest versions and in a few mss., and is adopted by most
modern critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius is a witness for the
latter reading. He takes the word ;'Ellenas in a broad sense to
indicate all that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the
allon, "other Greeks," after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a
Greek, but a Roman. Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and
Stigloher Heiden.
[287] See Acts xi. 22 sqq.
[288] See Acts xi. 26. This name was first given to the disciples by
the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word "Christ"
meant too much; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom
appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple.
The word christianos has a Latin termination, but this does not prove
that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were common in the Greek
of that day. It was probably originally given as a term of contempt,
but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.
[289] ap' euthalous kai gonimou peges. Two mss., followed by
Stephanus, Valesius, Closs, and Crusè, read ges; but all the other
mss., together with Rufinus, support the reading peges, which is
adopted by the majority of editors.
[290] See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and one
other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the
imprisonment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the
reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in
chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of
putting the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of
committing a chronological error. He is following the account of the
Acts, and mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that
connection, without thinking of chronological order. His method is, to
be sure, loose, as he does not inform his readers that he is
anticipating by a number of years, but leaves them to discover it for
themselves when they find the same subject taken up again after a
digression of four Chapters. Upon the famine itself, see below, chap.
8.
[291] See Acts xi. 29, 30.
Chapter IV.--After the Death of Tiberius, Caius appointed Agrippa King
of the Jews, having punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.
1. Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years, [292]
and Caius succeeded him in the empire. [293] He immediately gave the
government of the Jews to Agrippa, [294] making him king over the
tetrarchies of Philip and of Lysanias; in addition to which he
bestowed upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod, [295]
having punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered [296] )
and his wife Herodias with perpetual exile [297] on account of
numerous crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts. [298]
2. Under this emperor, Philo [299] became known; a man most celebrated
not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without
the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of
those who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he
labored in the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to
all from the work which he has done. How familiar he was with
philosophy and with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not
necessary to say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his
contemporaries in the study of Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, to
which he particularly devoted his attention. [300]
Footnotes
[292] From Aug. 29, a.d. 14, to March 16, a.d. 37.
[293] Caius ruled from the death of Tiberius until Jan. 24, a.d. 41.
[294] Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of
Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with
Caius, and upon the latter's accession to the throne received the
tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of
Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Antipas. After the
death of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed him also king over
the province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all
Palestine, a dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great. He was
a strict observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews
with success. It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and
Peter imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died of a terrible disease in a.d.
44. See below, chap. 10.
[295] Herod Antipas.
[296] See Luke xxiii. 7-11.
[297] He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to
Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. J. II. 9.
6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).
[298] See Ant. XVIII. 6 and 7, and B. J. II. 9.
[299] Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born
probably about 20-10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an
old man). Very little is known about his life, and the time of his
death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the embassy
to Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this.
He is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a
priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is
probably no truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus
in his Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly
imbued with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with
Greek culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of
subsequent ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works
(Biblical, historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very
numerous, and probably the majority of them are still extant. For
particulars, see chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo,
see Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi; zweite Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where
the chief literature upon the subject is given.
[300] Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its
departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The
influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his
philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek
philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself
be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains not only
Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his
doctrinal system, see especially Schürer, ibid. p. 836 sq.
Chapter V.--Philo's Embassy to Caius in Behalf of the Jews.
1. Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of
the Jews under Caius. [301] He recounts at the same time the madness
of Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor
innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the miseries of
the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he
himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in
Alexandria; [302] how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the
laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and
almost incurred the risk of his life.
2. Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book
of his Antiquities, in the following words: [303] "A sedition having
arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,
[304] three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.
3. One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion, [305] who uttered many
slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they
neglected the honors due to Cæsar. For while all other subjects of
Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects
treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it
disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.
4. And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped
that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of
the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of
Alexander the Alabarch, [306] and not unskilled in philosophy, was
prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations.
5. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very
angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against
them. And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that
were with him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging
against them he was in fact already contending with God."
6. Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy
[307] which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things
which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the most of them
and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the
reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after
their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.
7. And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of
Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the
emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly; [308]
and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour
were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in
respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in
Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults. [309]
Footnotes
[301] Upon this work, see Schürer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the
whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title peri
areton kai presbeias pros GEURion. Eusebius cites what seems to be the
same work under these two different titles in this and in the next
Chapter; and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed
by the fact that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the
title On the Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to
his work, describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title
he presbeia in so complete a catalogue of Philo's works makes its
identification with peri areton very probable. Of the five, only the
third and fourth are extant,--eis PhlEURkkon, Adversus Flaccum, and
peri presbeias pros GEURion, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey's
ed. Vol. II. p. 517-600). Book I., which is lost, contained, probably,
a general introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an
account of the oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by
Sejanus in Rome, and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book
III., Adversus Flaccum (still extant), contains an account of the
persecution of the Jews of Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of
Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad Cajum (still extant), describes the
sufferings which came upon the Jews as a result of Caius' command that
divine honors should everywhere be paid him; Book V., the palinodia
(which is lost), contained an account of the change for the better in
the Jews' condition through the death of Caius, and the edict of
toleration published by Claudius. Upon the other works of Philo, see
chap. 18, below.
[302] The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which
had arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had
continued with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much
blood had been shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All
efforts to secure peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the
Greeks dispatched an embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him
an edict for the extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their side,
followed the example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own
defense, with Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius relates,
and the Jews were left in a worse condition than before, from which,
however, they were speedily relieved by the death of Caius. Claudius,
who succeeded Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and
all the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.
[303] Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 8. 1.
[304] This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d., soon after the
accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great,
when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city,
Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor
there, and were among the most influential inhabitants. They possessed
all the rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their
neighbors in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of the
Romans, all the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to
take a position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was
not worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however, been
hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their
prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry.
This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition
of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually
burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more
prosperous neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance
mentioned was the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as
a God was made a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal
which gained for them the hatred of Caius himself.
[305] Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of
Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He
seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter
and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at
least two of his works--the Egyptian History and a special work
Against the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous
in his attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods,
which were quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading
still more widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus
wrote his celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de antiquitate
Judæorum contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second
book of which he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the
Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious)
role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion's
works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Müller's Fragm. Hist.
Græc. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius' Bibl. Græc. I. 503, and VII. 50.
Compare Lightfoot's article in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[306] The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria.
Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known
and held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed
procurator of Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius Fadus. Philo
thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The accuracy of
Josephus' statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabarch
Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des Jüdischen
Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have
been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare
Schürer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).
[307] See note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title he
presbeia (Legatio).
[308] The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had
increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first
disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose
notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their
enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the
emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were
driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the
death of Sejanus, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed to
return, and their former rights were restored.
[309] Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very
obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times
during his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as
no procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession
he changed his quarters from Cæsarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the
Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and
Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns
(Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next Chapter). At another time he
offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with
the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express
order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again, he appropriated
a part of the treasure of the temple to the construction of an
aqueduct, which caused another terrible tumult which was quelled only
after much bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see the next Chapter).
For further particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.
Chapter VI.--The Misfortunes which overwhelmed the Jews after their
Presumption against Christ.
1. After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and,
besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he
greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews. [310] These
things we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as
follows: [311]
2. "So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and
especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly
hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the
other cities, [312] and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with
images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them
he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which
had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an
inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his
own, that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the
younger Caius." [313]
3. Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities
which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same
emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he
gave the title, On the Virtues. [314] With him agrees also Josephus,
who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began
with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the
Saviour. [315]
4. Hear what he says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he
writes as follows: [316] "Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by
Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called
ensigns, [317] to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused
the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were
confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled
under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city."
5. Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you
will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty
for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when
they cried out that they had no other king than Cæsar. [318]
6. The same writer further records that after this another calamity
overtook them. He writes as follows: [319] "After this he stirred up
another tumult by making use of the holy treasure, which is called
Corban, [320] in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia
in length. [321]
7. The multitude were greatly displeased at it, and when Pilate was in
Jerusalem they surrounded his tribunal and gave utterance to loud
complaints. But he, anticipating the tumult, had distributed through
the crowd armed soldiers disguised in citizen's clothing, forbidding
them to use the sword, but commanding them to strike with clubs those
who should make an outcry. To them he now gave the preconcerted signal
from the tribunal. And the Jews being beaten, many of them perished in
consequence of the blows, while many others were trampled under foot
by their own countrymen in their flight, and thus lost their lives.
But the multitude, overawed by the fate of those who were slain, held
their peace."
8. In addition to these the same author records [322] many other
tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from
that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other
in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea
until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine
vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit
against Christ.
Footnotes
[310] Caius' hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned
above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors,
which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His
demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in
Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship,
the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the
emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of
Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the
Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is
probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there
as elsewhere.
[311] Philo, Legat. ad Caium, 43.
[312] en tais allais polesi. The reason for the use of the word
"other" is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities
except Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.
[313] "`Caius the younger,' to distinguish him from Julius Cæsar who
bore the name Caius, and who was also deified" (Valesius).
[314] This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the
beginning of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have
borne two titles he presbeia and peri areton. See Schürer, ibid. p.
859, who considers the deutero here the addition of a copyist, who
could not reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.
[315] This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of
Eusebius, as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities
of the nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.
[316] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2.
[317] semaiai kalountai
[318] John xix. 15.
[319] Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4.
[320] Heb. Q+oR+°B+uoN%; Greek korban and korbanas. The word denoted
originally any offering to God, especially an offering in fulfillment
of a vow. The form korbanas, which Josephus has employed here, was
used to denote the sacred treasure or the treasury itself. In Matt.
xxvii. 6, the only place where this form of the word occurs in the New
Testament, it is used with the latter meaning. Upon this act of
Pilate's, see above, chap. 5, note 9.
[321] Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200
stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is
400, according to the Greek mss. of Josephus, though the old Latin
translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The situation of the
aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct
have been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this
may have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a
new aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time
of Solomon. Schultz (Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40,
supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia
from Jerusalem.
[322] See B. J. II. 10, 12 sqq.
Chapter VII.--Pilate's Suicide.
It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time
of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under
Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his
own murderer and executioner; [323] and thus divine vengeance, as it
seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek
historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the
respective events which have taken place in each period. [324]
Footnotes
[323] Pilate's downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader of
the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which
Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the
Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate,
supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops
against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans
complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome
(36 a.d.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon reaching
Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne. He was
unsuccessful in his attempt to defend himself, and, according to
tradition, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still
shown as Pilate's tomb. According to another tradition he committed
suicide upon the mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.
[324] Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this
case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known
to us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the
trustworthiness of the account.
Chapter VIII.--The Famine which took Place in the Reign of Claudius.
1. Caius had held the power not quite four years, [325] when he was
succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited
with a famine, [326] which writers that are entire strangers to our
religion have recorded in their histories. [327] And thus the
prediction of Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, [328]
according to which the whole world was to be visited by a famine,
received its fulfillment.
2. And Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of
Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to
his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and
Barnabas, [329] adds the following account.
Footnotes
[325] Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was
succeeded by his uncle Claudius.
[326] Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion
Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year
of Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal
famine is recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Josephus
(Ant. XX. 2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea while
Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators.
Fadus was sent into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 a.d.), and
Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.d. The exact date of
Alexander's accession we do not know, but it took place probably about
45 or 46. This famine is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus
in Acts xi. 28. The exact meaning of the word oikoumene, in that
passage, is a matter of dispute. Whether it refers simply to
Palestine, or is used to indicate a succession of famines in different
parts of the world, or is employed only in a rhetorical sense, it is
impossible to say. Eusebius understands the word in its widest sense,
and therefore assumes a universal famine; but he is mistaken in his
assumption.
[327] The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record
a famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus,
who mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine
in Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his
Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign,
but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have
no extant account of a general famine at this time.
[328] Acts xi. 28.
[329] Acts xi. 29, 30.
Chapter IX.--The Martyrdom of James the Apostle.
1. " [330] Now about that time" (it is clear that he means the time of
Claudius) "Herod the King [331] stretched forth his hands to vex
certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with
the sword."
2. And concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his
Hypotyposes, [332] relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling
it as he received it from those who had lived before him. He says that
the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing
his testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was himself also a
Christian.
3. They were both therefore, he says, led away together; and on the
way he begged James to forgive him. And he, after considering a
little, said, "Peace be with thee," and kissed him. And thus they were
both beheaded at the same time.
4. And then, as the divine Scripture says, [333] Herod, upon the death
of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also
and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not,
by the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been
wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the
service of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to
Peter.
Footnotes
[330] Acts xii. 1, 2.
[331] Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.
[332] On Clement's Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3.
This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably
received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such
traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,--in how far
true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he
tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This
story of James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true,
though external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin
legends concerning James' later labors in Spain and his burial in
Compostella are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was
unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority
for his statement and it is not improbable that the report originated
through a confusion of this James with James the Just.
[333] Acts xii. 3sqq.
Chapter X.--Agrippa, who was also called Herod, having persecuted the
Apostles, immediately experienced the Divine Vengeance.
1. The consequences of the king's undertaking against the apostles
were not long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice
overtook him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of
Acts records. [334] For when he had journeyed to Cæsarea, on a notable
feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an
address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal.
And when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the
voice of a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel
of the Lord smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost.
[335]
2. We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the
divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly
bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities,
where he relates the wonder in the following words: [336]
3. "He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea [337]
when he came to Cæsarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower.
[338] There he held games in honor of Cæsar, learning that this was a
festival observed in behalf of Cæsar's safety. [339] At this festival
was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men
in the province.
4. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at
break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful
texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the
sun's earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to
produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him.
5. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from
another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good,
calling him a god, and saying, `Be thou merciful; if up to this time
we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art
superior to the nature of mortals.'
6. The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious
flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting
above his head. [340] And this he quickly perceived would be the cause
of evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, [341] and he
was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.
7. And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence,
seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, `I, your god,
am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus on the spot
disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who
has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our
destiny must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed
our life by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is
pronounced happiness.' [342]
8. And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He
was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report
spread among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the
multitude, with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after
the custom of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and
every place was filled with lamentation and tears. [343] And the king
as he lay in a lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on
the ground, could not refrain from weeping himself.
9. And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the
bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age,
and in the seventh year of his reign. [344] Four years he ruled under
the Emperor Caius--three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to
which was added in the fourth year that of Herod [345] --and three
years during the reign of the Emperor Claudius."
10. I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in
others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there
should seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of
the king, the time at least and the events show that the same person
is meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a
copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names.
[346]
Footnotes
[334] See Acts xii. 19 sqq.
[335] Acts xii. 23.
[336] Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.
[337] 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 a.d.
See above, chap. 4, note 3.
[338] Cæsarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem.
In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point,
called "Strato's Tower"; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the
city of Cæsarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of
Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the
seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in
Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Cæsarea. It was a city
of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of
utter desolation.
[339] The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered
it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival
in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these
suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned
was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of
Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and
celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler's Chronologie des
ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully
discussed in connection with the date of Agrippa's death which is
fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.
[340] The passage in Josephus reads: "But as he presently afterward
looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and
immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil
tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him."
This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in
Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the
gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of
the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of
the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but
in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks
serious, but so severe an accusation--an accusation which impeaches
the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner--should not be made
except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to
be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the
use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general
conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given
the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an
explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says:
"Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod
Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in
which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere,
where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against
this unjust charge." And in a note he adds: "It is not the
substitution of an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly
stated. The result is produced mainly by the omission of some words in
the text of Josephus, which runs thus: anakupsas d' oun met'
oligon[ton boubona] tes heautou kephales huper kathezomenon eiden[epi
schoiniou tinos] angelon[te] touton euthus enoese kakon einai, ton kai
pote ton agathon genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and
aition is added after einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden angelon
touton euthus enoese kakon einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not
feel at all sure that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by
any disingenuous motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would
stumble over ton boubona, which had a wholly different meaning and
seems never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter
the text in order to extract some sense out of it. In the previous
mention of the bird (Ant. XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator,
gives it as a Latin name: boubona de hoi ;;Romaioi ton ornin touton
kalousi. Möller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this `the one case'
in which, so far as he recollects, `a sinceritatis via paululum
deflexit noster'; and even here the indictment cannot be made good.
The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts
xii. 21, are altogether unjustifiable" (Smith and Wace's Dict. of
Christian Biog. II. p. 325). The Greek word boubon means, according to
Liddell and Scott, (1) the groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The
Latin word Bubo signifies "an owl," and the word is here directly
transferred by Josephus from the Latin into Greek without any
explanation. A scribe unacquainted with Latin might easily stumble at
the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant. XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is
mentioned, the name is, to be sure, explained; but the alteration at
this point was made apparently by a copyist of Eusebius, not of
Josephus, and therefore by one who had probably never seen that
explanation. Whiston in his translation of Josephus inserts a note to
the following effect: "We have a mighty cry made here by some writers,
as if the great Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of
Josephus, so as to make it agree with the parallel account in the Acts
of the Apostles, because the present copies of his citation of it,
Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the words boubona ...epi
schoiniou, tinos, i.e. `an owl ...on a certain rope,' which Josephus'
present copies retain, and only have the explanatory word angelon, or
`angel,' as if he meant that `angel of the Lord' which St. Luke
mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not that owl, which
Josephus called `an angel or messenger, formerly of good but now of
bad news,' to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat strange one in
the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so accurately and
faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient records and
particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without any suspicion
of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we are, whether
Josephus' and Eusebius' copies of the fourth century were just like
the present in this clause, which we have no distinct evidence of, the
following words preserved still in Eusebius will not admit of any such
exposition. `This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa presently perceived
to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of good fortune'; which
can belong only to that bird the `owl,' which, as it had formerly
foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant. XVIII. 6. 7,
so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy forewarner of
his death in five days' time. If the improper word aition, or `cause,'
be changed for Josephus' proper word angelon, `angel,' or `messenger,'
and the foregoing words, boubona epi schoiniou tinos, be inserted,
Eusebius' text will truly represent that in Josephus."
[341] Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in
chains--having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius--an owl made
its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner
interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would
soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same
bird would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius
died in the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass.
The story was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates
it in good faith.
[342] The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of
Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read
epi tes makarizomenes lamprotetos, which I have adopted in preference
to the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in
substituting makariçtetos for lamprotetos
[343] This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor
of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that
exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.
[344] He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of
Philip and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.
[345] Herod Antipas.
[346] Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name,
while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us
under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius
should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa,
instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading
of the Chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that
he entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
Chapter XI.--The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
1. Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the
consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time
referred to, [347] "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody;
who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered." [348]
Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He
records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:
[349]
2. "While Fadus was procurator of Judea [350] a certain impostor
called Theudas [351] persuaded a very great multitude to take their
possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he
was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command,
and afford them an easy passage.
3. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit
them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them,
who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many
others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his
head and carried it to Jerusalem." Besides this he also makes mention
of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the
following words.
Footnotes
[347] kata ton deloumenon chronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's
death. But Luke writes pro gar touton ton hemeron, "Before these
days."
[348] Acts v. 36.
[349] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.
[350] About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2.
[351] There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this
Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by
Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by
Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various
solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost
any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for
the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare
Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald's Gesch.
des Jüdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten,
Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in
loco. A question of more importance for us, in the present instance,
is as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of
Luke with the Theudas of Josephus,--an identification which is
impossible, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has
consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for
the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a
protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon the
honesty of Eusebius. A man with a very small allowance of common sense
would certainly not have been so foolish as consciously to involve
himself in such a glaring anachronism--an anachronism which every
reader had the means of exposing--for the sake of making a point in
confirmation of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the
discrepancy, he would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two
accounts, and it would not have required a great amount of ingenuity
or research to discover in the pages of Josephus himself a
sufficiently plausible reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation
of Eusebius' anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall
into many blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of
chronology. He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of
a similar character of the same name; he identified the two hastily,
and without a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He
quotes the passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without
recollecting that it occurs several Chapters before the account of the
famine and of the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
Chapter XII.--Helen, the Queen of the Osrhoenians.
1. [352] "And at this time [353] it came to pass that the great famine
[354] took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, [355] having
purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the
needy."
2. You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the
Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, "each
according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren
that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Paul." [356]
3. But splendid monuments [357] of this Helen, of whom the historian
has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is
now called Ælia. [358] But she is said to have been queen of the
Adiabeni. [359]
Footnotes
[352] Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2.
[353] In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius
Alexander.
[354] Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of
his Ant., chap. 2, §5.
[355] Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son
Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of
Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and
Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come
to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve
the distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After
their death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem
and buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three
pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).
[356] Acts xi. 29, 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.
[357] "Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of
Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too,
testifies that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a
palace in Jerusalem" (Stroth).
[358] Ælia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by
Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).
[359] Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris,
Lycus, and the Gordiæan Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but
before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith's Dict. of Greek
and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate
Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus,
XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
Chapter XIII.--Simon Magus. [360]
1. But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been
diffused among all men, [361] the enemy of man's salvation contrived a
plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither
the above-mentioned Simon, [362] aided him in his deceitful arts, led
many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his
own power.
2. This is stated by Justin, [363] one of our distinguished writers
who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I
shall speak in the proper place. [364] Take and read the work of this
man, who in the first Apology [365] which he addressed to Antonine in
behalf of our religion writes as follows: [366]
3. "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put
forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only
allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of
honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,
[367] who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar [368] performed in your
imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating
in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with
a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber, [369] between the two
bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo
Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God. [370]
4. And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations
confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with
him at that time a certain Helena [371] who had formerly been a
prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that
proceeded from him." [372]
5. Justin relates these things, and Irenæus also agrees with him in
the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an
account of the man [373] and of his profane and impure teaching. It
would be superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for
those who wish to know the origin and the lives and the false
doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well
as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated at length
in the above-mentioned work of Irenæus.
6. We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. [374]
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy
have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is
celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they
nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which
they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and
images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with
him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and
libations.
7. But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard
to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be
astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among
them, would be confounded, [375] are in truth full of amazing things,
and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible
not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to
utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and
lewdness. [376]
8. For whatever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest
thing--all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which
is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that
are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices. [377]
Footnotes
[360] It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no Chapters of
Eusebius' History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which
relate to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age
than to the author. A right understanding of heresies and an
appreciation of any truth which they might contain was utterly
impossible to men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and
all heretics as his chosen tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some,
because he gives his information about heretics only from second hand,
and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered that this
method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is
highly probable that he did not have access to any of their works. The
accounts of the heretics given by Irenæus, Hippolytus, and others
would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves
would be piously excluded as completely as possible from all Christian
libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the
Church. The sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for
a knowledge of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know
them almost solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in
the same way and very likely for the same reason.
[361] See chap. 3, note 1.
[362] Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq.
(quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early
Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends
that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him.
Indeed the Tübingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have
denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved
the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in
hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was
attacked as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and
Simon rests upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be
adduced in which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the
thought of identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to
the writer of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the
author of the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some
Pauline traits to his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that
he makes Simon no more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon
in his article, Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
Vol. I. p. 576). The original of Simon then is not to be found in
Paul. The third century fiction is based upon a real historic person
whose actual existence must be assumed to account for the early
notices of him in the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common
tradition of him among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers
Simon of Gitton--the basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all
the later Simon legends--a second century Gnostic distinct from the
Simon mentioned in the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magus, in
the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. p. 681 sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines
Simon is represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in
all directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing
his impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations,
until at length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his
life by suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in
various conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For
ancient accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and
Dial. c. Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and
Recognitions; Irenæus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian's
Apology, On Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7
sq.; Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.);
Epiphanius, Hær. XXI.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab. I. 1. See also
Lipsius, article in Schinkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.
[363] In his Apology, I. 26, 56.
[364] In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18.
[365] On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2.
[366] Justin's Apology, I. 26.
[367] Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the
modern Nâblus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village
of Kuryet Jît (see Robinson's Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note).
Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the reason that
Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about
the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition
in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this
place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of
the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a
native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own
country, than that Josephus was. Simon's activity may have extended to
Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his
birthplace.
[368] Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of
Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenæus also does. Other accounts assign it
to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death;
suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary
burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are
reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited
Rome at some time or another.
[369] That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a
short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola
Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.
[370] In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo
fidio, &c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but
this statue was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is
therefore highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue
of Simon Magus. This is now the commonly accepted view, though the
translator of Justin Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to
dispute it (see the Am. ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given
a second time by Justin in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenæus, I. 23. 1
(who, however, simply says "It is said," and may have drawn his
knowledge only from Justin Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13.
The last named is in general a poor authority even if he be
independent of Justin at this point, which is not probable.
Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account of the
death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the statue and
his silence is a strong argument against it.
[371] A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenæus, I. 23; by
Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by
Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Hær. 21; and by Theodoret,
Hær. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon
taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the
mother of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence,
&c. The Simonians, according to Irenæus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus
(VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom
they honored as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon's doctrines and practice,
as recorded by these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions
common to all the Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped
form of Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. II. p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.
[372] This conception of the idea (znnoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and
plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these
systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamis and the
znnoiaas the original principles from whose union all beings emanated.
These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the
different systems.
[373] Irenæus adv. Hær. I. 23.
[374] See note 3, above.
[375] thambothesesthai
[376] This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom
picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and
Irenæus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the
purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them
as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense.
This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has
been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject. Neander
was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it
(in his Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and
since that time the subject has been treated intelligently and
discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot,
Salmon and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of
Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else. See his
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 158 sqq.
[377] This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and
licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the
Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see
below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the opposite
extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of
these extremes we perceive the same principle--a dualism of matter and
spirit, therefore of body and mind--the former considered as the work
of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as
divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of
the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of
the two opposite results, asceticism or antinomianism, according to
the character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church
Hist. II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of
heresy, naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were
therefore indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in
their worst forms.
Chapter XIV.--The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
1. The evil power, [378] who hates all that is good and plots against
the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and
author of such wickedness, [379] as if to make him a mighty antagonist
of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.
2. For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its
ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the
kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every
high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God." [380]
3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the
others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those
apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the
splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but
lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then
flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves.
4. Immediately [381] the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the
eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil
deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in
Judea, [382] he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the
East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to
his mind.
5. And coming to the city of Rome, [383] by the mighty co-operation of
that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so
successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him
as a god by the erection of a statue. [384]
6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of
Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all
things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and
the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the
others, to Rome [385] against this great corrupter of life. He like a
noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly
merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those
who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word
which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.
[386]
Footnotes
[378] See the previous Chapter, note 1.
[379] See chap. 1, note 25.
[380] 2 Cor. x. 5.
[381] The significance of the word "immediately" as employed here is
somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context
with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius
may have been using at this point some unknown source and that the
word "immediately" refers to an encounter which Simon had had with
Peter (perhaps his Cæsarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines),
of which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius.
The figure employed here is most remarkable.
[382] Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper,
but Eusebius evidently uses the word "Judea" in a wide sense, to
indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It
is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a
written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is
referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic
Constitutions, VI. 8.
[383] Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism
which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial
seat of the devil.
[384] See above, chap. 13, note 11.
[385] Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below,
chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did
visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain
that he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The
tradition that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first
recorded by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been
almost universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in
recent years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge
that so long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition
undoubtedly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted
in the previous Chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the
reign of Claudius. Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly
connected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently
Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon's arrival in Rome,
quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter's arrival there,
although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in the
passage which Eusebius quotes. The assumption that Peter took up his
residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we
know of Peter's later life from the New Testament and from other early
writers. In 44 a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in
51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little later in
Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during
his life he labored in various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn
from his first epistle, and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon
on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have
been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58
a.d.), for no mention is made of him among the brethren to whom
greetings are sent. Nor can he have been there when Paul wrote from
Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to 63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in
fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but
well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that he met his death
there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome at any rate
until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the summer of
64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to Rome in the
reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow
Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and
attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius
follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome;
but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter,
which neither Justin nor Irenæus mentions. The earlier date for
Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition.
Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the
reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with
the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting
with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by
Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap.
Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the
Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source
Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenæus, nor Tertullian
mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too
much, as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not
follow. As to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are
so conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet
recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could
hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and
Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines
were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the
source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is
highly probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenæus as far
as they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a
fact commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no
written authority; or it is possible that he had another source,
unknown to us, as suggested above (note 4).
[386] A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an
excellent illustration of Eusebius' rhetorical style.
Chapter XV.--The Gospel according to Mark.
1. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, [387]
the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together
with the man himself. [388] And so greatly did the splendor of piety
illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied
with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten
teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they
besought Mark, [389] a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is
extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine
which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until
they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of
the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark. [390]
2. And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation
of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal
of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority
for the purpose of being used in the churches. [391] Clement in the
eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees
the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. [392] And Peter makes mention
of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome
itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure,
Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at
Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus
my son." [393]
Footnotes
[387] The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery.
Eusebius gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.:
that Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who went there
during the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is sufficiently
disproved by history. The origin of the Church was due to unknown
persons, though it is possible we may obtain a hint of them in the
Andronicus and Junta of Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned as apostles,
and who were therefore, according to the usage of the word in Paul's
writings, persons that introduced Christianity into a new
place--missionaries proper, who did not work on others' ground.
[388] See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, note 8.
[389] John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas
(Col. iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their
missionary journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone (Acts
xv. 39), and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv. 10 and
Philemon 24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle (1 Pet.
v. 13). For the later traditions concerning Mark, see the next
Chapter, note 1.
[390] That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter,
or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the universal
tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed
passage (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record
the tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark's Gospel under the name
"Memoirs (apomnemoneumata) of Peter" (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the
translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252, which
refers the autou to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T.
Einleitung, p. 44, note 4). Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 11. 1, quoted
below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen
(quoted below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over
and over again by the Fathers. The question as to the real authorship
of our second Gospel, or rather as to its composition and its relation
to Matthew and Luke, is a very difficult one. The relationship of the
three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by Augustine (De Consensu
Evangelistarum), who defended the traditional order, but made Mark
dependent upon Matthew. This view prevailed until the beginning of the
present century, when the problem was attacked anew, and since then it
has been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible. The three
have been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible
order has found its advocates; a common source has been assumed for
the three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an
original Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary
documents have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted only
oral tradition as the basis. According to Baur's tendency theory,
Matthew (polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an
original Luke (polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which
was based upon both and written in the interest of neutrality, and
lastly by our present Luke, designed as a final irenicum. This view
now finds few advocates. The whole matter is still unsettled, but
criticism seems to be gradually converging toward a common ground type
(or rather two independent types) for all three while at the same time
maintaining the relative independence of the three, one toward the
other. What these ground types were, is a matter of still sharper
dispute, although criticism is gradually drawing their larger features
with more and more certainty and clearness. (The latest discussion
upon the subject by Handmann, das Hebräer-Evangelium, makes the two
types the "Ur-Marcus" and the Gospel of the Hebrews.) That in the last
analysis, however, some space must still be left for floating
tradition, or for documents irreducible to the one or two types, seems
absolutely certain. For further information as to the state of
discussion upon this intricate problem, see among recent works,
especially Weiss, Einleitung, p. 473 sqq., Holtzmann, Einleitung, p.
328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 575 sqq., where the literature down
to 1882 is given with great fullness. Conservative opinion puts the
composition of all the synoptic Gospels before the destruction of
Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see III. 4, note 12); but the
critical school, while throwing the original type back of that date,
considers the composition of our present Gospels to have been the
gradual work of years, assuming that they were not finally
crystallized into the form in which we have them before the second
century.
[391] This mention of the "pleasure" of Peter, and the "authority"
given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts the account of Clement
to which Eusebius here appeals as his authority. In Bk. VI. chap. 14
he quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a passage which must be
identical with the one referred to in this place, for it is from the
same work and the general account is the same; but there Clement says
expressly, "which when Peter understood he neither directly hindered
nor encouraged it."
[392] The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39.
Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he
had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details
of the account as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III.
chap. 39.
[393] 1 Pet. v. 13. Commentators are divided as to the place in which
Peter wrote this epistle (compare Schaff's Church Hist. I. p. 744
sqq.). The interpretation given by Eusebius is the patristic and Roman
Catholic opinion, and is maintained by many Protestant commentators.
But on the other hand the literal use of the word "Babylon" is
defended by a great number of the leading scholars of the present day.
Compare Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 433, note 1.
Chapter XVI.--Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of
Egypt.
1. And they say that this Mark was the first that was sent to Egypt,
and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first
established churches in Alexandria. [394]
2. And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were
collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most
philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo
thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings,
their entertainments, and their whole manner of life." [395]
Footnotes
[394] That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius (Hær.
LI. 6), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 8), by Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43), and
by the Acta Barnabæ, p. 26 (Tischendorf's Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74),
which were written probably in the third century. Eusebius gained his
knowledge apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula,
"they say" (phasin). In chap. 24, below, he says that Annianus
succeeded Mark as a leader of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth
year of Nero (62 a.d.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and
Jerome gives the same date for his death. But if the tradition that he
wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter's death, as the
best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenæus) be correct, then this date is
hopelessly wrong. The varying traditions are at best very uncertain,
and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New
Testament, is involved in obscurity.
[395] See the next Chapter.
Chapter XVII.--Philo's Account of the Ascetics of Egypt.
1. It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became
acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there. [396] Nor
is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and
which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those
rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us.
2. And since he describes as accurately as possible the life of our
ascetics, it is clear that he not only knew, but that he also
approved, while he venerated and extolled, the apostolic men of his
time, who were as it seems of the Hebrew race, and hence observed,
after the manner of the Jews, the most of the customs of the ancients.
3. In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or
on Suppliants, [397] after affirming in the first place that he will
add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to
truth or of his own invention, [398] he says that these men were
called Therapeutæ and the women that were with them Therapeutrides.
[399] He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the
fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came
to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from
the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and
sincerity.
4. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet
well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really
called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians
was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here.
5. He bears witness, however, that first of all they renounce their
property. When they begin the philosophical [400] mode of life, he
says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then,
renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and
dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with
people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did
this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a
spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets' mode
of life.
6. For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as
authentic, [401] it is recorded that all the companions of the
apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to
all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them
was in want. "For as many as were possessors of lands or houses," as
the account says, "sold them and brought the prices of the things that
were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet, so that distribution
was made unto every man according as he had need." [402]
7. Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described
and then adds the following account: [403] "Everywhere in the world is
this race [404] found. For it was fitting that both Greek [405] and
Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race
particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes, [406]
and especially about Alexandria.
8. The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the
Therapeutæ's fatherland, [407] to a certain very suitable spot which
lies above the lake Maria [408] upon a low hill excellently situated
on account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere."
9. And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses
which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which
were scattered about here and there: [409] "In each house there is a
sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery, [410]
where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life.
They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the
other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only
the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such
other things as augment and make perfect their knowledge and piety."
10. And after some other matters he says: [411]
"The whole interval, from morning to evening, is for them a time of
exercise. For they read the holy Scriptures, and explain the
philosophy of their fathers in an allegorical manner, regarding the
written words as symbols of hidden truth which is communicated in
obscure figures.
11. They have also writings of ancient men, who were the founders of
their sect, and who left many monuments of the allegorical method.
These they use as models, and imitate their principles."
12. These things seem to have been stated by a man who had heard them
expounding their sacred writings. But it is highly probable that the
works of the ancients, which he says they had, were the Gospels and
the writings of the apostles, and probably some expositions of the
ancient prophets, such as are contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
and in many others of Paul's Epistles.
13. Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which
they composed: [412] "So that they not only spend their time in
meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every
variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into
measures of more than common solemnity."
14. The same book contains an account of many other things, but it
seemed necessary to select those facts which exhibit the
characteristics of the ecclesiastical mode of life.
15. But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to
the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those
mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same
author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed
testimony on this subject. Philo's words are as follows: [413]
16. "Having laid down temperance as a sort of foundation in the soul,
they build upon it the other virtues. None of them may take food or
drink before sunset, since they regard philosophizing as a work worthy
of the light, but attention to the wants of the body as proper only in
the darkness, and therefore assign the day to the former, but to the
latter a small portion of the night.
17. But some, in whom a great desire for knowledge dwells, forget to
take food for three days; and some are so delighted and feast so
luxuriously upon wisdom, which furnishes doctrines richly and without
stint, that they abstain even twice as long as this, and are
accustomed, after six days, scarcely to take necessary food." These
statements of Philo we regard as referring clearly and indisputably to
those of our communion.
18. But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in
denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be
convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere
else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians. [414]
19. For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are
speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins [415] who had
preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the
priestesses among the Greeks, [416] but rather by their own choice,
through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire
to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the
pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which
only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.
20. Then after a little he adds still more emphatically: [417] "They
expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For
the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of
which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense
stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning
has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed
as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts."
21. Why is it necessary to add to these things their meetings and the
respective occupations of the men and of the women during those
meetings, and the practices which are even to the present day
habitually observed by us, especially such as we are accustomed to
observe at the feast of the Saviour's passion, with fasting and night
watching and study of the divine Word.
22. These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own
work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the
present time by us alone, recording especially the vigils kept in
connection with the great festival, and the exercises performed during
those vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing
how, while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence,
and join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days
referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, and to use his
own words, [418] "taste no wine at all, nor any flesh, but water is
their only drink, and the reish with their bread is salt and hyssop."
23. In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which
exists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning
the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence
over all the others. [419] But whosoever desires a more accurate
knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited.
24. But that Philo, when he wrote these things, had in view the first
heralds of the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning
by the apostles, is clear to every one.
Footnotes
[396] This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an
acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome (de vir ill. 11), and by
Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says directly that
Philo became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be regarded as
quite worthless. It is absolutely certain from Philo's own works, and
from the otherwise numerous traditions of antiquity that he never was
a Christian, and aside from the report of Eusebius (for Jerome and
Photius do not represent an independent tradition) there exists no
hint of such a meeting between Peter and Philo; and when we realize
that Philo was already an old man in the time of Caius (see above,
chap. 4, note 8), and that Peter certainly did not reach Rome before
the later years of Nero's reign, we may say that such a meeting as
Eusebius records (only upon tradition, logos zchei) is certainly not
historical. Where Eusebius got the tradition we do not know. It may
have been manufactured in the interest of the Philonic authorship of
the De vita contemplativa, or it may have been a natural outgrowth of
the ascription of that work to him, some such explanation suggesting
itself to the reader of that work as necessary to explain Philo's
supposed praise of Christian monks. Philo's visit to Rome during the
reign of Caligula being a well-known historic fact, and Peter's visit
to Rome during the reign of Claudius being assumed as likewise
historic (see above, chap. 14, note 8), it was not difficult to
suppose a meeting between them (the great Christian apostle and the
great Jewish philosopher), and to invent for the purpose a second
visit of Philo to Rome. It seems probable that the ascription of the
work De vita contemplativa to Philo came before the tradition of his
acquaintance with Peter in Rome (which is first mentioned by
Eusebius); but in any case the two were mutually corroborative.
[397] peri biou theoretikou e hiketon; De Vita Contemplativa. This
work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, II. 471-486. Eusebius is
the first writer to mention it, and he identifies the Therapeutæ
described in it with the Christian monks, and assumes in consequence
that monasticism in the form in which he knew it existed in the
apostolic age, and was known and praised by Philo. This opinion was
generally adopted by the Fathers (with the single exception of
Photius, Cod. 105, who looked upon the Therapeutæ as a Jewish sect)
and prevailed unquestioned until the Reformation, when in the
Protestant reaction against monasticism it was denied that monks
existed in the apostolic age, and that the Therapeutæ were Christians
at all. Various opinions as to their identity have been held since
that time, the commonest being that they were a Jewish sect or school,
parallel with the Palestinian Essenes, or that they were an outgrowth
of Alexandrian Neo-Pythagoreanism. The former opinion may be said to
have been the prevailing one among Christian scholars until Lucius, in
his work entitled Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der
Askese (Strassburg, 1879), proved (what had been asserted already by
Grätz and Jost) that the Therapeutæ are really to be identified with
Christian monks, and that the work De Vita Contemplativa is not a
genuine work of Philo's. If the former proposition is proved, the
latter follows of necessity, for it is absolutely impossible to
suppose that monasticism can have existed in so developed a form (or
indeed in any form) in the time of Philo. On the other hand it may be
proved that the work is not Philonic, and yet it may not follow that
the Therapeutæ are to be identified with Christian monks. And so some
scholars reject the Philonic authorship while still maintaining the
Jewish character of the Therapeutæ (e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and
Weingarten; see Schürer, Gesch. der