Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
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.
Chapter I.--The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached
1. Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and
disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. 
Parthia,  according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his
field of labor, Scythia  to Andrew,  and Asia  to John,
 who, after he had lived some time there,  died at Ephesus.
2. Peter appears to have preached  in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia  to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last,
having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards;  for he had
requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say
concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to
Illyricum,  and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?
 These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his
Commentary on Genesis. 
 According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the
apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that
of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to
twenty-four years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum
Gelasii as Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very
likely contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of
the apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The
efforts to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy
particulars as to the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The
various traditions not only assign different fields of labor to the
different apostles, but also give different lists of the apostles
themselves. See Lipsius' article on the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The
extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, &c., are translated in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 361 sqq. Lipsius states that,
according to the oldest form of the tradition, the apostles were
divided into three groups: first, Peter and Andrew, Matthew and
Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in the region of the Black
Sea; second, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the Canaanite, in Parthia;
third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor.
 Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent
kingdom, extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian
Sea to the Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in
regard to Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the
Clementine Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19. Rufinus
(H. E. II. 5) and Socrates (H. E. IV. 18) speak of Edessa as his
burial place. Later traditions extended his labors eastward as far as
India, and made him suffer martyrdom in that land; and there his
remains were exhibited down to the sixteenth century. According to the
Martyrium Romanum, however, his remains were brought from India to
Edessa, and from thence to Ortona, in Italy, during the Crusades. The
Syrian Christians in India called themselves Thomas-Christians; but
the name cannot be traced beyond the eighth century, and is derived,
probably, from a Nestorian missionary.
 The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very
loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and
Black Seas. But two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate
usage: a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the
Danube and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from
the Ural. The former is here meant.
 The traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and
contradictory, though, as remarked above (note 1), the original form,
represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood
of the Black Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the
patron saint of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of Greece,
where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity there
rests upon a late tradition. His body is said to have been carried to
Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. III. 2), and
during the Crusades transferred to Amalpæ in Italy, in whose cathedral
the remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of
Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to
the eighth century (cf. Skene's Celtic Scotland, II. 221 sq.).
Numerous other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to have
been the scene of his labors.
 Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor,
lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean and comprising Mysia, Lydia,
 The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John's later life
to Ephesus: e.g. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1 and 3. 4, etc.; Clement
of Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23,
below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by Eusebius in
chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many others. The
testimony of Irenæus is especially weighty, for the series: Irenæus,
the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a complete chain such
as we have in no other case. Such testimony, when its force is broken
by no adverse tradition, ought to be sufficient to establish John's
residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has been
denied by many of the critics who reject the Johannine authorship of
the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the author of Supernat.
Religion, and others), though the denial is much less positive now
than it was a few years ago. The chief arguments urged against the
residence of John in Ephesus are two, both a silentio: first, Clement
in his first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the apostles in such
a way as to seem to imply that they were all dead; secondly, in the
Ignatian Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but not John, which is certainly
very remarkable, as one is addressed to Ephesus itself. In reply it
may be said that such an interpretation of Clement's words is not
necessary, and that the omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius
becomes perfectly natural if the Epistles are thrown into the time of
Hadrian or into the latter part of Trajan's reign, as they ought to be
(cf. chap. 36, note 4). In the face of the strong testimony for John's
Ephesian residence these two objections must be overruled. The
traditional view is defended by all conservative critics as well as by
the majority even of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel (cf. especially Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung, and
Weizsäcker in his Apostaliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul's
epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus
until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should
naturally expect to be the case. Upon the time of John's banishment to
Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1. Tradition reports that he lived
until the reign of Trajan (98-117). Cf. Irenæus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3.
 Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.
 The language of Origen (kekeruchenai zoiken, instead of logos
zchei or parEURdosis periechei) seems to imply that he is recording
not a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of
Peter, which was known to him, and in which these places are
mentioned. Such a tradition did, however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g.
the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of
Peter and Andrew. The former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia, in addition to Galatia and Pontus, and cannot therefore, rest
solely upon the first Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the
first three places. All the places assigned to Peter are portions of
the field of Paul, who in all the traditions of this class is
completely crowded out and his field given to other apostles, showing
the Jewish origin of the traditions. Upon Peter's activity in Rome and
his death there, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 7.
 Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1.
 Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is
of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by
earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion),
and its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly doubtful.
 Cf. Rom. xv. 19. Illyricum was a Roman province lying along the
eastern coast of the Adriatic.
 See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.
 This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else. It is
impossible to tell where the quotation begins--whether with the words
"Thomas according to tradition received Parthia," as I have given it,
or with the words "Peter appears to have preached," etc., as Bright
Chapter II.--The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.
1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus  was the first
to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him,
when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the
 The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is
a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by
Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according
to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a
different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in
addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of
the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the
difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists,
have been proposed. In the second Chapter of the so-called Epistle of
Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed
to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and
Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting
Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note
10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing
that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in
the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each
successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair. It is at
least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop,
and therefore the question as to the order of these first three
so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to
which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions. The Roman Church
gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus,
following Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single
Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of
Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta
Apost. Apocr. p. xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus
was bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen
years, while Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as
the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as
to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects
discussed in this note see especially Salmon's articles, Clemens
Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenæus, Adv.
Hær. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians
(longer version), chap. 7.
Chapter III.--The Epistles of the Apostles.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine.  And this the ancient elders  used freely in their
own writings as an undisputed work.  But we have learned that his
extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;  yet, as it
has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other
2. The so-called Acts of Peter,  however, and the Gospel 
which bears his name, and the Preaching  and the Apocalypse,
 as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted,
 because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made
use of testimonies drawn from them. 
3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in
addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have
from time to time made use of any of the disputed works,  and
what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings,
 as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of
which I know to be genuine  and acknowledged by the ancient
5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.  It is
not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the
Epistle to the Hebrews,  saying that it is disputed  by the
church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But
what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before
our time I shall quote in the proper place.  In regard to the
so-called Acts of Paul,  I have not found them among the
undisputed writings. 
6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans,  has made mention among others of Hermas,
to whom the book called The Shepherd  is ascribed, it should be
observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account
cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is
considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need
instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has
been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most
ancient writers used it.
7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as
well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
 The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and
was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement
of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship
were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct
Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely
ungenuine. The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time the
genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account
of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who
confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle).
The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine
authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption
of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was
written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that
the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents
no fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to
find an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged
the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second
century, it is never connected with Peter's name until the time of
Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack's Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few
 hoi pEURlai presbuteroi. On the use of the term "elders" among
the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.
 hos anamphilekto
 ouk endiEURthekon men einai pareilephamen. The authorship of the
second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external
testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to
have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been
offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still
remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of
the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian,
Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to
Cyprian, §6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian's Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by
Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed.
Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used
it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the
Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and
discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by
all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative
scholars. Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the
death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it
into the second century,--some as late as the time of Clement of
Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and
159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung,
p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question),
Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see
especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq.,
and Salmon's Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.
 Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently
not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth
century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from
the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus,
Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which
the Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.
 These prEURxeis (or periodoi, as they are often called) Petrou
were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the
collection of periodoi ton apostolon, which were ascribed to Lucius
Charinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth
century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work,
as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is preserved,
according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the title
Passio Petri. Upon these Acts of Peter, their original form, and their
relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen
Apostelgeschichten, II. I, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli
already referred to, this work, too, was used in the composition of
the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still extant, and which
assumed their present form in the fifth century, according to Lipsius.
These Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul have been published by Thilo
(Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta
Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.
 This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of
Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was
rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained.
It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as
heretical; also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir.
ill. 1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work
employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards
it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From
Serapion's account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we
see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their
truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ's life, but
rather in adding to the account given by them. This, of course, favors
Lipsius' hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in
denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin
Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel
of Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the same Chapter) was used by
the Docetæ, but that does not imply that it contained what we call
Docetic ideas of Christ's body (cf. note 8 on that Chapter). The
Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of
Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.
 This Preaching of Peter (Kerugma Petrou, Prædicatio Petri),
which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost Preaching
of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and
Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early
Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by
Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of
Peter's teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic.
Patr. I. 55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d
ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan. XIII.
17, and De Princ. Præf. 8), and in the latter place is expressly
classed among spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius,
closely connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6,
above. Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation
of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the
Preaching is not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline
production, and is to be distinguished from the Ebionitic kerugmata.
It would seem therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the
original of the Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the
latter had been done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the
Preaching is as old as the middle of the second century and the most
ancient of the works recording Peter's preaching, and hence (if this
view be accepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to
the Acts did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of
the record of Peter's preaching embodied in the Acts and in the
Preaching. The latter (if it included also the Preaching of Paul, as
seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account of some of
the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin.
Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 28
(Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon's article on the
Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV. 329.
 The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early
Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the
apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with
the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted
by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at
that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus
showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the
third century it was still received in the North African Church (so
Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus).
The Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it
as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter's ed.),
and so Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to
Lipsius). After Eusebius' time the work seems to have been universally
regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its
apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the
Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the
semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to
Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was
treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it
among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of
John. As Lipsius remarks, its "lay-recognition in orthodox circles
proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have
contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians" (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the
work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test.
extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.
 oud' holos en katholikais ismen paradedomena
 Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of Peter
was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the
Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14)
wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.
 ton antilegomenon
 peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon
 hon monen mian gnesian zgnon.
 As above; see note 2.
 The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely
undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of
them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted
until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is
ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part
of the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and
there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the
Tübingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other
epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was
first questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the
Tübingen School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided;
the majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all
conservative scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by
Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tübingen School. It fares
to-day somewhat better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected
by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense
(e.g. Weizsäcker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the
theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our
present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians,
of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tübingen
School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is
still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely
accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsäcker and even
Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians was first
attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until
Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also. Second
Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative
critics, and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has
regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld,
Weizsäcker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by
comparatively few critics. Philemon--which was first attacked by
Baur--is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are
almost as generally rejected, except by the regular conservative
school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk. II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For
a concise account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see
Holtzmann's Einleitung. For a defense of them all, see the Einleitung
 tines ethetekasi. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as
absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline
authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally,
external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with
Paul. The first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantænus and
Clement of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they
evidently find it necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the
face of the objections of others. Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew
original, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below,
Bk. VI. chap. 25) leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it
probable that the thoughts are Paul's, but the diction that of some
one else, who has recorded what he heard from the apostle. He then
remarks that one tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to
Luke. Eusebius himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with
the exception of Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship),
looks upon it as a work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria's
theory that it was written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that
Clement of Rome was its translator (see chap. 38, below). In the
Western Church, where the epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement
of Rome uses it freely), it is not connected with Paul until the
fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian (de pudicit. 20) states that it
bore the name of Barnabas, and evidently had never heard that it had
been ascribed to any one else. The influence of the Alexandrians,
however, finally prevailed, and from the fifth century on we find it
universally accepted, both East and West, as an epistle of Paul, and
not until the Reformation was its origin again questioned. Since that
time its authorship has been commonly regarded as an insoluble
mystery. Numerous guesses have been made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos,
and he has been followed by many), but it is impossible to prove that
any of them are correct. For Barnabas, however, more can be said than
for any of the others. Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with
him; and its contents are just what we should expect from the pen of a
Levite who had been for a time under Paul's influence, and yet had not
received his Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is
Levitic, and decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the
influence of Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in
the place where the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul,
there first appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see
below, chap. 25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been
suggested by Weiss and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the
Hebrews was originally accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas,
but that later it was ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that
Barnabas had written an epistle, which must still have remained in the
Church, led to the ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We
seem thus most easily to explain the false ascription of the one
epistle to Paul, and the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It
may be said that the claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many
supporters, while still more attempt no decision. In regard to the
canonicity of the epistle there seems never to have been any serious
dispute, and it is this fact doubtless which did most to foster the
belief in its Pauline authorship from the third century on. For the
criterion of canonicity more and more came to be looked upon as
apostolicity, direct or indirect. The early Church had cared little
for such a criterion. In only one place does Eusebius seem to imply
that doubts existed as to its canonicity,--in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where
he classes it with the Book of Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas,
Clement, and Jude, among the antilegomena. But in view of his
treatment of it elsewhere it must be concluded that he is thinking in
that passage not at all of its canonicity, but of its Pauline
authorship, which he knows is disputed by some, and in reference to
which he uses the same word, antilegesthai, in the present sentence.
Upon the canonicity of the epistle, see still further chap. 25, note
1. For a discussion of the epistle, see especially the N. T.
Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.
 See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.
 These prEURxeis are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where
they are classed among the nothoi, implying that they had been
originally accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius
wrote widely accepted as such. This implies that they were not, like
the works which he mentions later in the Chapter, of an heretical
character. They were already known to Origen, who (De Prin. I. 2, 3)
refers to them in such a way as to show that they were in good repute
in the Catholic Church. They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic
periodoi or prEURxeis Paulou, which from the end of the fourth century
formed a part of the Manichean canon of the New Testament, and of
which some fragments are still extant under various forms. The failure
to keep these Catholic and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has
caused considerable confusion. Both of these Acts, the Catholic and
the heretical, formed, according to Lipsius (Apokr.
Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one of the sources of the
Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their extant form belong to
the fifth century. For a discussion of these Catholic Acts of Paul
referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p. 70 sq.
 oude men tas legomenas autou prEURxeis en anamphilektois
 See Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last Chapter of
Romans is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus.
This has been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it was first
broached by David Schulz (Studien und Kritiken, p. 629 sq.), and is
accepted even by many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss), while on the
other hand it is opposed by many of the opposite school. While Aquila
and Priscilla, of verse 3, and Epænetus, of verse 5, seem to point to
Ephesus, and the fact that so many personal friends are greeted, leads
us to look naturally to the East as Paul's field of labor, where he
had formed so many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had
not been; yet on the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus,
Rufus, Hermas, Nereus, Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to
Rome. We must, however, be content to leave the matter undecided, but
may be confident that the evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is
certainly, in the face of the Roman names mentioned, and of universal
tradition (for which as for Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not
strong enough to establish it.
 The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of
the second century, and is quoted by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2) as
Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture
testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered
it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria
and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter
expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it
is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places
it among the nothoi or spurious writings in connection with the Acts
of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian
Fragment it was "written very recently in our times in the city of
Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of
the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it
cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among
the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to
the end of time." This shows the very high esteem in which the work
was held in that age. It was very widely employed in private and in
public, both in the East and the West, until about the fourth century,
when it gradually passed out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says
that it was almost unknown among the Latins of his time. As to the
date and authorship of the Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only
direct testimony of antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment,
which says that it was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during
the episcopacy of the latter (139-154 a.d.). This testimony is
accepted by the majority of scholars, most of whom date the book near
the middle of the second century, or at least as late as the reign of
Hadrian. This opinion received not long ago what was supposed to be a
strong confirmation from the discovery of the fact that Hermas in all
probability quoted from Theodotion's version of Daniel (see Hort's
article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884),
which has been commonly ascribed to the second century. But it must
now be admitted that no one knows the terminus a quo for the
composition of Theodotian's version, and therefore the discovery
leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined (see Schürer, Gesch.
des jüdischen Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile Eusebius in this
connection records the tradition, which he had read, that the book was
written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This tradition,
however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is no more
than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge as to this
Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove
decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for
accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name. In
Vis. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his book to Clement.
From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been
contemporary with the well-known Roman Clement, the author of the
Epistle to the Corinthians. While this appears very likely, it cannot
be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later
date. Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the
book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the
second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it.
Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas,
a contemporary of the Roman Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon
in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Critics
are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists
of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the
nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life
of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.
The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and
has been compared to the Pilgrim's Progress. Opinions are divided as
to whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the
author, or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to be the
more probable. Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas
was known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and
Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos ms. discovered shortly before by
Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the ms. the last was lost; three were
sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were
transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has
enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately
it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All
recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of
Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos
Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only
through Simonides' transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt.
Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of
Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A.
Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek
text of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last
edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a
Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended
transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos ms. But this has been
conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we
are therefore still without any ms. authority for the Greek text of
the close of the work. Cf. Robinson's introduction to the Collation of
Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack's articles in the Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is
that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips.
1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The
literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should
examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf.
Zahn's Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard
to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.
Chapter IV.--The First Successors of the Apostles.
1. That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the
churches "from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is evident
both from his own words,  and from the account which Luke has
given in the Acts. 
2. And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the
doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear
from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed,
 in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 
3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true
and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend
the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those
mentioned in the writings of Paul.
4. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as he
called them,  and most of them were honored by him with an
imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them
in his own epistles.
5. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by
6. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate
of the parish in Ephesus,  Titus of the churches in Crete. 
7. But Luke,  who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by
profession,  and who was especially intimate with Paul and well
acquainted with the rest of the apostles,  has left us, in two
inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned
from them. One of these books is the Gospel,  which he testifies
that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and
ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he
followed accurately from the first.  The other book is the Acts
of the Apostles  which he composed not from the accounts of
others, but from what he had seen himself.
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as
if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according
to my Gospel." 
9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was
sent to Gaul;  but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle
to Timothy  as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in
the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. 
10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at
Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. 
11. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first
to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as
recorded by Luke in the Acts)  is mentioned by another Dionysius,
an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth,  as the
first bishop of the church at Athens.
12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall
relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our
 Rom. xv. 19.
 From Acts ix. on.
 In chap. 3, §1.
 1 Pet. i. 1.
 Philip. ii. 25; Philem. 2.
 Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (xii. 25; xiii. 13;
xv. 37, 39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. 1 sqq. and often); Aquila
and Priscilla (xviii.); Erastus (xix. 22); Gaius of Macedonia (xix.
29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater, Secundus, Gaius
of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus
(xx. 4); Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).
 That Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is stated also by
the Apost. Const. (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (H. E. III. 11), who
records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered
martyrdom under Domitian. Against the tradition that he labored during
his later years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged; though on the
other hand the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be no
more than a conclusion drawn from the Epistles to Timothy, though
hardly a conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word
historeitai, which seems to imply that he had some authority for his
statement. According to those epistles, he was at the time of their
composition in Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether he
was afterward there or not. From Heb. xiii. 23 (the date of which we
do not know) we learn that he had just been released from some
imprisonment, apparently in Italy, but whither he afterward went is
quite uncertain. Eusebius' report that he was bishop of Ephesus is the
customary but unwarranted carrying back into the first century of the
monarchical episcopate which was not known until the second. According
to the Apost. Const. VII. 46 both Timothy and John were bishops of
Ephesus, the former appointed by Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy
is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January
 Cf. Tit. i. 5. Titus is commonly connected by tradition with
Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop,--the
later institution being again pushed back into the first century. In
the fragment de Vita et Actis Titi, by the lawyer Zenas (in Fabric.
Cod. Apoc. N.T. II. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith's Dict. of
the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of Crete
(where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name), and of
a royal Cretan family by birth. This tradition is late, and, of
course, of little authority, but at the same time, accords very well
with all that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no reason
for denying it in toto. According to 2 Tim. iv. 10, he went, or was
sent, into Dalmatia; but universal tradition ascribes his later life
and his death to Crete. Candia, the modern capital, claims the honor
of being his burial place (see Cave'sApostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63).
Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated
 Of Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in
the Acts, and only three times in Paul's epistles (Col. iv. 14;
Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), from which passages we learn that he was a
physician, was one of Paul's fellow-workers who was very dear to him,
and was with him during his last imprisonment. Irenæus, who is the
first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Acts to this Luke, seems to
know nothing more about him personally. Eusebius is the first to
record that he was born at Antioch; but the tradition must have been
universally accepted in his day, as he states it without any
misgivings and with no qualifying phrase. Jerome (de vir. ill. 7) and
many later writers follow Eusebius in this statement. There is no
intrinsic improbability in the tradition, which seems, in fact, to be
favored by certain minor notices in the Acts (see Schaff, Ch. Hist. I.
651). Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 25) says that he labored in Achaia, and
in Orat. 4 he calls him a martyr. Jerome (ibid.) says that he was
buried in Constantinople. According to Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43) and
later writers, Luke was a painter of great skill; but this late
tradition, of which the earlier Fathers know nothing, is quite
worthless. Epiphanius (Hær. II. 11) makes him one of the Seventy,
which does not accord with Luke's own words at the beginning of his
Gospel, where he certainly implies that he himself was not an
eye-witness of the events which he records. In the same connection,
Epiphanius says that he labored in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and
Macedonia,--a tradition which has about as much worth as most such
traditions in regard to the fields of labor of the various apostles
and their followers. Theophylact (On Luke xxiv. 13-24) records that
some supposed that he was one of the disciples with whom Christ walked
to Emmaus, and this ingenious but unfounded guess has gained some
modern supporters (e.g. Lange). He is a saint in the Roman Catholic
sense, and is commemorated October 18.
 See Col. iv. 14
 Of Luke's acquaintance with the other apostles we know nothing,
although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the "We"
sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at the time he was
taken prisoner (Acts xxi.), when he met James at least, and possibly
others of the Twelve. It is not at all improbable that in the course
of his life he became acquainted with several of the apostles.
 The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although it
is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early. It
was used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and
is quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel is first
distinctly ascribed to Luke by Irenæus (III. 1. 1) and by the
Muratorian Fragment. From that time on tradition was unanimous both as
to its authorship and its authority. The common opinion--still
defended by the great majority of conservative critics--has always
been that the third Gospel was written before the destruction of
Jerusalem. The radical critics of the present century, however, bring
its composition down to a latter date--ranging all the way from 70 to
140 (the latter is Baur's date, which is now universally recognized as
very wild). Many conservative critics put its composition after the
destruction of Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its
eschatological discourses--e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80
(while putting Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem).
The traditional and still prevalent opinion is that Luke's Gospel was
written later than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various
commentaries and New Testament Introductions, and for a clear
exhibition of the synoptical problem in general, see Schaff's Ch.
Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in particular, p. 648 sqq.
 Luke i. 2, 3.
 Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by
heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian
Fragment and Irenæus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as the
author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been unanimous
in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case of
Photius (ad Amphil. Quæst. 123, ed. Migne), who states that the work
was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others
to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that Photius, in this
case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the
date of its composition. Irenæus (III. 1. 1) seems (one cannot speak
with certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter
and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts still later. The
Muratorian Fragment implies that the work was written at least after
the death of Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose that the work
was written during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 7),
and this has been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars
ever since, although many put the composition between the death of
Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it
after the destruction of Jerusalem, though still assigning it to Luke.
The opposite school of critics deny Luke's authorship, throwing the
book into the latter part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld,
&c.), or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim,
Hausrath, &c.). The Tübingen School saw in the Acts a
"tendency-writing," in which the history was intentionally perverted.
This theory finds few supporters at present, even among the most
extreme critics, all of whom, however, consider the book a source of
the second rank, containing much that is legendary and distorted and
irreconcilable with Paul's Epistles, which are looked upon as the only
reliable source. The question turns upon the relation of the author of
the "we" sections to the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars
agree with universal tradition in identifying them (though this is not
necessary in order to maintain the historical accuracy of the work),
while the opposite school denies the identity, considering the "we"
sections authentic historical accounts from the pen of a companion of
Paul, which were afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who
was not a pupil of Paul. The identity of the author of the third
Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all parties. See the various
Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of
the Acts, compare especially Weizsäcker's Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182
sqq., and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 569 sq.
 Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression
phasi, "they say," which seems to imply that the interpretation was a
common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen
also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to,
but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in
Origen's works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in
commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the
words "my Gospel" to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the
Gospel written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from
his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen
does suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18.
The interpretation of the words "according to my Gospel," which
Eusebius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome
(de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never
uses the word euangelion in such a sense, nor is it used by any New
Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the
written Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of "glad
tidings," or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of
the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Luke's
Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke's connection
with Paul, and Irenæus (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. §2) says
directly that Luke recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian
(Adv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Luke's form of the Gospel is
usually ascribed to Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down
the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles
needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord
with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church
upon the connection of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap.
24 Eusebius refers again to Luke's relation to Paul in connection with
his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap.
25. The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and
still is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far,
however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul
himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his
preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from
which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen in Luke's
standpoint, and in his general spirit--his Gospel is the Gospel of
 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is eporeuthe, which
means simply "went" or "is gone." That Paul had sent him as Eusebius
states (using the word steilEURmenos) is not implied in the epistle.
Instead of eis tas Gallias (or ten Gallian) most of the ancient mss.
of the New Testament have eis Galatian, which is the reading of the
Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others. Some
mss., however (including the Sinaitic), have Gallian, which
Tischendorf adopts; and some of the mss. of Eusebius also have this
form, though the majority read tas Gallias. Christophorsonus in his
edition of Eusebius reads epi ten Galatian, but entirely without ms.
authority. Epiphanius (Hær. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10
should be read Gallia and not Galatia: ou gar en te Galati hos
tines planethentes nomizousin, alla en te Galli. Theodoret (in 2
Tim. iv. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning tas Gallias:
houto gar ekalounto pEURlai.
 2 Tim. iv. 21.
 See chap. 2, note 1, above.
 Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a
"fellow-soldier." Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul's references
to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom he
calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers
was a very important personage in the early Roman church, being known
to tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has played a
prominent part in Church history on account of the numerous writings
which have passed under his name. We know nothing certain about his
life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by
Paul,--an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after
him repeated by a great many writers. But the identification is, to
say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement
in a very common name deserves little consideration. It was quite
customary in the early Church to find Paul's companions, whenever
possible, in responsible and influential positions during the latter
part of the first century. A more plausible theory, which, if true,
would throw an interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of
his day, is that which identifies him with the consul Flavius Clement,
a relative of the emperor Domitian (see below, chap. 18, note 6). Some
good reasons for the identification might be urged, and his rank would
then explain well Clement's influential position in the Church. But as
pointed out in chap. 18, note 6, it is extremely improbable that the
consul Flavius Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal
objection to the identification (which is nevertheless adopted by
Hilgenfeld and others) is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of
as a martyr until the time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient writer
identifies him or connects him in any way with the consul, although
Eusebius' mention of the latter in chap. 23 shows that he was a
well-known person. When we remember the tendency of the early Church
to make all its heroes martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the
omission in this case renders the identification, we may say,
virtually impossible. More probable is the conjecture of Lightfoot,
that he was a freedman belonging to the family of the consul Clement,
whose name he bore. This is simply conjecture, however, and is
supported by no testimony. Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very
prominent position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to
the Corinthians which is still extant (see below, chap. 16; and upon
the works falsely ascribed to him, see chap. 38). In regard to his
place in the succession of Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note 1, above.
For a full account of Clement, see especially Harnack's Prolegomena to
his edition of Clement's Epistle (Patrum Apost. Opera, Vol. 1.),
Salmon's article, Clemens Romanus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.,
Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 636 sq., and Donaldson's Hist. of Christ. Lit.
and Doctrine, I. p. 90 sq.
 Acts xvii. 34. This Dionysius has played an important part in
Church history, as the pretended author of a series of very remarkable
writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the Areopagite, but
which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century and probably owe
their origin to the influence of Neo-Platonism. The first mention of
these writings is in the records of the Council of Constantinople (532
a.d.); but from that time on they were constantly used and unanimously
ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, until, in the seventeenth
century, their claims to so great antiquity were disputed. They are
still defended, however, in the face of the most positive evidence, by
many Roman Catholic writers. The influence of these works upon the
theology of the Middle Ages was prodigious. Scholasticism may be said
to be based upon them, for Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more
than any other source; so much so, that he has been said "to have
drawn his whole theological system from Dionysius." Our Dionysius has
had the further honor of being identified by tradition with Dionysius
(St. Denis), the patron saint of France,--an identification which we
may follow the most loyal of the French in accepting, if we will,
though we shall be obliged to suppose that our Dionysius lived to the
good old age of two to three hundred years. The statement of Dionysius
of Corinth that the Areopagite was bishop of Athens (repeated by
Eusebius again in Bk. IV. chap. 23) is the usual unwarranted throwing
back of a second century conception into the first century. That
Dionysius held a position of influence among the few Christians whom
Paul left in Athens is highly probable, and the tradition that later
he was made the first bishop there is quite natural. The church of
Athens plays no part in the history of the apostolic age, and it is
improbable that there was any organization there until many years
after Paul's visit; for even in the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the
church there seems to have been extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV.
chap. 23, §2). Upon Dionysius and the writings ascribed to him, see
especially the article of Lupton in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p.
 Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.
Chapter V.--The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.
1. After Nero had held the power thirteen years,  and Galba and
Otho had ruled a year and six months,  Vespasian, who had become
distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed
sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies
there.  Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he
entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.
2. For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to
their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could
against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, 
and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was
beheaded,  and finally James, the first that had obtained the
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died
in the manner already described.  But the rest of the apostles,
who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their
destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto
all nations to preach the Gospel,  relying upon the power of
Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the
nations in my name." 
3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a
revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave
the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. 
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land
of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at
length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ
and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious
4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation
at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of
Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as
women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by
other forms of death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the
many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea,
and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem
itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course
of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and
how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets,
 stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the
temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by
fire,--all these things any one that wishes may find accurately
described in the history written by Josephus. 
5. But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the
multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of
the Passover, to the number of three million souls,  were shut up
in Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words.
6. For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of
God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet
with destruction at the hands of divine justice.
7. But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from
the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think
it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused,
that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God
was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness
against the Christ of God.
 Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.
 Eusebius figures are incorrect. He omits Vitellius entirely,
while he stretches Galba's and Otho's reigns to make them cover a
period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from June 9,
68, to Jan. 15, 69; and Otho from Jan. 15 to April 20, 69). The total
of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about eighteen
 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor
in Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea,
and then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was conquered by
Vespasian's generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while Vespasian
himself went to Alexandria. The latter was immediately recognized by
the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 70. Eusebius is thus
approximately correct, though he is not exact as to details.
 Titus undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews
after his father's departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to an
end, Sept. 8, 70 a.d.
 See Acts vii. 8 sqq.
 See Acts xii. 2
 See Bk. II. chap. 23.
 See chap. 1, note 1.
 See Matt. xxviii. 19.
 Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surrounding
population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus, B. J.
III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records
this flight of the Christians to Pella.
 Dan. ix. 27.
 Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.
 B. J.VI. 9, §§3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers.
Josephus in §3 puts the number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the "unclean
and the strangers" who were not allowed to eat the Passover. In the
same work, Bk. II. chap. 14, §3, Josephus states that when Cestius
Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000 persons came about him to
enter complaint against the procurator Florus. These numbers are
grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the number in the city at the
time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above the truth.
The writer of the article Jerusalem, in Smith's Bible Dict., estimates
that the city can never have had a population of more than 50,000
souls, and he concludes that at the time of the siege there cannot
have been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected within the walls. This
is probably too low an estimate, but shows how far out of the way the
figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be.
Chapter VI.--The Famine which oppressed them.
1. Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our
hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred.
2. "For the wealthy," he says, "it was equally dangerous to remain.
For under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to
death for their wealth. The madness of the seditions increased with
the famine and both the miseries were inflamed more and more day by
3. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses men
searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they
tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had
anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground
that they had more carefully concealed it.
4. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the
bodies of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good
condition they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who
were already wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay
those who were on the point of perishing for want.
5. Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of
wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were
poorer. Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their
houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want,
while others baked it according as necessity and fear dictated.
6. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from
the fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a
lamentable spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an
abundance while the weaker mourned.
7. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing
so effectively as shame. For that which under other circumstances is
worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus women
snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children,
from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from
their babes. And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their
arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last drops that
8. And even while they were eating thus they did not remain
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, to rob them even of
these portions of food. For whenever they saw a house shut up, they
regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food. And
immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what
they were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.
9. Old men who clung to their food were beaten, and if the women
concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing. There
was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the
babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the
ground. But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed
what they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if
they had been wronged by them.
10. And they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover
food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter
herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to
confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they
might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had
concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.
11. Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had
been driven to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of
exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves
for days to come.
12. And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the
outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to
meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they
seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the
man would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God,
adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk
of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was
fortunate if the one that was plundered was not also slain."
13. To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the
following:  "The possibility of going out of the city being
brought to an end,  all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off.
And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and
families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the
lanes of the city with the corpses of old men.
14. Children and youths, swollen with the famine, wandered about the
market-places like shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony
overtook them. The sick were not strong enough to bury even their own
relatives, and those who had the strength hesitated because of the
multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many,
indeed, died while they were burying others, and many betook
themselves to their graves before death came upon them.
15. There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes;
but the famine stifled the natural affections. Those that were dying a
lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their
rest before them. Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the
16. But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they
broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead
and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a
laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and
some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in
order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use
their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left
to be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed
upon the temple; and they left the seditious alive.
17. These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of
the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench. But
afterward, when they were not able to do this, they threw the bodies
from the walls into the trenches.
18. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the
dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned
aloud, and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this was not
19. After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:
 "I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I
suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these
guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or
overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as
destroyed Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much
more godless than were those that suffered such punishment. By their
madness indeed was the whole people brought to destruction."
20. And in the sixth book he writes as follows:  "Of those that
perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow of
food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends
engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from
each other the most wretched supports of life.
21. Nor would they believe that even the dying were without food; but
the robbers would search them while they were expiring, lest any one
should feign death while concealing food in his bosom. With mouths
gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad
dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence
they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.
22. Necessity compelled them to eat anything they could find, and they
gathered and devoured things that were not fit even for the filthiest
of irrational beasts. Finally they did not abstain even from their
girdles and shoes, and they stripped the hides off their shields and
devoured them. Some used even wisps of old hay for food, and others
gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic
23. "But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed
during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going to relate a
fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to
relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have omitted
this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of
fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own
age. And besides, I should render my country poor service if I
suppressed the account of the sufferings which she endured.
24. "There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan,
whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor  (which
signifies the house of hyssop). She was distinguished for her family
and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to
Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege.
25. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she
had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her
possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in
daily and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry,
and by her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger
of the rapacious villains against herself.
26. But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she
grew weary of finding food for others to eat. The search, too, was
already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her
bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than
famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she
proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.
27. Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking at her breast, she
said, Oh, wretched child, in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do
I preserve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are
allowed to live by them. But even slavery is anticipated by the
famine, and the rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food for
me, a fury for these rioters,  and a bye-word to the world, for
this is all that is wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews.
28. And when she had said this she slew her son; and having roasted
him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept
it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the
nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she
should show them what she had prepared. She replied that she had saved
an excellent portion for them, and with that she uncovered the remains
of the child.
29. They were immediately seized with horror and amazement and stood
transfixed at the sight. But she said This is my own son, and the deed
is mine. Eat for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman,
nor more compassionate than a mother. But if you are too pious and
shrink from my sacrifice, I have already  eaten of it; let the
rest also remain for me.
30. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being
affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the
mother. Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and
as all pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled
as if they had done it themselves.
31. Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death;
and blessed were they that had died before hearing and seeing miseries
32. Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness
and impiety, against the Christ of God.
 Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§2 and 3.
 Ibid.chap. 12, §§3 and 4.
 Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city
by which all egress from the town was shut off. Josephus gives an
account of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.
 Ibid.chap. 13, §6.
 Ibid.Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§3 and 4.
 'Attikon tessEURron; the word drachmon is to be supplied. An
Attic drachm, according to some authorities, was equal to about
fifteen cents, according to others (among them Liddell and Scott), to
about nineteen cents.
 bathezor. Some mss. have bathechor, and the mss. of Josephus
have bethezob, which Whiston translates Bethezub.
 "In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death"
 ede. All the mss. of Eusebius read humon. Some of the mss. of
Josephus read ede, and Rufinus translates nam et ego prior comedi.
Valesius, without ms. authority (but apparently with the support of
some mss. of Josephus, for Whiston translates "one-half") reads
hemisu, a half, and he is followed by the English and German
translators. Some change from the reading of the mss. of Eusebius is
certainly necessary; and though the alteration made by Valesius
produces very good sense and seems quite natural, I have preferred to
accept the reading which is given by many of the mss. of Josephus, and
which has the support of Rufinus.
Chapter VII.--The Predictions of Christ.
1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our
Saviour in which he foretold these very events.
2. His words are as follows:  "Woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to
this time, no, nor ever shall be."
3. The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that
eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, 
and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each
other after the taking of the city, were slain.  But the tallest
of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were
preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that
were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in
the works of Egypt,  while still more were scattered through the
provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by
beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be
sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand.
4. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the
reign of Vespasian,  in accordance with the prophecies of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand
as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the
statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he
uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: 
5. "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which
belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground."
6. And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says,  "For
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again:
 "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know
that the desolation thereof is nigh."
7. If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other
accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail
to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our
Saviour were truly divine and marvellously strange. 
8. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish
nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the
multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the
robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be
taken from their midst,  it is not necessary to add anything to
the account of the historian.
9. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited
the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their
destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during
which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the
first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord,
 were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the
surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved
itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by
repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and
salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also
furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to
them if they did not repent.
10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the
historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for
the benefit of the readers of this work.
 Matt. xxiv. 19-21
 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, §3. Josephus simply says that
the whole number of those that perished during the siege was
1,100,000; he does not specify the manner of their death. On the
accuracy of the numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note 13.
 eis ta kat' ,'Aigupton zrga. The works meant are the great stone
quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt), which
furnished a considerable part of the finest marble used for building
purposes in Rome and elsewhere. The quarries were chiefly in the hands
of the Roman government, and the work of quarrying was done largely by
captives taken in war, as in the present case.
 Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves
was upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid. §3) that
the number of captives taken during the whole war was 97,000, a number
which Eusebius, through an error, applies to the one class of
prisoners that were sold as slaves.
 In B. J. Bk. VI. 8. 5 and 10. 1 Josephus puts the completion of
the siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the
second passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian. Vespasian
was proclaimed emperor in Egypt July 1, 69, so that Sept. 8 of his
second year would be Sept. 8, a.d. 70. (Cf. Schürer, N. T. Zeitgesch.
 Luke xix. 42-44
 Ibid. xxi. 23, 24.
 Ibid. verse 20.
 It is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of
critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the
composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its
eschatological discourses seem to bear the mark of having been
recorded after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do
in many minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in
Matthew and Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted
just above from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are
mentioned, while in parallel passages in the other Gospels (Matt.
xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14) not armies, but "the abomination of
desolation standing in the holy place" is spoken of as the sign.
Compare the various commentaries upon these passages.
 Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11, Luke
 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
Chapter VIII.--The Signs which preceded the War.
1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the
sixth book of his History. His words are as follows:  "Thus were
the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false
prophets;  but they did not heed nor give credit to the visions
and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the contrary,
as if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor
understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God.
2. At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and
a comet, which lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt
and before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were
gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month
Xanthicus,  at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light
shone about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day;
and this continued for half an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a
good sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending
those events which very soon took place.
3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.
4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and
very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by
twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep
in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of
5. And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month
Artemisium,  a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those
who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of
such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling
through the clouds and encircling the cities.
6. And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests
entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the
services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a
noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, `Let us
go hence.' 
7. But what follows is still more terrible; for a certain Jesus, the
son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war, 
when the city was particularly prosperous and peaceful, came to the
feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple
to the honor of God,  and suddenly began to cry out: `A voice
from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a
voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms
and brides, a voice against all the people.' Day and night he went
through all the alleys crying thus.
8. But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the
ominous cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But
without uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in
particular to those that were present, he continued to cry out in the
same words as before.
9. And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a
higher power, brought him before the Roman governor.  And then,
though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor
shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, `Woe, woe unto
10. The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than
this. He says  that a certain oracle was found in their sacred
writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go
forth from their country to rule the world. He himself understood that
this was fulfilled in Vespasian.
11. But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of
it which was subject to the Romans. With better right could it be
applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the Father, "Ask of me, and
I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of
the earth for thy possession."  At that very time, indeed, the
voice of his holy apostles "went throughout all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world." 
 Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, §3.
 katapseudomenoi tou theou. In the previous paragraph Josephus
says that a great many false prophets were suborned by the tyrants to
impose on the people. It is to these false prophets therefore that he
refers here, and I have consequently felt at liberty thus to translate
the Greek word given above, instead of rendering merely "liars against
God" (as Crusè does), which is indefinite, and might have various
 The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek
name of the month used here is xanthikos, which was the name of a
Macedonian month corresponding to our April. According to Whiston,
Josephus regularly used this name for the Jewish month Nisan (the
first month of the Jewish year), in which case this event took place
six days before the Passover, which began on the 14th of Nisan.
 'Artemisios. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan
and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month
(elaphebolion), which in turn corresponded to the latter part of our
March and the early part of April. According to Wieseler, Josephus
used the word to denote the second month of the Jewish year, the month
 The majority of the mss. of Eusebius read metabainomen, "we go
hence." But at least one of the best mss. and a majority of the mss.
of Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who render migremus),
read metabainomen, "let us go hence," and I have followed Stephanus,
Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting
 That is, in 62 a.d. for, according to Josephus, the war began in
66 a.d. A little further on, Josephus says that he continued his cry
for seven years and five months, when he was slain during the siege of
Jerusalem. This shows that he is here, as well as elsewhere, reckoning
the date of the beginning of the war as 66 a.d.
 That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.
 This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event,
and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was procurator from
61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23, note 35, and chap.
22, note 1.
 See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.
 Ps. ii. 8.
 Ps. xix. 4.
Chapter IX.--Josephus and the Works which he has left.
1. After all this it is fitting that we should know something in
regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so
much to the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this
point in the following words:  "Josephus, the son of Mattathias,
a priest of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the
beginning and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward."
2. He was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among
his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by
the erection of a statue in Rome,  and his works were deemed
worthy of a place in the library. 
3. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews  in twenty
books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in
his time, in seven books.  He himself testifies that the latter
work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by
himself into his native tongue.  He is worthy of credit here
because of his truthfulness in other matters.
4. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth
reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews,  and in them he
replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a
treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to
vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.
5. In the first of these books he gives the number of the canonical
books of the so-called Old Testament. Apparently  drawing his
information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were accepted
without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.
 B. J.,Preface, §1. We have an original source for the life of
Josephus, not only in his various works, in which he makes frequent
reference to himself, but also in his autobiography, which was written
after the year 100. The work was occasioned by the Chronicle of Justus
of Tiberias, which had represented him as more patriotic and more
hostile to the Romans than he liked, and he therefore felt impelled to
paint himself in the blackest of colors, as a traitor and
renegade,--probably much blacker than he really was. It is devoted
chiefly to an account of the intrigues and plots formed against him
while he was governor of Galilee, and contains little of general
biographical interest, except in the introduction and the conclusion.
Josephus was of a priestly family,--his father Matthias belonging to
the first of the twenty-four courses--and he was born in the first
year of Caius Cæsar; i.e. in the year beginning March 16, 37 a.d. He
played a prominent part in the Jewish war, being entrusted with the
duty, as governor of Galilee and commander of the forces there, of
meeting and opposing Vespasian, who attacked that province first. He
was, however, defeated, and gave himself up to the victors, in the
summer of 67. He was treated with honor in the camp of the Romans,
whom he served until the end of the war, and became a favorite and
flatterer of the Vespasian house, incurring thereby the everlasting
contempt of his country men. He went to Rome at the close of the war,
and lived in prosperity there until early in the second century. His
works are our chief source for a knowledge of Jewish affairs from the
time of the Maccabees, and as such are, and will always remain,
indispensable, and their author immortal, whatever his character. He
was a man of learning and of talent, but of inordinate selfishness and
self-esteem. He was formerly accused of great inaccuracy, and his
works were considered a very poor historical source; but later
investigations have increased his credit, and he seems, upon the
whole, to have been a historian of unusual ability and
 Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this
statue in Rome, and what authority there is for his statement we
 In §64 of his Life Josephus tells us that Titus was so much
pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his
name to them, and ordered them published (see the next Chapter, §8
sqq., where the passage is quoted). The first public library in Rome,
according to Pliny, was founded by Pollio (76 b.c.-4 a.d.). The one
referred to here is undoubtedly the imperial library, which, according
to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in the temple of
Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections,--one for Greek,
and the other for Latin works. It was greatly enlarged by Tiberius and
 'Ioudaike 'Archaiologia, Antiquitates Judaicæ. This work, which
is still extant, is Josephus' most extensive work, and aims to give,
in twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time of
Abraham to the beginning of the great war with Rome. The object of the
work is mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place Judaism before
Gentile readers in as favorable a light as possible. It contains much
legendary matter, but is the main source for our knowledge of a long
period of Jewish history, and as such is invaluable. The work was
completed, according to his own statement (XX. 11. 2), in the
thirteenth year of Domitian (93-94 a.d.), and frequently corrects
erroneous statements made in his earlier work upon the Jewish war.
 ;;Istoria 'Ioudaikou polemou pros ;;Romaious, de Bello Judaico.
This work, in seven books, constitutes our most complete and
trustworthy source for a knowledge of that great war, so momentous in
its consequences both to Judaism and to Christianity. The author wrote
from personal knowledge of many of the events described, and had,
besides, access to extensive and reliable written sources: and the
general accuracy of the work may therefore be accepted. He says that
he undertook the work for the purpose of giving a true narrative of
the war, in consequence of the many false and distorted accounts which
had already appeared in various quarters. He presented the work, when
finished, to Vespasian and Titus, and obtained their approval and
testimony to its trustworthiness: and hence it must have been written
during the reign of Vespasian, probably toward the end of it, as other
works upon the war had preceded his (B. J., Preface, §1).
 The work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, §1; and contra
Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own tongue,--Aramaic,--and
afterwards translated by himself into Greek, with the help of others.
Eusebius inverts the fact, making the Greek the original.
 The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus
on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri archaiotetos
'Ioudaion kata 'Apionos, De Antiquitate Judæorum contra Apionem). It
is ordinarily cited simply as contra Apionem (Against Apion). It
consists of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else than an apology
for Judaism in general, and to a less extent, a defense of himself and
his former work (the Antiquities) against hostile critics. The common
title, contra Apionem, is rather misleading, as he is not once
mentioned in the first book, although in the first part of the second
book he is attacked with considerable bitterness and through him a
large class of enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon Apion, the
famous Alexandrian and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see above, Bk.
II. chap. 5, note 5.) The work is Josephus' best effort from a
literary point of view, and shows both learning and ability, and in
spite of its brevity contains much of great value. It was written
after his Antiquities (i.e. after 93 a.d.), how long afterward we
cannot tell. These three works of Josephus, with his autobiography
already mentioned (note 1), are all that are extant, although he seems
to have written another work relating to the history of the Seleucidæ
(cf. Ant. XIII. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11) of which not a trace remains,
and which is mentioned by no one else. The other works planned by
Josephus--On God and his Essence (Ant. XX. 11. 3), and On the Laws of
the Jews (ibid. and Ant. III. 5. 6, 8. 10)--seem never to have been
written. (They are mentioned also by Eusebius in the next Chapter.)
Other compositions attributed to him are not from his hand. The best
edition of the works of Josephus is that of Benedict Niese (Berlin,
1885 sq.), of which the first two volumes have been already issued,
comprising ten books of the Antiquities. A good complete edition is
that of Dindorf (Paris, 1845-47, 2 vols.). That of Bekker (Leipzig,
1855, 6 vols.) is very convenient. The only complete English
translation is by Whiston, unfortunately uncritical and inaccurate.
Traill's translation of the Jewish War (London, 1862) is a great
improvement, but does not cover the remainder of Josephus' works. Upon
Josephus and his writings, see the article of Edersheim in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. III. 441-460, and compare the literature given there.
Chapter X.--The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.
1.  "We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and
conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.
2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition
respecting the origin of man, and continue the history  down to
his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. 
3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded
Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the
history of their own times in thirteen books.  The other four
books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the
life of men.
4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been
recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that
we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been
during this time an exact succession of prophets. 
5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by
our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already
passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them,
but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as
the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary,
cheerfully to die for them."
These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be
introduced in this connection.
6. Another work of no little merit has been produced by the same
writer, On the Supremacy of Reason,  which some have called
Maccabaicum,  because it contains an account of the struggles of
those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is
related in the books called Maccabees.
7. And at the end of the twentieth book of his Antiquities 
Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in
four books concerning God and his existence, according to the
traditional opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it
is that they permit some things while prohibiting others.  And
the same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by
8. In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words
that are found at the close of his Antiquities,  in confirmation
of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place
he attacks Justus of Tiberias,  who, like himself, had attempted
to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had
not written truthfully. Having brought many other accusations against
the man, he continues in these words: 
9. "I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were,
 but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors
themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes. For I was
conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was
not disappointed in my expectation of obtaining their attestation.
10. And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were
present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa  and some of
11. For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the
events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he
indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be
published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the
truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two.
 But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with
 Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the
first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44
sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This,
however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed
before the time of Judas Maccabæus. Josephus is the earliest writer to
give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently
gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted
canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us
that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the
Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are
able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:--
1-5. Books of Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9.
Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra and Nehemiah. 12. Esther. 13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 15. Ezekiel. 16. Daniel. 17. Twelve
Minor Prophets. 18. Job. 19. Psalms. 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs. The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books
is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:--
Books of Moses Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy.
Joshua Nave. Judges. Ruth. Four of Kings. Chronicles. Psalms.
Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Twelve
Minor Prophets. Daniel. Ezekiel. Ezra. Melito says nothing of the
number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers
only twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus' only in
omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though
it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention
of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case
of Josephus' canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and
hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which
makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only
accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were
twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat
from that of Josephus. It is as follows:-- 1-5. Books of Moses. 6.
Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11.
Ezra I. and II. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs. 14. Ecclesiastes. 15. Song
of Songs. 16. [Twelve Minor Prophets (Rufinus).] 17. Isaiah. 18.
Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle. 19. Daniel. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Job.
22. Esther. "Besides these also the Maccabees." The peculiar thing
about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the
insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former were certainly looked
upon by Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them
(according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is no conceivable reason for
their omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number
twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight
on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as
number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned
to them is not the ordinary one. We should expect to find them in
connection with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no
means uniform in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek
Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon,
and can have been included by Origen here only because he had been
used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX.
(for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably represent the
original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an
appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without
thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen adds the
Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two
books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the
Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was probably
the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained by
adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus
obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was
therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and
the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is
Strack's view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is
advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is
easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how
the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to
the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and
gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the
three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be
seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen,
which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees)
include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old
Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from
the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a
regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is
not likely. An examination of Philo's use of the Old Testament shows
us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no
apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in
their translation these other books which were held in high esteem,
without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the
canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of
it. But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider
than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and
thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a
part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only
one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both
Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against
making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and
from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less.
They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by
numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger
Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most
authoritative standard of the Græco-Russian Church, expressly excluded
them. The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha
as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them
a part of the official canon. See Strack's article in Herzog,
translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman's Introduction to the Holy
Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testament
 Literally, "the tradition respecting the origin of man
(anthropogonias) down to his own death." I have felt it necessary to
insert the words, "and continue the history," which are not found in
the Greek, but which are implied in the words, "down to his own
 Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world's era was in use,
dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which
Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures are
often quite inconsistent,--probably owing, in large part, to the
corrupt state of the existing text,--and the confusion which results
is considerable. See Destinon's Chronologie des Josephus.
 These thirteen books were:-- 1. Joshua. 2. Judges and Ruth. 3.
Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8.
Isaiah. 9. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 10. Ezekiel. 11. Daniel. 12.
Twelve Minor Prophets. 13. Job. As will be seen, Josephus divided the
canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second,
the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa
(Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the
canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time,
his division is quite different from any other division known.
Jerome's is as follows:-- 1. Law: five books of Moses. 2. Prophets:
Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books). 3.
Hagiographa (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division
which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome's only
in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus
making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as
remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the
LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged,
without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their
subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his
looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to
include in the second division all the books which contained, as he
says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes.
 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who
reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah
carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.
Malachi--the last of them--uttered his prophecies at the end of
Artaxerxes' or at the beginning of Darius' reign. It was commonly held
among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical
spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as
here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who
 eis Makkabaious logos he peri autokrEURtoros logismou: De
Maccabæis, seu de rationis imperio liber. This book is often called
the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly ascribed to Josephus.
As a consequence it is printed with his works in many editions. But it
is now universally acknowledged to be spurious, although who the
author is we cannot tell.
 Ant.XX. 11. 3. See the previous Chapter, note 7.
 See the same note.
 See the same note.
 The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in
his Life, §65, and not in the Antiquities. But we can see from the
last paragraph of the Antiquities that he wrote his Life really as an
appendix to that work, and undoubtedly as Ewald suggests, issued it
with a second edition of the Antiquities about twenty years after the
first. In the mss. it is always found with the Antiquities, and hence
the whole might with justice be viewed as one work. It will be noticed
that Eusebius mentions no separate Life of Josephus, which shows that
he regarded it simply as a part of the Antiquities.
 Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that
city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while
Josephus was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused him
considerable trouble. He is mentioned frequently in Josephus' Life,
and we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete idea of
him--though of course the account is that of an enemy. He wrote a work
upon the Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs of the Jewish
war and in which he attacked Josephus very severely. This work, which
is no longer extant, was read by Photius and is described by him in
his Bibl. Cod. 33, under the title, basileis 'Ioudaioi hoi en tois
stemmasi. It was in consequence of this work that Josephus felt
obliged to publish his Life, which is really little more than a
defense of himself over against the attacks of Justus. See above, note
 Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph that Justus
had had his History written for twenty years, and yet had not
published it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa,
and he accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was
afraid that they would contradict his statements. Josephus then goes
on to say in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus, afraid
to publish his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in the
 Agrippa II. See above, Bk. II. chap. 19, note 3. Agrippa sided
with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and Titus in their
camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated efforts to induce
the people to give up their rebellion, that the war might be avoided.
 These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus
in his Vita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius.
The first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston's
translation): "King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth
greeting. I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it
appears to me that thou hast done it much more accurately and with
greater care than have the other writers. Send me the rest of these
books. Farewell, my dear friend."
Chapter XI.--Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.
1. After the martyrdom of James  and the conquest of Jerusalem
which immediately followed,  it is said that those of the
apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came
together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord
according to the flesh  (for the majority of them also were still
alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon,  the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention;  to be worthy of
the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of
the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of
 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.
 See ibid. note 40. The date of Symeon's accession (assuming that
he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had done) cannot
be fixed. Eusebius himself, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 5,
although he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no information as
to the dates of their accession, or the length of their incumbency. He
puts Symeon's accession after the destruction of Jerusalem, but he
evidently does that only because he supposed that it followed
immediately upon the death of James. Some (e.g. Lightfoot) think it
probable that Symeon was appointed immediately after James' death,
therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem; others (e.g. Renan)
suppose that in Pella they had no bishop and appointed Symeon only
after the return of the church to Jerusalem.
 logos katechei. Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, below)
says that "Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed
as the cousin of our Lord." Upon what authority Eusebius' more
definite account rests we do not know. He introduces it with the
formula logos katechei, and we know of no other author who has put it
as he does. It may be that the simple statement of Hegesippus was the
sole ground of the more detailed tradition which Eusebius repeats in
this Chapter. The reason of Symeon's appointment as given by
Hegesippus is quite significant. It was the common Oriental custom to
accord the highest honors to all the members of a prophet's or
religious leader's family, and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his
close physical relationship to Christ that James enjoyed such
prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding
even that of the apostles themselves.
 This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the
Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in
Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3). It is noticeable that Hegesippus
nowhere calls him the "brother of the Lord," though he does give James
that title in Bk. II. chap. 23. Clopas is mentioned in John xix. 25,
as the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the
mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Matt. xxvii.
56, Mark xv. 40, &c. If Hegesippus' account be accepted as trustworthy
(and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon was the son of Clopas
and Mary, and therefore brother of James the Little and Joses. If,
then, Alphæus and Clopas be the same, as many claim, James the Little
is to be identified with James the son of Alphæus, the apostle, and
hence the latter was the brother of Symeon. This identification,
however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically difficult, and we
shall do better therefore to keep the men separate, as Renan does (see
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14). Upon the martyrdom of Symeon, see
below, chap. 32.
 In John xix. 25
 Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the
uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or
brother-in-law of Joseph. Eusebius evidently considered them own
brothers. Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or
whether Eusebius' opinion is simply an inference from the words of
Hegesippus already referred to, we do not know. There is no objection
to the conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers, although
it cannot be proved from Hegesippus' words that they were more than
brothers-in-law. From John xix. 25 it is at any rate plain that their
wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly maintained by so
many commentators. With the remaining possibilities of relationship we
do not need to concern ourselves.
Chapter XII.--Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be
He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave
orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought
out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the
Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again
hung over the Jews. 
 It is not certain that Eusebius intends to give Hegesippus as
his authority for the statements of this Chapter, inasmuch as he does
not mention his name. He gives the account, however, upon the
authority of some one else, and not as a direct historical statement,
for the verb is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to
supply ;;Egesippos historei, the last words of the preceding Chapter,
than to supply any other phrase, such as logos katechei, which occurs
two Chapters earlier. The translators are divided as to the words that
are to be supplied, but it seems to me beyond doubt that this account
rests upon the same authority as that of the previous Chapter. There
is in any case nothing at all unlikely in the report, as Vespasian and
his successors kept a very close watch upon the Jews, and this would
have been a very natural method of endeavoring to prevent future
revolutions. The same course was pursued also by Domitian; see below,
chaps. 19 and 20. We hear from no other source of a persecution raised
against the Jews by Vespasian, and we may therefore conclude that it
cannot have amounted to much, if indeed it deserves to be called a
persecution at all.
Chapter XIII.--Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.
After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him.
 In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of
the church of Rome for twelve years,  delivered his office to
Anencletus.  But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian
after he had reigned two years and the same number of months. 
 Vespasian reigned from July 1 (if his reign be dated from the
time he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of
Vitellius, Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 a.d.
 In his Chron. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus'
episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.
Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note 1.
 Of Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing
more than that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of
Rome. Hippolytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus, out of the
one man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic Church (see above,
chap. 2, note 1). According to chap. 15, Anencletus held office twelve
 Titus died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned two years and
six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius states.
Chapter XIV.--Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus,  the first bishop of
the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years,
and was succeeded by Abilius,  the second bishop.
 85 a.d.; on Annianus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.
 'Abilios. According to one tradition Abilius was ordained
presbyter with his successor Cerdon by Mark himself (see Smith and
Wace). According to another (Ap. Const. VII. 46) he was appointed
bishop by Luke. He held office thirteen years according to chap. 21,
below. Valesius claims that the name should be written Avilius,
regarding it as a Latin name, and citing in support of his opinion the
name of a prefect of Egypt, Avilius Flaccus, mentioned by Philo, and
the fact that the name of Avilius' predecessor, Annianus, is also
Chapter XV.--Clement, the Third Bishop of Rome.
In the twelfth year of the same reign Clement succeeded Anencletus
 after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for
twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us
that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows:
 "With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are
in the book of life."
 On Anencletus, see chap. 13, note 3.
 Phil. iv. 3. For an account of Clement, see above, chap. 4, note
19; and upon the order of succession of the Roman bishops, see chap.
2, note 1.
Chapter XVI.--The Epistle of Clement.
There is extant an epistle of this Clement  which is acknowledged
to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit.
 He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of
Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church.  We
know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many
churches both in former times and in our own.  And of the fact
that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time
referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. 
 This epistle of Clement, which is still extant in two Greek
mss., and in a Syriac version, consists of fifty-nine Chapters, and is
found in all editions of the Apostolic Fathers. It purports to have
been written from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, but
bears the name of no author. Unanimous tradition, however (beginning
with Dionysius of Corinth, in Eusebius, IV. 23), ascribes it to
Clement, Bishop of Rome, and scholars, with hardly an exception,
accept it as his work. It was, in all probability, written immediately
after the persecution of Domitian, in the last years of the first
century, and is one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest,
post-biblical works which we have. It was held in very high repute in
the early Church, and in the Alexandrian Codex it stands among the
canonical books as a part of the New Testament (though this is
exceptional; cf. chap. 3, above, and chap. 25, below, in both of which
this epistle is omitted, though Eusebius is giving lists of New
Testament books, both accepted and disputed). We have had the epistle
complete only since 1875, when Bryennios discovered a ms. containing
it and other valuable works. Previously a part of the epistle had been
wanting. In consequence the older editions have been superseded by the
more recent. See appendix to Lightfoot's edition (1877), which gives
the recovered portions of the text; so, also, the later editions of
Gebhardt and Harnack's, and of Hilgenfeld's Apostolic Fathers. The
epistle is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I. p. 5-21.
 megEURle te kai thaumasia.
 See the epistle itself, especially chaps. 1 and 3. It was these
seditions in the church at Corinth which occasioned the epistle.
 Compare the words of Dionysius of Corinth, in Bk. IV. chap. 23.
Though the epistle was held in high esteem, it was not looked upon as
a part of the New Testament canon.
 Hegesippus' testimony upon this point is no longer extant.
Chapter XVII.--The Persecution under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly
put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and
having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great
many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his
hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred
up a persecution against us,  although his father Vespasian had
undertaken nothing prejudicial to us. 
 The persecutions under Nero and Domitian were not undertaken by
the state as such; they were simply personal matters, and established
no precedent as to the conduct of the state toward Christianity. They
were rather spasmodic outbursts of personal enmity, but were looked
upon with great horror as the first to which the Church was subjected.
There was no general persecution, which took in all parts of the
empire, until the reign of Decius (249-251), but Domitian's cruelty
and ferocity were extreme, and many persons of the highest rank fell
under his condemnation and suffered banishment and even death, not
especially on account of Christianity, though there were Christians
among them, but on account of his jealousy, and for political reasons
of various sorts. That Domitian's persecution of the Christians was
not of long duration is testified by Tertullian, Apol. 5. Upon the
persecutions of the Christians, see, among other works, Wieseler's Die
Christenverfolgungen der Cäsaren, hist. und chronolog. untersucht,
1878; Uhlhorn's Der Kampf des Christenthums mit dem Heidenthum,
English translation by Smyth and Ropes, 1879; and especially the keen
essay of Overbeck, Gesetze der römischen Kaiser gegen die Christen, in
his Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche, I. (1875).
 The fact that the Christians were not persecuted by Vespasian is
abundantly confirmed by the absence of any tradition to the opposite
effect. Compare Tertullian's Apol. chap. 5, where the persecutions of
Nero and Domitian are recorded.
Chapter XVIII.--The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
1. It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist
John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of
Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. 
2. Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he
discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the
so-called Apocalypse of John,  speaks as follows concerning him:
3. "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the
present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the
revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own
generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
4. To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at
that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did
not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the
martyrdoms which took place during it. 
5. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded
that in the fifteenth year of Domitian  Flavia Domitilla,
daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of
the consuls of Rome,  was exiled with many others to the island
of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.
 Unanimous tradition, beginning with Irenæus (V. 30. 3, quoted
just below, and again in Eusebius V. 8) assigns the banishment of John
and the apocalyptic visions to the reign of Domitian. This was
formerly the common opinion, and is still held by some respectable
writers, but strong internal evidence has driven most modern scholars
to the conclusion that the Apocalypse must have been written before
the destruction of Jerusalem, the banishment therefore (upon the
assumption that John wrote the Apocalypse, upon which see chap. 24,
note 19) taking place under Nero instead of Domitian. If we accept
this, we have the remarkable phenomenon of an event taking place at an
earlier date than that assigned it by tradition, an exceptional and
inexplicable thing. We have too the difficulty of accounting for the
erroneousness of so early and unanimous a tradition. The case thus
stood for years, until in 1886 Vischer published his pamphlet Die
Offenbarung des Johannes, eine jüdische Apocalypse in Christlicher
Bearbeitung (Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Band II.
Heft. 3), which if his theory were true, would reconcile external and
internal evidence in a most satisfactory manner, throwing the original
into the reign of Nero's successor, and the Christian recension into
the reign of Domitian. Compare especially Harnack's appendix to
Vischer's pamphlet; and upon the Apocalypse itself, see chap. 24,
 Rev. xiii. 18. It will be noticed that Eusebius is careful not
to commit himself here on the question of the authorship of the
Apocalypse. See below, chap. 24, note 20.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 30. 3; quoted also below, in Bk. V. chap.
 Jerome, in his version of the Chron. of Eusebius (year of Abr.
2112), says that the historian and chronographer Bruttius recorded
that many of the Christians suffered martyrdom under Domitian. Since
the works of Bruttius are not extant, we have no means of verifying
the statement. Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) relates some of the
banishments which took place under Domitian, among them that of Flavia
Domitilla, who was, as we know, a Christian; but he does not himself
say that any of these people were Christians, nor does he speak of a
persecution of the Christians.
 We learn from Suetonius (Domit. chap. 15) that the events
referred to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the very
end of Domitian's reign; that is, in the year 96 a.d., the fifteenth
year of his reign, as Eusebius says. Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14)
puts these events in the same year.
 Flavius Clemens was a cousin of Domitian, and his wife,
Domitilla, a niece of the emperor. They stood high in favor, and their
two sons were designated as heirs to the empire, while Flavius Clemens
himself was made Domitian's colleague in the consulship. But
immediately afterward Clemens was put to death and Domitilla was
banished. Suetonius (Domit, chap. 15) accuses Clemens of contemtissimæ
inertiæ, and Dion Cassius (LXVII. 14) of atheism (atheotetos). These
accusations are just such as heathen writers of that age were fond of
making against the Christians (compare, for instance, Athenagoras'
Adv. Gent. chap. 4, and Tertullian's Apol. chap. 42). Accordingly it
has been very commonly held that both Flavius Clemens and Domitilla
were Christians, and were punished on that account. But early
tradition makes only Domitilla a Christian; and certainly if Clemens
also--a man of such high rank--had been a Christian, an early
tradition to that effect would be somewhere preserved. We must,
therefore, conclude that his offense was something else than
Christianity. The very silence of Christian tradition as to Clement is
an argument for the truth of the tradition in regard to Domitilla, and
the heathen historians referred to confirm its main points, though
they differ in minor details. The Acts of Martyrdom of Nereus and
Achilles represent Domitilla as the niece, not the wife, of Flavius
Clemens, and Eusebius does the same. More than that, while the heathen
writers report that Domitilla was banished to the island Pandeteria,
these Acts, as well as Eusebius and Jerome (Ep. adv. Eustachium,
Migne's ed., Ep. CVIII. 7), give the island of Pontia as the place of
banishment. Tillemont and other writers have therefore assumed that
there were two Domitillas,--aunt and niece,--one banished to one
island, the other to another. But this is very improbable, and it is
easier to suppose that there was but one Domitilla and but one island,
and that the discrepancies are due to carelessness or to the mistakes
of transcribers. Pandeteria and Pontia were two small islands in the
Mediterranean, just west of central Italy, and were very frequently
employed by the Roman emperors as places of exile for prisoners.
Chapter XIX.--Domitian commands the Descendants of David to be slain.
But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of
David should be slain, an ancient tradition says  that some of
the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said
to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the
ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to
Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words.
 palaios katechei logos. It is noticeable that, although Eusebius
has the written authority of Hegesippus for this account, he still
speaks of it as supported by "ancient tradition." This is different
from his ordinary custom, and serves to make us careful in drawing
conclusions as to the nature of Eusebius' authority for any statement
from the expression used in introducing it.
Chapter XX.--The Relatives of our Saviour.
1. "Of the family of the Lord there were still living the
grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother
according to the flesh. 
2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David,
and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. 
For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it.
And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they
confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they
had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they
had only nine thousand denarii,  half of which belonged to each
4. and this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land
which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised
their taxes  and supported themselves by their own labor." 
5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their
bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous
toil as evidence of their own labor.
6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what
sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it
was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic
one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come
in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one
according to his works.
7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them,
but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree
put a stop to the persecution of the Church.
8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they
were witnesses  and were also relatives of the Lord.  And
peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These
things are related by Hegesippus.
9. Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words:
 "Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty,
attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because
he had, I suppose, some intelligence,  he very soon ceased, and
even recalled those whom he had banished."
10. But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years,  and Nerva had
succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers
that record the history of those days,  voted that Domitian's
honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly
banished should return to their homes and have their property restored
11. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his
banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according
to an ancient Christian tradition. 
 This Jude was the brother of James, "the brother of the Lord,"
who is mentioned in Jude 1, and is to be distinguished from Jude
(Thaddeus-Lebbæus), one of the Twelve, whose name appears in the
catalogues of Luke (Luke vi. 14 and Acts i. 13) as the son of James
(not his brother, as the A.V. translates: the Greek words are 'Ioudas
'Iakobou). For a discussion of the relationship of these men to
Christ, see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14. Of the son of Jude and
father of the young men mentioned in this Chapter we know nothing.
 According to Andrew's Lexicon, "An Evocatus was a soldier who,
having served out his time, was called upon to do military duty as a
volunteer." This suspiciousness is perfectly in keeping with the
character of Domitian. The same thing is told also of Vespasian, in
chap. 12; but in his case the political situation was far more
serious, and revolutions under the lead of one of the royal family
might most naturally be expected just after the terrible destruction.
The same act is also mentioned in connection with Trajan, in chap. 32,
and there is no reason to doubt its truthfulness, for the Jews were
well known as a most rebellious and troublesome people.
 A denarius was a Roman silver coin, in value about sixteen, or,
according to others, about nineteen, cents.
 "Taxes or tributes were paid commonly in the products of the
 Most editors (including Valesius, Heinichen, Crusè, &c.) regard
the quotation from Hegesippus as extending through §8; but it really
ends here, and from this point on Eusebius reproduces the sense in his
own words (and so Bright gives it in his edition). This is perfectly
clear, for in the first place, the infinitive epideiknunai occurs in
the next sentence, a form possible only in indirect discourse: and
secondly, as Lightfoot has pointed out, the statement of §8 is
repeated in chap. 32, §6, and there in the exact language of
Hegesippus, which differs enough from the language of §8 to show that
the latter is a free reproduction.
 mEURrturas. On the use of this word, see chap. 32, note 15.
 Compare Renan's Les Evangiles, p. 466.
 Tertullian, Apol. chap. 5.
 ti suneseos. Lat. sed qua et homo.
 Domitian reigned from Dec. 13, 81 a.d., to Sept. 18, 96.
 See Dion Cassius, LXVIII. 1 sq., and Suetonius' Domitian, chap.
 Literally, "the word of the ancients among us" (ho ton par'
hemin archaion logos). On the tradition itself, see chap. 1, note 6.
Chapter XXI.--Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of
1. After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year  he was
succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign that
Abilius,  who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen
years, was succeeded by Cerdon. 
2. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus,
 who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church
of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after
Paul and Peter.
3. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. 
 From Sept. 18, 96, to Jan. 27, 98 a.d.
 On Abilius, see chap. 14, note 2, above.
 According to the legendary Acts of St. Mark, Cerdo was one of
the presbyters ordained by Mark. According to Eusebius (H. E. IV. I
and Chron.) he held office until the twelfth year of Trajan.
 On Annianus, see Bk. II. chap. 24, note 2.
 On the order of succession of the early Roman bishops, see
above, chap. 2, note 1. Paul and Peter are here placed together by
Eusebius, as co-bishops of Rome. Compare the association of the two
apostles by Caius, and by Dionysius of Corinth (quoted by Eusebius, in
Bk. II. chap. 25).
Chapter XXII.--Ignatius, the Second Bishop of Antioch.
At this time Ignatius  was known as the second bishop of Antioch,
Evodius having been the first.  Symeon  likewise was at that
time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our
Saviour having been the first.
 On Ignatius' life, writings, and martyrdom, see below, chap. 36.
 We cannot doubt that the earliest tradition made Evodius first
bishop of Antioch, for otherwise we could not explain the insertion of
his name before the great name of Ignatius. The tendency would be, of
course, to connect Ignatius directly with the apostles, and to make
him the first bishop. This tendency is seen in Athanasius and
Chrysostom, who do not mention Evodius at all; also in the Apost.
Const. VII. 46, where, however, it is said that Evodius was ordained
by Peter, and Ignatius by Paul (as in the parallel case of Clement of
Rome). The fact that the name of Evodius appears here shows that the
tradition that he was the first bishop seemed to the author too old
and too strong to be set aside. Origen (in Luc. Hom. VI.) is an
indirect witness to the episcopacy of Evodius, since he makes Ignatius
the second, and not the first, bishop of Antioch. As to the respective
dates of the early bishops of Antioch, we know nothing certain. On
their chronology, see Harnack, Die Zeit des Ignatius, and cf. Salmon's
article Evodius, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog.
 On Symeon, see above, chap. 11, note 4.
Chapter XXIII.--Narrative Concerning John the Apostle.
1. At that time the apostle and evangelist John, the one whom Jesus
loved, was still living in Asia, and governing the churches of that
region, having returned after the death of Domitian from his exile on
the island. 
2. And that he was still alive at that time  may be established
by the testimony of two witnesses. They should be trustworthy who have
maintained the orthodoxy of the Church; and such indeed were Irenæus
and Clement of Alexandria. 
3. The former in the second book of his work Against Heresies, writes
as follows:  "And all the elders that associated with John the
disciple of the Lord in Asia bear witness that John delivered it to
them. For he remained among them until the time of Trajan." 
4. And in the third book of the same work he attests the same thing in
the following words:  "But the church in Ephesus also, which was
founded by Paul, and where John remained until the time of Trajan, is
a faithful witness of the apostolic tradition."
5. Clement likewise in his book entitled What Rich Man can be saved?
 indicates the time,  and subjoins a narrative which is most
attractive to those that enjoy hearing what is beautiful and
profitable. Take and read the account which runs as follows: 
6. "Listen to a tale, which is not a mere tale, but a narrative 
concerning John the apostle, which has been handed down and treasured
up in memory. For when, after the tyrant's death,  he returned
from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation
to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in
some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere
to choose to the ministry some one  of those that were pointed
out by the Spirit.
7. When he had come to one of the cities not far away (the name of
which is given by some  ), and had consoled the brethren in other
matters, he finally turned to the bishop that had been appointed, and
seeing a youth of powerful physique, of pleasing appearance, and of
ardent temperament, he said, `This one I commit to thee in all
earnestness in the presence of the Church and with Christ as witness.'
And when the bishop had accepted the charge and had promised all, he
repeated the same injunction with an appeal to the same witnesses, and
then departed for Ephesus.
8. But the presbyter  taking home the youth committed to him,
reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized  him. After this he
relaxed his stricter care and watchfulness, with the idea that in
putting upon him the seal of the Lord  he had given him a perfect
9. But some youths of his own age, idle and dissolute, and accustomed
to evil practices, corrupted him when he was thus prematurely freed
from restraint. At first they enticed him by costly entertainments;
then, when they went forth at night for robbery, they took him with
them, and finally they demanded that he should unite with them in some
10. He gradually became accustomed to such practices, and on account
of the positiveness of his character,  leaving the right path,
and taking the bit in his teeth like a hard-mouthed and powerful
horse, he rushed the more violently down into the depths.
11. And finally despairing of salvation in God, he no longer meditated
what was insignificant, but having committed some great crime, since
he was now lost once for all, he expected to suffer a like fate with
the rest. Taking them, therefore, and forming a band of robbers, he
became a bold bandit-chief, the most violent, most bloody, most cruel
of them all.
12. Time passed, and some necessity having arisen, they sent for John.
But he, when he had set in order the other matters on account of which
he had come, said, `Come, O bishop, restore us the deposit which both
I and Christ committed to thee, the church, over which thou presidest,
13. But the bishop was at first confounded, thinking that he was
falsely charged in regard to money which he had not received, and he
could neither believe the accusation respecting what he had not, nor
could he disbelieve John. But when he said, `I demand the young man
and the soul of the brother,' the old man, groaning deeply and at the
same time bursting into tears, said, `He is dead.' `How and what kind
of death?' `He is dead to God,' he said; `for he turned wicked and
abandoned, and at last a robber. And now, instead of the church, he
haunts the mountain with a band like himself.'
14. But the Apostle rent his clothes, and beating his head with great
lamentation, he said, `A fine guard I left for a brother's soul! But
let a horse be brought me, and let some one show me the way.' He rode
away from the church just as he was, and coming to the place, he was
taken prisoner by the robbers' outpost.
15. He, however, neither fled nor made entreaty, but cried out, `For
this did I come; lead me to your captain.'
16. The latter, meanwhile, was waiting, armed as he was. But when he
recognized John approaching, he turned in shame to flee.
17. But John, forgetting his age, pursued him with all his might,
crying out, `Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thine own father,
unarmed, aged? Pity me, my son; fear not; thou hast still hope of
life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will
willingly endure thy death as the Lord suffered death for us. For thee
will I give up my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.'
18. And he, when he heard, first stopped and looked down; then he
threw away his arms, and then trembled and wept bitterly. And when the
old man approached, he embraced him, making confession with
lamentations as he was able, baptizing himself a second time with
tears, and concealing only his right hand.
19. But John, pledging himself, and assuring him on oath that he would
find forgiveness with the Saviour, besought him, fell upon his knees,
kissed his right hand itself as if now purified by repentance, and led
him back to the church. And making intercession for him with copious
prayers, and struggling together with him in continual fastings, and
subduing his mind by various utterances, he did not depart, as they
say, until he had restored him to the church, furnishing a great
example of true repentance and a great proof of regeneration, a trophy
of a visible resurrection."
 See chap. 1, note 6, and chap. 18, note 1.
 That is, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan.
 The test of a man's trustworthiness in Eusebius' mind--and not
in his alone--was his orthodoxy. Irenæus has always been looked upon
as orthodox, and so was Clement, in the early Church, which reckoned
him among the saints. His name, however, was omitted in the
Martyrology issued by Clement VIII., on the ground that his orthodoxy
was open to suspicion.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. II. 22. 5.
 It is in this immediate connection that Irenæus makes the
extraordinary assertion, founding it upon the testimony of those who
were with John in Asia, that Christ lived to the age of forty or fifty
years. A statement occurring in connection with such a palpably false
report might well fall under suspicion; but the fact of John's
continuance at Ephesus until the time of Trajan is supported by other
passages, and there is no reason to doubt it (cf. chap. 1, note 6).
Irenæus himself repeats the statement as a well-known fact, in III. 3,
4 (quoted just below). It may also be said that the opinion as to
Christ's age is founded upon subjective grounds (cf. the preceding
paragraph of Irenæus) and upon a mistaken interpretation of John viii.
56, 57, rather than upon external testimony, and that the testimony
(which itself may have been only the result of a subjective opinion)
is dragged in only for the sake of confirming a view already adopted.
Such a fact as John's own presence in Ephesus at a certain period
could hardly be subject to such uncertainty and to the influence of
dogmatic prepossessions. It is significant of Eusebius' method that he
omits entirely Irenæus' statement as to the length of Christ's
ministry, with which he did not agree (as shown by his account in Bk.
I. chap. 10), while extracting from his statement the single fact
which he wishes here to establish. The falsity of the context he must
have recognized, and yet, in his respect for Irenæus, the great
maintainer of sound doctrine, he nowhere refers to it. The information
which John is said, in this passage, to have conveyed to the
"presbyters of Asia" is that Christ lived to old age. The whole
passage affords an instance of how much of error may be contained in
what, to all appearances, should be a very trustworthy tradition.
Internal evidence must come to the support of external, and with all
its alleged uncertainty and subjectivity, must play a great part in
the determination of the truth of history.
 Adv. Hær. III. 3, 4.
 tis ho sozomenos plousios: Quis Dives salvetur. This able and
interesting little treatise upon the proper use of wealth is still
extant, and is found in the various editions of Clement's works;
English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), II. p.
591-604. The sound common sense of the book, and its freedom from
undue asceticism are conspicuous, and furnish a pleasing contrast to
most of the writings of that age.
 He indicates the time only by saying "after the tyrant was
dead," which might refer either to Domitian or to Nero. But the
mention of John a little below as "an aged man" would seem to point to
the end of the century rather than to Nero's time. At any rate,
Eusebius understood Clement as referring to Domitian, and in the
presence of unanimous tradition for Domitian, and in the absence of
any counter-tradition, we can hardly understand him otherwise.
 Quis Dives salvetur, chap. 42.
 muthon ou muthon, alla onta logon. Clement in these words
asserts the truth of the story which he relates. We cannot regard it
as very strongly corroborated, for no one else records it, and yet we
can hardly doubt that Clement gives it in good faith. It may have been
an invention of some early Christian, but it is so fully in accord
with what we know of John's character that there exists no reason for
refusing to believe that at least a groundwork of truth underlies it,
even though the story may have gained in the telling of it. It is
certainly beautiful, and fully worthy of the "beloved disciple."
 See note 8.
 klero hena ge tina kleroson. Compare the note of Heinichen in
his edition of Eusebius, Vol. I. p. 122. Upon the use of the word
kleros in the early Church, see Baur's Das Christenthum und die
christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, 2d ed., p. 266 sq.,
and especially Ritschl's Entstehung der alt-kath. Kirche, 2d ed., p.
388 sq. Ritschl shows that the word kleros was originally used by the
Fathers in the general sense of order or rank (Reihe, Rang), and that
from this arose its later use to denote church officers as a
class,--the clergy. As he remarks, the word is employed in this later
specific sense for the first time in this passage of Clement's Quis
Dives salvetur. Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian are the next ones
to use it in the same sense. Ritschl remarks in connection with this
passage: "Da für eine Wahl der Gemeindebeamten durch das Loos alle
sonstigen Beweisen fehlen, und da in dem vorliegenden Satze die
Einsetzung von einer Mehrzahl von episkopoi durch den Apostel ohne
jede Methode erwähnt wird, so fällt jeder Grund hinweg, dass bei der
Wahl einzelner Beamten das Mittel des Loosens angewandt sein sollte,
zumal bei dieser Deutung ein Pleonasmus vorausgesetzt würde. Es ist
vielmehr zu erklären, dass Johannes an einzelnen Orten mehrere Beamte
zugleich eingesetzt, an anderen Orten wo schon ein Collegium bestand,
dem Beamtenstande je ein Mitglied eingereiht habe."
 According to Stroth the Chronicon Paschale gives Smyrna as the
name of this city, and it has been suggested that Clement withholds
the name in order to spare the reputation of Polycarp, who, according
to tradition, was appointed bishop of that city by John.
 The same man that is called a bishop just above is here called a
presbyter. It is such passages--and they are not uncommon in the early
Fathers--that have seemed to many to demonstrate conclusively the
original identity of presbyters and bishops, an identity which is
maintained by most Presbyterians, and is admitted by many
Episcopalians (e.g. by Lightfoot in his essay on the Christian
Ministry, printed in his Commentary on Philippians). On the other
hand, the passages which reveal a distinction between presbyters and
bishops are very early, and are adduced not merely by prelatists, but
by such disinterested scholars as Harnack (in his translation of
Hatch's Organization of the Early Christian Churches) as proving that
there was from the beginning a difference of some sort between a
bishop and a presbyter. I cannot enter here into a discussion of the
various views in regard to the original relation between bishops and
presbyters. I desire simply to suggest a theory of my own, leaving the
fuller exposition of it for some future time. My theory is that the
word presbuteros was originally employed in the most general sense to
indicate any church officer, thus practically equivalent to the
hegoumenos of Heb. xiii. 17, and the poimen of Eph. iv. 11. The terms
episkopos and diEURkonos, on the other hand, were employed to
designate specific church officers charged with the performance of
specific duties. If this were so, we should expect the general term to
be used before the particular designations, and this is just what we
find in the New Testament. We should expect further that the general
term and the specific terms might be used by the same person in the
same context, according as he thought of the officers in general or of
a particular division of the officers; on the other hand the general
term and one of the specific terms could never be coordinated (we
could never find "presbyter and bishop," "presbyter and deacon"), but
we should expect to find the specific terms thus coordinated ("bishops
and deacons"). An examination of the Epistle to the Philippians, of
the Pastoral Epistles, of Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, and of
the Didache will show that our expectations are fully realized. This
theory explains the fact that so frequently presbyters and bishops
seem to be identical (the general and the specific term might of
course in many cases be used interchangeably), and also the fact that
so frequently they seem to be quite distinct. It explains still
further the remarkable fact that while in the first century we never
find a distinction in official rank between bishops and presbyters,
that distinction appears early in the second. In many churches it must
early have become necessary to appoint some of the officers as a
special committee to take charge of the economic affairs of the
congregation. The members of such a committee might very naturally be
given the special name episkopoi (see Hatch's discussion of the use of
this word in his work already referred to). In some churches the
duties might be of such a character that the bishops would need
assistants (to whom it would be natural to give the name diEURkonos),
and such assistants would of course be closely associated with the
bishops, as we find them actually associated with them in the second
and following centuries (a fact which Hatch has emphasized). Of course
where the bishops constituted a special and smaller committee of the
general body, entrusted with such important duties, they would
naturally acquire especial influence and power, and thus the chairman
of the committee--the chairman of the bishops as such, not of the
presbyters, though he might be that also--would in time, as a central
authority was more and more felt to be necessary, gradually assume the
supremacy, retaining his original name episkopos. As the power was
thus concentrated in his hands, the committee of bishops as such would
cease to be necessary, and he would require only the deacons, who
should carry out his directions in economic matters, as we find them
doing in the second century. The elevation of the bishop would of
course separate him from the other officers in such a way that
although still a presbyter (i.e. an officer), he would cease to be
called longer by the general name. In the same way the deacons obliged
to devote themselves to their specific duties, would cease to have
much to do with the more general functions of the other officers, to
whom finally the name presbyter--originally a general term--would be
confined, and thus become a distinctive name for part of the officers.
In their hands would remain the general disciplinary functions which
had belonged from the beginning to the entire body of officers as
such, and their rank would naturally be second only to that of the
bishop, for the deacons as assistants only, not independent officers,
could not outrank them (though they struggled hard in the third and
fourth centuries to do so). It is of course likely that in a great
many churches the simple undivided office would long remain, and that
bishops and deacons as specific officers distinguished from the
general body would not exist. But after the distinction between the
three orders had been sharply drawn in one part of Christendom, it
must soon spread throughout the Church and become established even in
places where it had not been produced by a natural process of
evolution. The Church organization of the second century is thus
complete, and its further development need not concern us here, for it
is not matter of controversy. Nor is this the place to show how the
local church officers gradually assumed the spiritual functions which
belonged originally to apostles, prophets, and teachers. The Didache
is the document which has shed most light upon that process, and
Hernack in his edition of it has done most to make the matter clear.
 ephotise: literally, "enlightened him." The verb photizo was
very commonly used among the Fathers, with the meaning "to baptize."
See Suicer's Thesaurus, where numerous examples of this use of the
word by Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and others, are given.
 ten sphragida kuriou. The word sphragis was very widely used in
the primitive Church to denote baptism. See Suicer's Thesaurus for
examples. Gregory Nazianzen, in his Orat. XL., gives the reason for
this use of the word: "We call baptism a seal," he says, "because it
is a preservative and a sign of ownership." Chrysostom, in his third
Homily on 2 Cor. §7, says, "So also art thou thyself made king and
priest and prophet in the laver; a king, having dashed to earth all
the deeds of wickedness and slain thy sins; a priest, in that thou
offerest thyself to God, having sacrificed thy body and being thyself
slain also; ...a prophet, knowing what shall be, and being inspired by
God, and sealed. For as upon soldiers a seal, so is also the Spirit
put upon the faithful. And if thou desert, thou art manifest to all.
For the Jews had circumcision for a seal, but we the earnest of the
Spirit." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII. p.
 Literally, "greatness of his nature" (megethos phuseos).
Chapter XXIV.--The Order of the Gospels.
1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the
history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the
undisputed writings of this apostle.
2. And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the
churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine.  That it
has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place,
after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following
3. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ,
were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the
soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in
their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted
unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they
attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and
artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine
Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of
Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge
of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little
attention to the composition of written works.
4. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by
one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in
vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing
no more than the briefest epistles,  although he had innumerable
mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the
sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of
God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there.
5. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles,
the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant
of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples  of the Lord,
only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they,
tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of
6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was
about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his
native tongue,  and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to
leave for the loss of his presence.
7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, 
they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the
Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason.
The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all
and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness
to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account
of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. 
8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three
evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year
after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,  and indicated this
in the beginning of their account.
9. For Matthew, after the forty days' fast and the temptation which
followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: "Now
when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into
10. Mark likewise says: "Now after that John was delivered up Jesus
came into Galilee."  And Luke, before commencing his account of
the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod,
"adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in
11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it
for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had
been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the
Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before
the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they
say, in the following words: "This beginning of miracles did Jesus";
 and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the
deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim;  where he
states the matter clearly in the words: "For John was not yet cast
into prison." 
12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which
were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other
three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.
13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are
at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John
contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of
the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour
according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had
been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of
his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their
superior, by the divine Spirit. 
14. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel
of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark
has been already stated by us. 
15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself
the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many
others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events
of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the
necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in
his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which
he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his
stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles.
16. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting
place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what
others have said concerning them.
17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the
former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and
in ancient times.  But the other two are disputed. 
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still
divided.  But at the proper time this question likewise shall be
decided from the testimony of the ancients. 
 The testimony of antiquity,--both orthodox and heretical,--to
the authenticity of John's Gospel is universal, with the exception of
a single unimportant sect of the second century, the Alogi, who denied
the Johannine authorship on account of the Logos doctrine, which they
rejected, and very absurdly ascribed the Gospel to the Gnostic
Cerinthus; though its absolute opposition to Cerinthus' views is so
apparent that Irenæus (III. 11. 1) even supposed John to have written
the Gospel against Cerinthus. The writings of the second century are
full of the spirit of John's Gospel, and exhibit frequent parallels in
language too close to be mistaken; while from the last quarter of the
second century on it is universally and expressly ascribed to John
(Theophilus of Antioch and the Muratorian Fragment being the first to
name him as its author). The Church never entertained a doubt of its
authenticity until the end of the seventeenth century, when it was
first questioned by the English Deists; but its genuineness was
vindicated, and only scattering and occasional attacks were made upon
it until the rise of the Tübingen school, since which time its
authenticity has been one of the most fiercely contested points in
apostolic history. Its opponents have been obliged gradually to throw
back the date of its origin, until now no sensible critic thinks of
assigning it to a time later than the early part of the second
century, which is a great gain over the position of Baur and his
immediate followers, who threw it into the latter half of the century.
See Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. 701-724 for a full defense of its
authenticity and a comprehensive account of the controversy; also p.
406-411 for the literature of the subject. For the most complete
summary of the external evidence, see Ezra Abbott's The Authorship of
the Fourth Gospel, 1880. Among recent works, compare Weiss' Leben
Jesu, I. 84-124, and his N. T. Einleitung, 586-620, for a defense of
the Gospel, and upon the other side Holtzmann's Einleitung, 413-460,
and Weizsäcker's Apost. Zeitalter, p. 531-558.
 Overbeck remarks that Eusebius in this passage is the first to
tell us that Paul wrote no more than what we have in the canon. But
this is a mistake, for Origen (quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below)
states it just as distinctly as Eusebius does. The truth is, neither
of them says it directly, and yet it is clear enough when this passage
is taken in connection with Chapter 3, that it is what Eusebius meant,
and the same idea underlies the statement of the Muratorian Fragment.
Of course this does not prove that Paul wrote only the epistles which
we have (which is indeed contrary to fact), but it shows what the idea
of the early Church was.
 See 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.
 The majority of the mss., followed by Burton, Schwegler, and
Laemmer, read diatribon instead of matheton; and Burton therefore
translates, sed tamen ex his omnibus sole Matthæus et Joannes nobis
reliquerunt commentarios de vita et sermonibus Domini, "but of all
these only Matthew and John have left us commentaries on the life and
conversations of the Lord." Two important mss., however, read
matheton, and this is confirmed by Rufinus and adopted by Heinichen,
Closs, and Crusè.
 That Matthew wrote a gospel in Hebrew, although denied by many,
is at present the prevailing opinion among scholars, and may be
accepted as a fact both on account of its intrinsic probability and of
the testimony of the Fathers, which begins with the statement of
Papias, quoted by Eusebius in chap. 39, below, is confirmed by Irenæus
(III. 1. 1, quoted below, V. 8, §2),--whether independently of Papias
or not, we cannot say,--by Pantænus (but see below, Bk. V. chap. 10),
by Origen (see below, VI. 25), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 3),--who says
that a copy of it still existed in the library at Cæsarea,--and by
Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9). The question as to the relation of this
Hebrew original to our present Greek Matthew is much more difficult.
That our Greek Matthew is a mere translation of the original Hebrew
was once a prevailing theory, but is now completely abandoned. That
Matthew himself wrote both is a common conservative position, but is
denied by most critical scholars, many of whom deny him the
composition even of the Hebrew original. Upon the theory that the
original Hebrew Matthew was identical with the "Gospel according to
the Hebrews," see chap. 27, note 8. Upon the synoptic problem, see
above, II. 15, note 4; and see the works mentioned there for a
discussion of this original Matthew, and in addition the recent works
by Gla, Original-Sprache des Matt. Evang., 1887, and Resch, Agrapha,
Leipzig, 1889. The very natural reason which Eusebius gives for the
composition of Matthew's Gospel--viz. that, when on the point of going
to other nations, he committed it to writing, and thus compensated
them for the loss of his presence--occurs in none of the earlier
reports of the composition of the Gospel which we now possess. It was
probably a fact which he took from common tradition, as he remarks in
the previous sentence that tradition says "they undertook it from
 Upon the date and authorship of the Gospel of Luke, see above,
chap. 4, notes 12 and 15. Upon Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
 No writer before Eusebius' time, so far as is known, assigned
the reason given by him for the composition of John's Gospel. Jerome,
de vir. ill. chap. 9, repeats the view, combining with it the
anti-heretical purpose. The indefinite expression, "they say," shows
that Eusebius was recording tradition commonly received in his time,
and does not involve the authority of any particular writer. This
object--viz. the supplementing and filling out of the accounts of the
Synoptists--is assumed as the real object by some modern scholars; but
it is untenable, for though the book serves this purpose to a great
extent, the author's real aim was much higher,--viz. the establishment
of belief in the Messiahship and divinity of Christ (John xx. 31
sqq.),--and he chose his materials accordingly. The Muratorian
Fragment says, "The Fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the
disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he
said, `Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us
recount to each other whatever may be revealed to us.' On the same
night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should
narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind."
Irenæus (III. 11. 1) supposes John to have written his Gospel as a
polemic against Cerinthus. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(quoted by Eusebius, VI. 14), says that John wrote a spiritual Gospel,
as a supplement to the other Gospels, which had sufficiently described
the external facts. The opinion of Eusebius is very superficial. Upon
examination of the Gospels it will be seen that, of the events which
John relates independently of the synoptists, but a small portion
occurred before the imprisonment of John the Baptist. John's Gospel
certainly does incidentally supplement the Synoptists in a remarkable
manner, but not in any such intentional and artificial way as Eusebius
supposes. Compare Weiss' Einleitung, p. 602 sqq., and Schaff's Ch.
Hist. II. p. 680 sqq.
 The Synoptic Gospels certainly give the impression that Christ's
public ministry lasted but a single year; and were it not for the
additional light which John throws upon the subject, the one year
ministry would be universally accepted, as it was by many of the early
Fathers,--e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius,
&c. John, however, expressly mentions three, perhaps four, passovers,
so that Christ's ministry lasted either two or three years. Upon
comparison of the Synoptists with John, it will be seen that the
events which they record are not all comprised within a single year,
as Eusebius thought, but that they are scattered over the whole period
of his ministry, although confined to his work in Galilee up to the
time of his last journey to Judea, six months before his crucifixion.
The distinction between John and the Synoptists, as to the events
recorded, is therefore rather that of place than of time: but the
distinction is not absolute.
 Matt. iv. 12.
 Mark i. 14.
 Luke iii. 20.
 John ii. 11. The arguments of Eusebius, whether original or
borrowed from his predecessors, are certainly very ingenious, and he
makes out apparently quite a strong case for his opinion; but a
careful harmony of the four Gospels shows that it is untenable.
 John iii. 23.
 Ibid. verse 24.
 Eusebius approaches here the opinion of Clement of Alexandria,
mentioned in note 7, above, who considered John's Gospel a spiritual
supplement to the others,--a position which the Gospel certainly fills
 See Bk. II. chap. 15.
 See Luke i. 1-4. Eusebius puts the case more strongly than Luke
himself. Luke does not say that others had rashly undertaken the
composition of their narratives, nor does he say that he himself
writes in order to free his readers from the uncertain suppositions of
others; but at the same time the interpretation which Eusebius gives
is, though not an exact, yet certainly a natural one, and we have no
right to accuse him, as has been done, of intentional falsification of
the text of the Gospel. Eusebius also augments Luke's statement by the
mention of the source from which the latter gained his knowledge,
viz., "from his intimacy and stay with Paul, and from his acquaintance
with the rest of the apostles." If Eusebius intended to convey the
impression that Luke said this, he is of course inexcusable, but we
have no reason to suppose this to be the case. It is simply the
explanation on the part of Eusebius of an indefinite statement of
Luke's by a fact which was universally assumed as true. That he was
adding to Luke's own account probably never occurred to him. He does
not pretend to quote Luke's exact words.
 The testimony to the first Epistle of John goes hand in hand
with that to the fourth Gospel (cf. note 1, above). But we can find
still clearer trace of the Epistle in the early part of the second
century than of the Gospel (e.g. in Polycarp's Epistle, where traces
of the Gospel are wanting; and so, too, in Papias, according to chap.
39, below). The writings of the second century are full of the spirit
of the Epistle as well as of the Gospel and exhibit frequent parallels
in language too close to be mistaken. The first express testimony as
to its authorship occurs in the Muratorian Fragment. The first
systematic attack upon the Epistle was made by Bretschneider, in 1820,
in connection with the attack upon the Gospel. The Tübingen school
likewise rejected both. Before Bretschneider there had been a few
critics (e.g. Lange, 1797) who had rejected the Epistle while
accepting the Gospel, and since then a few have accepted the Epistle
while rejecting the Gospel; but these are exceptional cases. The
Gospel and Epistle have almost universally, and quite rightly, been
regarded as the work of the same author, and may be said to stand or
fall together. Cf. the works cited in note 1, and also Westcott's
Epistles of St. John. (On the use of protera instead of prote, see p.
 The Muratorian Fragment expressly ascribes two epistles to John.
Citations from the second Epistle appear first in Irenæus, though he
does not distinguish it from the first. Clement of Alexandria (Strom.
II. 15) quotes from 1 John under the formula "John says in his larger
Epistle," showing that he knew of a second. The lack of citations from
the second and third Epistles is easily explained by their brevity and
the minor importance of their doctrinal contents. The second and third
Epistles belong to the seven Antilegomena. Origen cites the first
Epistle often, the second and third never, and of the latter he says
"not all agree that they are genuine" (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25),
and apparently he himself did not consider them of apostolic origin
(cf. Weiss' Einleitung, p. 87). Origen's treatment of the Catholic
Epistles was implicitly followed by his pupil Dionysius and by
succeeding generations. Eusebius himself does not express his own
judgment in the matter, but simply records the state of tradition
which was a mere repetition of Origen's position in regard to them.
Jerome (de vir. ill. 9 and 18) says that most writers ascribe them to
the presbyter John--an opinion which evidently arose upon the basis of
the author's self-designation in 2 John 1, and 3 John 1, and some
modern critics (among them Reuss and Wieseler) have done the same.
Eusebius himself in the next Chapter implies that such an opinion
existed in his day, though he does not express his own view on the
matter. He placed them, however, among the Antilegomena. (On the
presbyter John, see below chap. 39, note 4.) That the two epistles
fell originally into the class of Antilegomena was due doubtless to
the peculiar self-designation mentioned, which seemed to distinguish
the author from the apostle, and also to their private and doctrinally
unimportant character. But in spite of the slight external testimony
to the epistles the conclusion of Weiss seems correct, that "inasmuch
as the second and third clearly betray the same author, and inasmuch
as the second is related to the first in such a manner that they must
either be by the same author or the former be regarded as an entirely
aimless imitation of the latter, so everything favors the ascription
of them both to the author of the first, viz. to the apostle." (ibid.
 The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the New
Testament. It was used by Papias and others of the earliest Fathers,
and already by Justin Martyr was expressly ascribed to the apostle
John. (Compare also the epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne,
Eusebius, V. 1.) Tradition, so far as we have it, is unanimous (with
the exception of the Alogi, an insignificant heretical sect of the
second century, who attributed the Apocalypse as well as the Gospel to
Cerinthus. Caius is not an exception: see below, chap. 28, note 4) in
ascribing the Apocalypse to the apostle John, until Dionysius of
Alexandria, who subjected the book to severe literary criticism (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 25), and upon the assumption of the genuineness
of the Gospel and the first Epistle, doubted its authenticity on
account of its divergence from these writings both in spirit and in
style. He says (VII. 25, §2) that some others before him had denied
the Johannine authorship and ascribed the book to Cerinthus, but the
way in which he speaks of them shows that there cannot have been a
ruling tradition to that effect. He may have referred simply to the
Alogi, or he may have included others of whom we do not know. He
himself rejects this hypothesis, and supposes the books to have been
written by some John, not the apostle (by what John he does not
decide), and does not deny the inspiration and prophetic character of
the book. Dionysius was led to exercise criticism upon the Apocalypse
(which was as well supported by tradition as any book of the New
Testament) from dogmatic reasons. The supposed sensuous and
materialistic conceptions of the Apocalypse were offensive to the
spiritualizing tendencies of the Alexandrian school, and the
offensiveness increased with time. Although Dionysius held the work as
inspired and authoritative, yet his position would lead logically to
the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the canon, just as Hermas had
been already excluded, although Origen held it to be inspired and
authoritative in the same sense in which Dionysius held the Apocalypse
to be,--i.e. as composed by an apostle's pupil, not by an apostle.
Apocalyptic literature did not belong properly to the New Testament,
but rather to the prophetic portion of the Old Testament; but the
number of the Old Testament prophets was already complete (according
to the Muratorian Fragment), and therefore no prophetic writing (e.g.
Hermas) could find a place there; nor, on the other hand, could it be
made a part of the New Testament, for it was not apostolic. The same
was true of the Apocalypse of Peter, and the only thing which kept the
Apocalypse of John in the canon was its supposed apostolic authorship.
It was received as a part of the New Testament not because it was
apocalyptic, but because it was apostolic, and thus the criticism of
Dionysius would lead logically to its rejection from the canon. John's
Apocalypse is the only New Testament book cited by Justin as graphe
(so also by the Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Eusebius, V. 1), and this
because of its prophetic character. It must have been (according to
their opinion) either a true prophecy (and therefore inspired by the
Holy Spirit) or a forgery. Its authenticity being accepted, the former
alternative necessarily followed, and it was placed upon a line with
the Old Testament prophets, i.e. with the graphe. After Dionysius'
time doubts of its authenticity became quite widespread in the Eastern
Church, and among the doubters was Eusebius, who evidently wished to
ascribe it to the mysterious presbyter John, whose existence he
supposed to be established by Papias in a passage quoted in chap. 39,
§4, below (compare the note on the passage). Eusebius' treatment of
the book is hesitating. He evidently himself discredited its apostolic
authority, but at the same time he realized (as a historian more
keenly than Dionysius the theologian) the great weight of external
testimony to its authenticity, and therefore he gives his readers the
liberty (in the next Chapter) of putting it either with the
Homologoumena or with the nothoi. It legitimately belonged among the
Homologoumena, but Dionysius' attitude toward it doubtless led
Eusebius to think that it might at some time in the future be thrown
out of the canon, and of course his own objections to its contents and
his doubts as to its apostolicity caused him to contemplate such a
possibility not without pleasure (see the next Chapter, note 1). In
Chapter 18, above, he speaks of it as the "so-called" Apocalypse of
John, but in other places he repeats many testimonies in favor of its
authenticity (see the next note), and only in Chapter 39 does he state
clearly his own opinion in the matter, which even there he does not
press as a fixed conviction. The reason for the doubts of the book's
genuineness on the part of Eusebius and so many others lay evidently
most of all in objections to the contents of the book, which seemed to
favor chiliasm, and had been greatly abused for the advancement of the
crassest chiliastic views. Many, like Dionysius of Alexandria were no
doubt influenced also by the idea that it was impossible that the
Gospel and the Apocalypse could be the works of one author, and they
preferred to sacrifice the latter rather than the former. The book has
found objectors in almost every age of the Church, but has continued
to hold its place in the canon (its position was never disturbed in
the Western Church, and only for some two or three centuries after
Eusebius in parts of the Eastern Church) as an authentic work of the
apostle John. The Tübingen school exalted the Apocalypse to the
honorable position of one of the five genuine monuments of the
apostolic age, and from it as a basis conducted their attacks upon the
other Johannine writings. The more modern critical school is doubtful
about it as well as the rest of the Johannine literature, and the
latest theory makes the Apocalypse a Jewish document in a
Christianized form (see above, chap. 18, note 1). Compare especially
Holtzmann's Einleitung, p. 411-413, and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 93.
 See Bk. VII. chap. 25, where Eusebius quotes a lengthy
discussion of the Apocalypse by Dionysius of Alexandria. He also cites
opinions favorable to the authenticity of the Apocalypse from Justin
(in IV. 18, below), Theophilus (IV. 24), Irenæus (V. 8), and Origen
(VI. 25), but such scattered testimonies can hardly be regarded as the
fulfillment of the definite promise which he makes in this passage.
Chapter XXV.--The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that
are not. 
1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the
writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First
then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels;  following
them the Acts of the Apostles. 
2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul;  next in
order the extant former epistle of John,  and likewise the
epistle of Peter,  must be maintained.  After them is to be
placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, 
concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper
time.  These then belong among the accepted writings. 
3. Among the disputed writings,  which are nevertheless
recognized  by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James
 and that of Jude,  also the second epistle of Peter, 
and those that are called the second and third of John,  whether
they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
4. Among the rejected writings  must be reckoned also the Acts of
Paul,  and the so-called Shepherd,  and the Apocalypse of
Peter,  and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas,
 and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles;  and besides,
as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I
said, reject,  but which others class with the accepted books.
5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the
Hebrews,  with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted
Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among
the disputed books. 
6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of
these also, distinguishing those works which according to
ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted,
 from those others which, although not canonical but disputed,
 are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical
writers--we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that
we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by
the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance,
such books as the Gospels of Peter,  of Thomas,  of
Matthias,  or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew
 and John  and the other apostles, which no one belonging to
the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention
in his writings.
7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with
apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things
that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true
orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of
heretics.  Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the
rejected  writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as
absurd and impious.
Let us now proceed with our history.
 This Chapter is the only place in which Eusebius attempts to
treat the canon systematically, and in it he is speaking purely as an
historian, not as a critic. He is endeavoring to give an accurate
statement of the general opinion of the orthodox Church of his day in
regard to the number and names of its sacred books. He does not, in
this passage, apply to the various works any criterion of canonicity
further than their acceptance as canonical by the orthodox Church. He
simply records the state of the canon; he does not endeavor to form a
canon. He has nothing to do, therefore, with the nature and origin of
the books which the church accepts. As remarked by Weiss (Einleitung
in das N. T., p. 96), the influence of Eusebius in the formation of
the canon is very commonly overestimated. He contributed himself very
little; his office was to record the usage of the church of his age,
not to mould it. The church whose judgment he takes is, in the main,
the church of the Orient, and in that church at this time all the
works which we now call canonical (and only those) were already
commonly accepted, or were becoming more and more widely accepted as
such. From the standpoint, then, of canonicity, Eusebius divided the
works which he mentions in this Chapter into two classes: the
canonical (including the Homologoumena and the Antilogomena) and the
uncanonical (including the nothoi and the anaplEURsmata airetikon
andron). But the nothoi he connects much more closely with the
Homologoumena and Antilegomena than with the heretical works, which
are, in fact, separated from all the rest and placed in a class by
themselves. What, then, is the relation of the Homologoumena,
Antilegomena, and nothoi to each other, as Eusebius classifies them?
The crucial point is the relation of the nothoi to the antilegomena.
Lücke (Ueber den N. T. Kanon des Eusebius, p. 11 sq.) identified the
two, but such identification is impossible in this passage. The
passages which he cites to confirm his view prove only that the word
Antilegomena is commonly employed by Eusebius in a general sense to
include all disputed works, and therefore, of course, the nothoi also;
that is, the term Antilegomena is ordinarily used, not as identical
with nothoi, but as inclusive of it. This, however, establishes
nothing as to Eusebius' technical use of the words in the present
passage, where he is endeavoring to draw close distinctions. Various
views have been taken since Lücke's time upon the relation of these
terms to each other in this connection; but, to me at least, none of
them seem satisfactory, and I have been led to adopt the following
simple explanation. The Antilegomena, in the narrower sense peculiar
to this summary, were works which, in Eusebius' day, were, as he
believed, commonly accepted by the Eastern Church as canonical, but
which, nevertheless, as he well knew, had not always been thus
accepted, and, indeed, were not even then universally accepted as
such. The tendency, however, was distinctly in the direction of their
ever-wider acceptance. On the other hand, the nothoi were works which,
although they had been used by the Fathers and were quoted as graphe
by some of them, were, at this time, not acknowledged as canonical.
Although perhaps not universally rejected from the canon, yet they
were commonly so rejected, and the tendency was distinctly in the
direction of their ever-wider rejection. Whatever their merit, and
whatever their antiquity and their claims to authenticity, Eusebius
could not place them among the canonical books. The term nothoi, then,
in this passage, must not be taken, as it commonly is, to mean
spurious or unauthentic, but to mean uncanonical. It is in this sense,
as against the canonical Homologoumena and Antilegomena, that
Eusebius, as I believe, uses it here, and his use of it in this sense
is perfectly legitimate. In using it he passes no judgment upon the
authenticity of the works referred to; that, in the present case, is
not his concern. As an historian he observed tendencies, and judged
accordingly. He saw that the authority of the Antilegomena was on the
increase, that of the nothoi on the decrease, and already he could
draw a sharp distinction between them, as Clement of Alexandria could
not do a century before. The distinction drawn has no relation to the
authenticity or original authority of the works of the two classes,
but only to their canonicity or uncanonicity at the time Eusebius
wrote. This interpretation will help us to understand the peculiar way
in which Eusebius treats the Apocalypse, and thus his treatment of it
becomes an argument in favor of the interpretation. He puts it, first
among the Homologoumena with an eige phaneie, and then among the
nothoi with an ei phaneie. No one, so far as I know, has explained why
it should be put among the nothoi as an alternative to the
Homologoumena, instead of among the Antilegomena, which, on the common
interpretation of the relation of the classes, might be naturally
expected. If the view presented is correct, the reason is clear. The
Antilegomena were those works which had been disputed, but were
becoming more and more widely accepted as canonical. The Apocalypse
could not under any circumstances fall into this class, for the doubts
raised against it in the orthodox Church were of recent date. It
occupied, in fact, a peculiar position, for there was no other work
which, while accepted as canonical, was doubted in the present more
than in the past. Eusebius then must either put it into a special
class or put it conditionally into two different classes, as he does.
If the doubts should become so widespread as to destroy its
canonicity, it would fall naturally into the nothoi, for then it would
hold the same position as the other works of that class. As an
historian, Eusebius sees the tendency and undoubtedly has the idea
that the Apocalypse may eventually, like the other Christian works of
the same class (the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), become
one of the nothoi, one of the works which, formerly accepted, is at
length commonly denied to be canonical: and so, as an historian, he
presents the alternative. The Apocalypse was the only work in regard
to which any doubt could exist. Eusebius' failure to mention
explicitly in this passage the Epistle to the Hebrews, has caused
considerable misunderstanding. The explanation, if the view presented
be adopted, is simple. Eusebius included it, I believe, among the
epistles of Paul, and did not especially mention it, simply because
there was no dispute about its canonicity. Its Pauline authorship had
been widely disputed as Eusebius informs us elsewhere, and various
theories had been proposed to account for it; but its canonicity had
not been doubted in the orthodox Church, and therefore doubts as to
the authorship of it did not in the least endanger its place among the
Homologoumena, as used here in a technical sense; and since Eusebius
was simply stating the works of each class, not discussing the nature
and origin of those works, he could, in perfect fairness, include it
in Paul's epistles (where he himself believed it belonged) without
entering upon any discussion of it. Another noticeable omission is
that of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. All efforts to find
a satisfactory reason for this are fruitless. It should have been
placed among the nothoi with the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., as
Eusebius' treatment of it in other passages shows. It must be assumed,
with Holtzmann, that the omission of it was nothing more nor less than
an oversight. Eusebius, then, classifies the works mentioned in this
Chapter upon two principles: first, in relation to canonicity, into
the canonical and the uncanonical; and secondly, in relation to
character, into the orthodox (Homologoumena, Antilegomena, which are
canonical, and nothoi, which are uncanonical), and heterodox (which
are not, and never have been, canonical, never have been accepted as
of use or authority). The Homologoumena and Antilegomena, then, are
both canonical and orthodox, the anaplEURsmata hairetikon andron are
neither canonical nor orthodox, while the nothoi occupy a peculiar
position, being orthodox but not canonical. The last-named are much
more closely related to the canonical than to the heterodox works,
because when the canon was a less concrete and exact thing than it had
at length become, they were associated with the other orthodox works
as, like them, useful for edification and instruction. With the
heretical works they had never been associated, and possessed in
common with them only the negative characteristic of non-canonicity.
Eusebius naturally connects them closely with the former, and severs
them completely from the latter. The only reason for mentioning the
latter at all was the fact that they bore the names of apostles, and
thus might be supposed, as they often had been--by Christians, as well
as by unbelievers--to be sacred books like the rest. The statement of
the canon gives Eusebius an opportunity to warn his readers against
them. Upon Eusebius' New Testament Canon, see especially the work of
Lücke referred to above, also Westcott's Canon of the New Testament,
5th ed., p. 414 sq., Harnack's Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 6 sq.,
Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N.T., p. 154 sq., and Weiss' Einleitung,
p. 92 sq. The greater part of the present note was read before the
American Society of Church History in December, 1888, and is printed
in Vol. I. of that Society's papers, New York, 1889, p. 251 sq.
 On Matthew, see the previous Chapter, note 5; on Mark, Bk. II.
chap. 15, note 4; on Luke, Bk. III. chap. 4, notes 12 and 15; on John,
the previous Chapter, note 1.
 See above, chap. 4, note 14.
 See chap. 3, note 16. Eusebius evidently means to include the
Epistle to the Hebrews among Paul's epistles at this point, for he
mentions it nowhere else in this Chapter (see above, note 1).
 See the previous Chapter, note 18.
 See chap. 3, note 1.
 See the previous Chapter, note 20. Upon Eusebius' treatment in
this Chapter of the canonicity of the Apocalypse, see note 1, above.
 Compare the previous Chapter, note 21.
 en homologoumenois
 ton antilegomenon
 See Bk. II. chap. 23, note 46.
 See ibid. note 47.
 See above, chap. 3, note 4.
 See the previous Chapter, note 19.
 en tois nothois.
 See above, chap. 3, note 20.
 Ibid.note 23.
 Ibid.note 9.
 The author of the so-called Epistle of Barnabas is unknown. No
name appears in the epistle itself, and no hints are given which
enable us to ascribe it to any known writer. External testimony,
without a dissenting voice, ascribes it to Barnabas, the companion of
Paul. But this testimony, although unanimous, is neither very strong
nor very extensive. The first to use the epistle is Clement of
Alexandria, who expressly and frequently ascribes it to Barnabas the
companion of Paul. Origen quotes from the epistle twice, calling it
the Epistle of Barnabas, but without expressing any judgment as to its
authenticity, and without defining its author more closely. Jerome (de
vir. ill. 6) evidently did not doubt its authenticity, but placed it
nevertheless among the Apocrypha, and his opinion prevailed down to
the seventeenth century. It is difficult to decide what Eusebius
thought in regard to its authorship. His putting it among the nothoi
here does not prove that he considered it unauthentic (see note 1,
above); nor, on the other hand, does his classing it among the
Antilegomena just below prove that he considered it authentic, but
non-apostolic, as some have claimed. Although, therefore, the direct
external testimony which we have is in favor of the apostolic Barnabas
as its author, it is to be noticed that there must have existed a
widespread doubt as to its authenticity, during the first three
centuries, to have caused its complete rejection from the canon before
the time of Eusebius. That this rejection arose from the fact that
Barnabas was not himself one of the twelve apostles cannot be. For
apostolic authorship was not the sole test of canonicity, and Barnabas
stood in close enough relation to the apostles to have secured his
work a place in the canon, during the period of its gradual formation,
had its authenticity been undoubted. We may therefore set this
inference over against the direct external testimony for Barnabas'
authorship. When we come to internal testimony, the arguments are
conclusive against "the Levite Barnabas" as the author of the epistle.
These arguments have been well stated by Donaldson, in his History of
Christian Literature, I. p. 204 sqq. Milligan, in Smith and Wace's
Dict. of Christ. Biog., endeavors to break the force of these
arguments, and concludes that the authenticity of the epistle is
highly probable; but his positions are far from conclusive, and he may
be said to stand almost alone among modern scholars. Especially during
the last few years, the verdict against the epistle's authenticity has
become practically unanimous. Some have supposed the author to have
been an unknown man by the name of Barnabas: but this is pure
conjecture. That the author lived in Alexandria is apparently the
ruling opinion, and is quite probable. It is certain that the epistle
was written between the destruction of Jerusalem (a.d. 70) and the
time of Clement of Alexandria: almost certain that it was written
before the building of Ælia Capitolina; and probable that it was
written between 100 and 120, though dates ranging all the way from the
beginning of Vespasian's reign to the end of Hadrian's have been, and
are still, defended by able scholars. The epistle is still extant in a
corrupt Greek original and in an ancient Latin translation. It is
contained in all the editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially
Gebhardt and Harnack's second edition, 1876, and Hilgenfeld's edition
of 1877). An English translation is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. I. p. 133 sqq. For the most important literature, see Schaff, Ch.
Hist. II. p. 671 sqq., and Gebhardt and Harnack's edition, p. xl. sqq.
 ton apostolon ai legomenai didachai. The Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, Didache ton dodeka apostolon, a brief document in sixteen
Chapters, was published in 1884 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan
of Nicomedia, from a ms. discovered by him in the Jerusalem convent in
Constantinople in 1873. The discovery threw the whole theological
world into a state of excitement, and the books and articles upon the
subject from America and from every nation in Europe have appeared by
the hundred. No such important find has been made for many years. The
light which the little document has thrown upon early Church history
is very great, while at the same time the questions which it has
opened are numerous and weighty. Although many points in regard to its
origin and nature are still undecided, the following general positions
may be accepted as practically established. It is composed of two
parts, of which the former (chaps. 1-6) is a redaction of an
independent moral treatise, probably of Jewish origin, entitled the
Two Ways, which was known and used in Alexandria, and there formed the
basis of other writings (e.g. the Epistle of Barnabas, chaps. 18-21,
and the Ecclesiastical Canons) which were at first supposed to have
been based upon the Teaching itself. (Bryennios, Harnack, and others
supposed that the Teaching was based upon Barnabas, but this view has
never been widely accepted.) This (Jewish) Two Ways which was in
existence certainly before the end of the first century (how much
earlier we do not know) was early in the second century (if not
before) made a part of a primitive church manual, viz. our present
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Two Ways, both before and at the
time of (perhaps after) its incorporation into the Teaching, received
important additions, partly of a Christian character. The completed
Teaching dates from Syria, though this is denied by many writers (e.g.
by Harnack), who prefer, upon what seem to me insufficient grounds,
Egypt as the place of composition. The completed Teaching formed the
basis of a part of the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions,
which originated in Syria in the fourth century. The most complete and
useful edition is that of Schaff (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
3d ed., New York, 1889), which contains the Greek text with English
translation and a very full discussion of the work itself and of the
various questions which are affected by its discovery. Harnack's
important edition Die Lehre der zwölff Apostel (Texte und
Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchrist. Lit., II. 1 and 2, 1884) is
still the standard German work upon the subject, though it represents
many positions in regard to the origin and history of the work which
have since been proved incorrect, and which he himself has given up.
His article in Herzog, 2d ed., XVII. 656 sqq. and his Die
Apostel-Lehre und die jüdischen Beiden Wege, 1886, should therefore be
compared with his original work. Schaff's book contains a very
complete digest of the literature down to the close of 1888. As to the
position which the Teaching occupied in the canon we know very little,
on account of the very sparing use of it made by the early Fathers.
Clement of Alexandria cites it once as Scripture (graphe), but no
other writer before the time of Eusebius treats it in the same way,
and yet Eusebius' mention of it among the nothoi shows that it must
have enjoyed a wide circulation at some time and have been accepted by
at least a portion of the Church as a book worthy to be read in divine
service, and thus in a certain sense as a part of the canon. In
Eusebius' time, however, its canonicity had been denied (though
according to Athanasius Fest. Ep. 39, it was still used in
catechetical instruction), and he was therefore obliged to relegate it
to a position among the nothoi. Upon Eusebius' use of the plural
didachai, see the writer's article in the Andover Review, April, 1886,
p. 439 sq.
 athetousin. See the previous Chapter, note 20.
 tois homologoumenois. See note 1, above.
 This Gospel, probably composed in Hebrew (Aramaic), is no longer
extant, but we possess a few fragments of it in Greek and Latin which
are collected by Grabe, Spic. I. 15-31, and by Hilgenfeld, N. T. Extra
Can. rec. II. The existing material upon which to base a judgment as
to the nature of the lost Gospel and as to its relation to our
canonical gospels is very limited. It is certain, however, that it
cannot in its original form have been a working over of our canonical
Matthew (as many have thought); it contains too many little marks of
originality over against our Greek Matthew to admit of such a
supposition. That it was, on the other hand, the original of which our
Greek Matthew is the translation is also impossible; a comparison of
its fragments with our Matthew is sufficient to prove this. That it
was the original source from which Matthew and Luke derived their
common matter is possible--more cannot be said. Lipsius (Dict. of
Christ. Biog. II. 709-712) and Westcott (Hist. of the Canon, p. 515
sqq.) give the various quotations which are supposed to have been made
from it. How many of them are actually to be traced back to it as
their source is not certain. It is possible, but not certain, that
Papias had seen it (see chap. 39, note 28), possible also that
Ignatius had, but the passage relied on to establish the fact fails to
do so (see chap. 36, note 14). It was probably used by Justin (see
Westcott, ibid. p. 516, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 712), undoubtedly by
Hegesippus (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 22), and was perhaps known to
Pantænus (see below, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 8). Clement of Alexandria
(Strom. II. 9) and Origen (in Johan. II. 6 and often) are the first to
bear explicit testimony to the existence of such a gospel. Eusebius
also was personally acquainted with it, as may be gathered from his
references to it in III. 39 and IV. 22, and from his quotation in (the
Syriac version of) his Theophany, IV. 13 (Lee's trans. p. 234), and in
the Greek Theophany, §22 (Migne, VI. 685). The latter also shows the
high respect in which he held the work. Jerome's testimony in regard
to it is very important, but it must be kept in mind that the gospel
had undergone extensive alterations and additions before his time, and
as known to him was very different from the original form (cf.
Lipsius, ibid. p. 711), and therefore what he predicates of it cannot
be applied to the original without limitation. Epiphanius has a good
deal to say about it, but he evidently had not himself seen it, and
his reports of it are very confused and misleading. The statement of
Lipsius, that according to Eusebius the gospel was reckoned by many
among the Homologoumena, is incorrect; en toutois refers rather to the
nothoi among which its earlier acceptance by a large part of the
Church, but present uncanonicity, places it by right. Irenæus
expressly states that there were but four canonical gospels (Adv. Hær.
III. 2, 8), so also Tertullian (Adv. Marc. IV. 5), while Clement of
Alexandria cites the gospel with the same formula which he uses for
the Scriptures in general, and evidently looked upon it as, if not
quite, at least almost, on a par with the other four Gospels. Origen
on the other hand (in Johan. II. 6, Hom. in Jer. XV. 4, and often)
clearly places it upon a footing lower than that of the four canonical
Gospels. Upon the use of the gospel by the Ebionites and upon its
relation to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see chap. 27, note 8. The
literature upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews is very extensive.
Among recent discussions the most important are by Hilgenfeld, in his
Evangelien nach ihrer Entstehung (1854); in the Zeitschrift f. wiss.
Theol., 1863, p. 345 sqq.; in his N. T. extra Canon. rec. (2d ed.
1884); and in his Einleitung z. N. T. (1875); by Nicholson, The Gospel
according to the Hebrews (1879); and finally, a very thorough
discussion of the subject, which reached me after the composition of
the above note, by Handmann, Das Hebräer-Evangelium (Gebhardt and
Harnack's Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3, Leipzig, 1888).
This work gives the older literature of the subject with great
fullness. Still more recently Resch's Agrapha (ibid. V. 4, Leipzig,
1889) has come to hand. It discusses the Gospel on p. 322 sq.
 ton antilegomenon
 ouk endiathekous men, alla kai antilegomenas. Eusebius, in this
clause, refers to the nothoi, which, of course, while distinguished
from the canonical Antilegomena, yet are, like them, disputed, and
hence belong as truly as they to the more general class of
Antilegomena. This, of course, explains how, in so many places in his
History, he can use the words nothoi and antilegomena interchangeably
(as e.g. in chap. 31, §6). In the present passage the nothoi, as both
uncanonical and disputed, are distinguished from the canonical
writings,--including both the universally accepted and the
disputed,--which are here thrown together without distinction. The
point to be emphasized is that he is separating here the uncanonical
from the canonical, without regard to the character of the individual
writings within the latter class.
 See chap. 3, note 5.
 The Gospel of Thomas is of Gnostic origin and thoroughly
Docetic. It was written probably in the second century. The original
Gnostic form is no longer extant, but we have fragmentary Catholic
recensions of it in both Latin and Greek, from which heretical traits
are expunged with more or less care. The gospel contained many very
fabulous stories about the childhood of Jesus. It is mentioned
frequently by the Fathers from Origen down, but always as an heretical
work. The Greek text is given by Tischendorf, p. 36 sqq., and an
English translation is contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII.
395-405. See Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 703-705.
 This gospel is mentioned by Origen (Hom. in Lucam I.), by Jerome
(Præf. in Matt.), and by other later writers. The gospel is no longer
extant, though some fragments have been preserved by Clement of
Alexandria, e.g. in Strom. II. 9, Strom. III. 4 (quoted below in chap.
30), and Strom. VII. 13, which show that it had a high moral tone and
emphasized asceticism. We know very little about it, but Lipsius
conjectures that it was "identical with the paradoseis Matthiou which
were in high esteem in Gnostic circles, and especially among the
Basilidæans." See Lipsius, ibid. p. 716.
 Eusebius so far as we know is the first writer to refer to these
Acts. But they are mentioned after him by Epiphanius, Philaster, and
Augustine (see Tischendorf's Acta Apost. Apoc. p. xl.). The Acts of
Andrew (Acta Andrææ) were of Gnostic origin and circulated among that
sect in numerous editions. The oldest extant portions (both in Greek
and somewhat fragmentary) are the Acts of Andrew and Matthew
(translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 517-525) and the Acts of
Peter and Andrew (ibid. 526-527). The Acts and Martyrdom of the Holy
Apostle Andrew (ibid. 511-516), or the so-called Epistle of the
Presbyters and Deacons of Achaia concerning the Passion of Andrew, is
a later work, still extant in a Catholic recension in both Greek and
Latin. The fragments of these three are given by Tischendorf in his
Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 105 sqq. and 132 sqq., and in his Apocal. Apoc.
p. 161 sq. See Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 30.
 Eusebius is likewise, so far as we know, the first writer to
refer to these Acts. But they are afterward mentioned by Epiphanius,
Photius, Augustine, Philaster, &c. (see Tischendorf, ibid. p.
lxxiii.). They are also of Gnostic origin and extant in a few
fragments (collected by Thilo, Fragmenta Actum S. Johannis a Leucio
Charino conscriptorum, Halle, 1847). A Catholic extract very much
abridged, but containing clear Gnostic traits, is still extant and is
given by Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apoc. p. 266 sq. (translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 560-564). The last two works mentioned
belong to a collection of apocryphal Acts which were commonly ascribed
to Leucius, a fictitious character who stands as the legendary author
of the whole of this class of Gnostic literature. From the fourth
century on, frequent reference is made to various Gnostic Acts whose
number must have been enormous. Although no direct references are made
to them before the time of Eusebius, yet apparent traces of them are
found in Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, &c., which make it
probable that these writers were acquainted with them, and it may at
any rate be assumed as established that many of them date from the
third century and some of them even from the second century. See
Salmon's article Leucius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. 703-707,
and Lipsius' article in the same work, I. 28.
 hairetikon andron anaplEURsmata
 en nothois.
Chapter XXVI.--Menander the Sorcerer.
1. Menander,  who succeeded Simon Magus,  showed himself in
his conduct another instrument of diabolical power,  not inferior
to the former. He also was a Samaritan and carried his sorceries to no
less an extent than his teacher had done, and at the same time reveled
in still more marvelous tales than he.
2. For he said that he was himself the Saviour, who had been sent down
from invisible æons for the salvation of men;  and he taught that
no one could gain the mastery over the world-creating angels
themselves  unless he had first gone through the magical
discipline imparted by him and had received baptism from him. Those
who were deemed worthy of this would partake even in the present life
of perpetual immortality, and would never die, but would remain here
forever, and without growing old become immortal.  These facts
can be easily learned from the works of Irenæus. 
3. And Justin, in the passage in which he mentions Simon, gives an
account of this man also, in the following words:  "And we know
that a certain Menander, who was also a Samaritan, from the village of
Capparattea,  was a disciple of Simon, and that he also, being
driven by the demons, came to Antioch  and deceived many by his
magical art. And he persuaded his followers that they should not die.
And there are still some of them that assert this."
4. And it was indeed an artifice of the devil to endeavor, by means of
such sorcerers, who assumed the name of Christians, to defame the
great mystery of godliness by magic art, and through them to make
ridiculous the doctrines of the Church concerning the immortality of
the soul and the resurrection of the dead.  But they that have
chosen these men as their saviours have fallen away from the true
 Justin, in the passage quoted just below, is the first one to
tell us about Menander. According to him, he was a Samaritan and a
disciple of Simon Magus, and, like him, deceived many by the practice
of magic arts. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 23) gives a somewhat fuller
account of him, very likely based upon Justin's work against heresies
which the latter mentions in his Apol. I. 26, and from which Irenæus
quotes in IV. 6. 2 (at least he quotes from a Contra Marcionem, which
was in all probability a part of the same work; see Bk. IV. chap. 11,
note 22), and perhaps in V. 26. 2. From this account of Irenæus that
of Eusebius is drawn, and no new particulars are added. Tertullian
also mentions Menander (De Anima, 23, 50) and his resurrection
doctrine, but evidently knows only what Irenæus has already told; and
so the accounts of all the early Fathers rest wholly upon Justin and
Irenæus, and probably ultimately upon Justin alone. See Salmon's
article Menander in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
 Upon Simon Magus, see above, Bk. II. chap. 13, note 3.
 "Instrument of diabolical power," is an embellishment of
Eusebius' own, quite in keeping with his usual treatment of heretics.
It is evident, however, that neither Justin nor Irenæus looked upon
Menander with any greater degree of allowance.
 Simon (Irenæus, I. 23. 1) taught that he himself was the Supreme
Power; but Menander, according to Irenæus (ibid. §5), taught that the
Supreme Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself (as
Eusebius here says) was sent forth as a saviour for the deliverance of
 He agreed with Simon in teaching that the world was formed by
angels who had taken their origin from the Ennoea of the Supreme
Power, and that the magical power which he imparted enabled his
followers to overcome these creative angels, as Simon had taught of
himself before him.
 This baptism (according to Irenæus "into his own name"), and the
promise of the resurrection as a result, seem to have been an original
addition of Menander's. The exemption from death taught by Menander
was evidently understood by Irenæus, Tertullian (De Anima, 50), and
Eusebius in its physical, literal sense; but the followers of Menander
must of course have put a spiritual meaning upon it, or the sect could
not have continued in existence for any length of time. It is certain
that it was flourishing at the time of Justin; how much longer we do
not know. Justin himself does not emphasize the physical element, and
he undoubtedly understood that the immortality taught was spiritual
simply. Hegesippus (quoted below, in Bk. IV. chap. 22) mentions the
Menandrianists, but this does not imply that he was himself acquainted
with them, for he draws his information largely from Justin Martyr.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 23. 5. In III. 4. 3 he mentions Menander
again, making him the father of all the Gnostics.
 Justin, Apol. I. 26.
 The situation of the village of Capparattea is uncertain. See
Harnack's Quellen-Kritik des Gnosticismus, p. 84.
 Menander's Antiochene activity is reported only by Justin. It is
probable, therefore, that Tertullian used Irenæus alone in writing his
account of Menander, for it is unlikely that both of them would have
omitted the same fact if they drew independently from Justin.
 Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. XVIII. 1) says that the denial of the
resurrection of the body was a peculiarly Samaritan heresy, and it
would seem therefore that the heresy of these Menandrianists was in
that direction, i.e. that they taught rather a spiritual immortality
and denied a bodily resurrection (as suggested in note 6); evidently,
however, this was not Eusebius' idea. He probably looked upon them as
discrediting the Christian doctrine of a resurrection by teaching a
physical immortality, which of course was soon proved contrary to
truth, and which thus, being confounded by the masses with the
doctrines of the Christians, brought the latter also into contempt,
and threw discredit upon immortality and resurrection of every kind.
Chapter XXVII.--The Heresy of the Ebionites. 
1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from
their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a
different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The
ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held
poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. 
2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified
only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the
intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the
ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could
not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life.
3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same
name,  but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former,
and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy
Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge
that he pre-existed,  being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned
aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them,
endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law. 
4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all
the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the
law;  and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the
Hebrews  and made small account of the rest.
5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they
observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they
celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the
6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name
of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For
this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
 The Ebionites were not originally heretics. Their characteristic
was the more or less strict insistence upon the observance of the
Jewish law; a matter of cultus, therefore, not of theology, separated
them from Gentile Christians. Among the early Jewish Christians
existed all shades of opinion, in regard to the relation of the law
and the Gospel, from the freest recognition of the uncircumcised
Gentile Christian to the bitterest insistence upon the necessity for
salvation of full observance of the Jewish law by Gentile as well as
by Jewish Christians. With the latter Paul himself had to contend, and
as time went on, and Christianity spread more and more among the
Gentiles, the breach only became wider. In the time of Justin there
were two opposite tendencies among such Christians as still observed
the Jewish law: some wished to impose it upon all Christians; others
confined it to themselves. Upon the latter Justin looks with charity;
but the former he condemns as schismatics (see Dial. c. Trypho. 47).
For Justin the distinguishing mark of such schismatics is not a
doctrinal heresy, but an anti-Christian principle of life. But the
natural result of these Judaizing tendencies and of the involved
hostility to the apostle of the Gentiles was the ever more tenacious
clinging to the Jewish idea of the Messiah; and as the Church, in its
strife with Gnosticism, laid an ever-increasing stress upon
Christology, the difference in this respect between itself and these
Jewish Christians became ever more apparent until finally left far
behind by the Church in its rapid development, they were looked upon
as heretics. And so in Irenæus (I. 26. 2) we find a definite heretical
sect called Ebionites, whose Christology is like that of Cerinthus and
Carpocrates, who reject the apostle Paul, use the Gospel of Matthew
only, and still cling to the observance of the Jewish law; but the
distinction which Justin draws between the milder and stricter class
is no longer drawn: all are classed together in the ranks of heretics,
because of their heretical Christology (cf. ibid. III. 21. 1; IV. 33.
4; V. 1. 3). In Tertullian and Hippolytus their deviation from the
orthodox Christology is still more clearly emphasized, and their
relation to the Jewish law drops still further into the background
(cf. Hippolytus, Phil. VII. 22; X. 18; and Tertullian, De Carne
Christi, 14, 18, &c.). So Origen is acquainted with the Ebionites as
an heretical sect, but, with a more exact knowledge of them than was
possessed by Irenæus who lived far away from their chief centre, he
distinguishes two classes; but the distinction is made upon
Christological lines, and is very different from that drawn by Justin.
This distinction of Origen's between those Ebionites who accepted and
those who denied the supernatural birth of Christ is drawn also by
Eusebius (see below, §3). Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. sqq.) is the first to
make two distinct heretical sects--the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. It
has been the custom of historians to carry this distinction back into
apostolic times, and to trace down to the time of Epiphanius the
continuous existence of a milder party--the Nazarenes--and of a
stricter party--the Ebionites; but this distinction Nitzsch
(Dogmengesch. p. 37 sqq.) has shown to be entirely groundless. The
division which Epiphanius makes is different from that of Justin, as
well as from that of Origen and Eusebius; in fact, it is doubtful if
he himself had any clear knowledge of a distinction, his reports are
so contradictory. The Ebionites known to him were most pronounced
heretics; but he had heard of others who were said to be less
heretical, and the conclusion that they formed another sect was most
natural. Jerome's use of the two words is fluctuating; but it is clear
enough that they were not looked upon by him as two distinct sects.
The word "Nazarenes" was, in fact, in the beginning a general name
given to the Christians of Palestine by the Jews (cf. Acts xxiv. 5),
and as such synonymous with "Ebionites." Upon the later syncretistic
Ebionism, see Bk. VI. chap. 38, note 1. Upon the general subject of
Ebionism, see especially Nitzsch, ibid., and Harnack,
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 226 sqq.
 The word Ebionite comes from the Hebrew #¶B+°J+¹W+N%, which
signifies "poor." Different explanations more or less fanciful have
been given of the reason for the use of the word in this connection.
It occurs first in Irenæus (I. 26. 2), but without a definition of its
meaning. Origen, who uses the term often, gives different
explanations, e.g., in Contra Celsum, II. 1, he says that the Jewish
converts received their name from the poverty of the law, "for Ebion
signifies poor among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus
as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites." In De Prin. IV. 1. 22,
and elsewhere, he explains the name as referring to the poverty of
their understanding. The explanation given by Eusebius refers to their
assertion that Christ was only a common man, born by natural
generation, and applied only to the first class of Ebionites, a
description of whom follows. For the same name as applied to the
second class (but see note 9) who accepted Christ's supernatural
birth, he gives a different reason at the end of the Chapter, the same
which Origen gives for the application of the name to Ebionites in
general. The explanation given in this place is so far as we know
original with Eusebius (something similar occurs again in Epiphanius,
Hær. XXX. 17), and he shows considerable ingenuity in thus treating
the name differently in the two cases. The various reasons do not of
course account for the existence of the name, for most of them could
have become reasons only long after the name was in use. Tertullian
(De Præscr. Hær. 33, De Carne Christi, 14, 18, &c.) and Hippolytus (in
his Syntagma,--as can be gathered from Pseudo-Tertullian, Adv. Hær.
chap. 3, and Epiph. Hær. XXX.,--and also in his Phil. chap. 23, where
he mentions Ebion incidentally) are the first to tell us of the
existence of a certain Ebion from whom the sect derived its name, and
Epiphanius and later writers are well acquainted with the man. But
Ebion is a myth invented simply for the purpose of explaining the
origin of Ebionism. The name Ebionite was probably used in Jerusalem
as a designation of the Christians there, either applied to them by
their enemies as a term of ridicule on account of their poverty in
worldly goods, or, what is more probable, assumed by themselves as a
term of honor,--"the poor in spirit,"--or (as Epiphanius, XXX. 17,
says the Ebionites of his day claimed) on account of their voluntarily
taking poverty upon themselves by laying their goods at the feet of
the apostles. But, however the name originated, it became soon, as
Christianity spread outside of Palestine, the special designation of
Jewish Christians as such, and thus when they began to be looked upon
as heretical, it became the name of the sect.
 hos me an dia mones tes eis ton christon pisteos kai tou kat'
auten biou sothesomenois. The addition of the last clause reveals the
difference between the doctrine of Eusebius' time and the doctrine of
Paul. Not until the Reformation was Paul understood and the true
formula, dia mones tes eis ton christon pisteos, restored.
 Eusebius clearly knew of no distinction in name between these
two classes of Ebionites such as is commonly made between Nazarenes
and Ebionites,--nor did Origen, whom he follows (see note 1, above).
 That there were two different views among the Ebionites as to
the birth of Christ is stated frequently by Origen (cf. e.g. Contra
Cels. V. 61), but there was unanimity in the denial of his
pre-existence and essential divinity, and this constituted the essence
of the heresy in the eyes of the Fathers from Irenæus on. Irenæus, as
remarked above (note 1), knows of no such difference as Eusebius here
mentions: and that the denial of the supernatural birth even in the
time of Origen was in fact ordinarily attributed to the Ebionites in
general, without a distinction of the two classes, is seen by Origen's
words in his Hom. in Luc. XVII.
 There seems to have been no difference between these two classes
in regard to their relation to the law; the distinction made by Justin
is no longer noticed.
 This is mentioned by Irenæus (I. 26. 2) and by Origen (Cont.
Cels. V. 65 and Hom. in Jer. XVIII. 12). It was a general
characteristic of the sect of the Ebionites as known to the Fathers,
from the time of Origen on, and but a continuation of the enmity to
Paul shown by the Judaizers during his lifetime. But their relations
to Paul and to the Jewish law fell more and more into the background,
as remarked above, as their Christological heresy came into greater
prominence over against the developed Christology of the Catholic
Church (cf. e.g. the accounts of Tertullian and of Hippolytus with
that of Irenæus). The "these" (houtoi de) here would seem to refer
only to the second class of Ebionites; but we know from the very
nature of the case, as well as from the accounts of others, that this
conduct was true as well of the first, and Eusebius, although he may
have been referring only to the second, cannot have intended to
exclude the first class in making the statement.
 Eusebius is the first to tell us that the Ebionites used the
Gospel according to the Hebrews. Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 26. 2, III. 11.
7) says that they used the Gospel of Matthew, and the fact that he
mentions no difference between it and the canonical Matthew shows
that, so far as he knew, they were the same. But according to
Eusebius, Jerome, and Epiphanius the Gospel according to the Hebrews
was used by the Ebionites, and, as seen above (chap. 25, note 18),
this Gospel cannot have been identical with the canonical Matthew.
Either, therefore, the Gospel used by the Ebionites in the time of
Irenæus, and called by him simply the Gospel of Matthew, was something
different from the canonical Matthew, or else the Ebionites had given
up the Gospel of Matthew for another and a different gospel (for the
Gospel of the Hebrews cannot have been an outgrowth of the canonical
Matthew, as has been already seen, chap. 25, note 24). The former is
much more probable, and the difficulty may be most simply explained by
supposing that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is identical with
the so-called Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (see chap. 24, note 5), or at
least that it passed among the earliest Jewish Christians under
Matthew's name, and that Irenæus, who was personally acquainted with
the sect, simply hearing that they used a Gospel of Matthew, naturally
supposed it to be identical with the canonical Gospel. In the time of
Jerome a Hebrew "Gospel according to the Hebrews" was used by the
"Nazarenes and Ebionites" as the Gospel of Matthew (cf. in Matt. XII.
13; Contra Pelag. III. 2). Jerome refrains from expressing his own
judgment as to its authorship, but that he did not consider it in its
existing form identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is clear
from his words in de vir. ill. chap. 3, taken in connection with the
fact that he himself translated it into Greek and Latin, as he states
in chap. 2. Epiphanius (Hær. XXIX. 9) says that the Nazarenes still
preserved the original Hebrew Matthew in full, while the Ebionites
(XXX. 13) had a Gospel of Matthew "not complete, but spurious and
mutilated"; and elsewhere (XXX. 3) he says that the Ebionites used the
Gospel of Matthew and called it the "Gospel according to the Hebrews."
It is thus evident that he meant to distinguish the Gospel of the
Ebionites from that of the Nazarenes, i.e. the Gospel according to the
Hebrews from the original Hebrew Matthew. So, likewise. Eusebius'
treatment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and of the Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew clearly indicates that he considered them two
different gospels (cf. e.g. his mention of the former in chap. 25 and
in Bk. IV. chap. 22, and his mention of the latter in chap. 24, and in
Bk. IV. chap. 10). Of course he knew that the former was not identical
with the canonical Matthew, and hence, naturally supposing that the
Hebrew Matthew agreed with the canonical Matthew, he could not do
otherwise than make a distinction between the Gospel according to the
Hebrews and the Hebrew Matthew, and he must therefore make the change
which he did in Irenæus' statement in mentioning the Gospel used by
the Ebionites, as he knew them. Moreover, as we learn from Bk. VI.
chap. 17, the Ebionite Symmachus had written against the Gospel of
Matthew (of course the canonical Gospel), and this fact would only
confirm Eusebius in his opinion that Irenæus was mistaken, and that
the Ebionites did not use the Gospel of Matthew. But none of these
facts militate against the assumption that the Gospel of the Hebrews
in its original form was identical with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew,
or at least passed originally under his name among Jewish Christians.
For it is by no means certain that the original Hebrew Matthew agreed
with the canonical Matthew, and, therefore, lack of resemblance
between the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the canonical Matthew
is no argument against its identity with the Hebrew Matthew. Moreover,
it is quite conceivable that, in the course of time, the original
Gospel according to the Hebrews underwent alterations, especially
since it was in the hands of a sect which was growing constantly more
heretical, and that, therefore, its resemblance to the canonical
Matthew may have been even less in the time of Eusebius and Jerome
than at the beginning. It is possible that the Gospel of Matthew,
which Jerome claims to have seen in the library at Cæsarea (de vir.
ill. chap. 3), may have been an earlier, and hence less corrupt, copy
of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Since the writing of this
note, Handmann's work on the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Das
Hebräer-Evangelium, von Rudolf Handmann. Von Gebhardt and Harnack's
Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. V. Heft 3) has come into my hands, and I
find that he denies that that Gospel is to be in any way identified
with the traditional Hebrew Matthew, or that it bore the name of
Matthew. The reasons which he gives, however, are practically the same
as those referred to in this note, and, as already shown, do not prove
that the two were not originally identical. Handmann holds that the
Gospel among the Jewish Christians was called simply "the Gospel," or
some general name of the kind, and that it received from others the
name "Gospel according to the Hebrews," because it was used by them.
This may well be, but does not militate at all against the existence
of a tradition among the Jewish Christians that Matthew was the author
of their only gospel. Handmann makes the Gospel according to the
Hebrews a second independent source of the Synoptic Gospels alongside
of the "Ur-Marcus," (a theory which, if accepted, would go far to
establish its identity with the Hebrew Matthew), and even goes so far
as to suggest that it is to be identified with the logia of Papias
(cf. the writer's notice of Handmann's book, in the Presbyterian
Review, July, 1889). For the literature on this Gospel, see chap. 25,
note 24. I find that Resch in his Agrapha emphasizes the apocryphal
character of the Gospel in its original form, and makes it later than
and in part dependent upon our Matthew, but I am unable to agree with
 The question again arises whether Eusebius is referring here to
the second class of Ebionites only, and is contrasting their conduct
in regard to Sabbath observance with that of the first class, or
whether he refers to all Ebionites, and contrasts them with the Jews.
The subject remains the same as in the previous sentence; but the
persons referred to are contrasted with ekeinoi, whom they resemble in
their observance of the Jewish Sabbath, but from whom they differ in
their observance of the Lord's day. The most natural interpretation of
the Greek is that which makes the houtoi de refer to the second class
of Ebionites, and the ekeinoi to the first; and yet we hear from no
one else of two sharply defined classes separated by religious
customs, in addition to doctrinal opinions, and it is not likely that
they existed. If this interpretation, however, seems necessary, we may
conclude that some of them observed the Lord's day, while others did
not, and that Eusebius naturally identified the former with the more,
and the latter with the less, orthodox class, without any especial
information upon the subject. It is easier, too, to explain Eusebius'
suggestion of a second derivation for the name of Ebionite, if we
assume that he is distinguishing here between the two classes. Having
given above a reason for calling the first class by that name, he now
gives the reason for calling the second class by the same.
 See note 2.
Chapter XXVIII.--Cerinthus the Heresiarch.
1. We have understood that at this time Cerinthus,  the author of
another heresy, made his appearance. Caius, whose words we quoted
above,  in the Disputation which is ascribed to him, writes as
follows concerning this man:
2. "But Cerinthus also, by means of revelations which he pretends were
written by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things which he
falsely claims were shown him by angels; and he says that after the
resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be set up on earth, and that
the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem will again be subject to desires and
pleasures. And being an enemy of the Scriptures of God, he asserts,
with the purpose of deceiving men, that there is to be a period of a
thousand years  for marriage festivals." 
3. And Dionysius,  who was bishop of the parish of Alexandria in
our day, in the second book of his work On the Promises, where he says
some things concerning the Apocalypse of John which he draws from
tradition, mentions this same man in the following words: 
4. "But (they say that) Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was
called, after him, the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for
his fiction, prefixed the name. For the doctrine which he taught was
this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one.
5. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and
altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would
consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of
the belly and of sexual passion, that is to say, in eating and
drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying
of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his
appetites with a better grace."
6. These are the words of Dionysius. But Irenæus, in the first book of
his work Against Heresies,  gives some more abominable false
doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which
deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that
the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that
Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the
door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him.
And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, "Let
us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
 The earliest account which we have of Cerinthus is that of
Irenæus (Adv. Hær. I. 26. 1; cf. III. 3. 4, quoted at the end of this
Chapter, and 11. 1), according to which Cerinthus, a man educated in
the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the
supreme God, but by a certain power distinct from him. He denied the
supernatural birth of Jesus, making him the son of Joseph and Mary,
and distinguishing him from Christ, who descended upon him at baptism
and left him again at his crucifixion. He was thus Ebionitic in his
Christology, but Gnostic in his doctrine of the creation. He claimed
no supernatural power for himself as did Simon Magus and Menander, but
pretended to angelic revelations, as recorded by Caius in this
paragraph. Irenæus (who is followed by Hippolytus, VII. 21 and X. 17)
says nothing of his chiliastic views, but these are mentioned by Caius
in the present paragraph, by Dionysius (quoted by Eusebius, VII. 25,
below), by Theodoret (Hær. Fab. II. 3), and by Augustine (De Hær. I.
8), from which accounts we can see that those views were very sensual.
The fullest description which we have of Cerinthus and his followers
is that of Epiphanius (Hær. XXVIII.), who records a great many
traditions as to his life (e.g. that he was one of the false apostles
who opposed Paul, and one of the circumcision who rebuked Peter for
eating with Cornelius, &c.), and also many details as to his system,
some of which are quite contradictory. It is clear, however, that he
was Jewish in his training and sympathies, while at the same time
possessed of Gnostic tendencies. He represents a position of
transition from Judaistic Ebionism to Gnosticism, and may be regarded
as the earliest Judaizing Gnostic. Of his death tradition tells us
nothing, and as to his dates we can say only that he lived about the
end of the first century. Irenæus (III. 2. 1) supposed John to have
written his gospel and epistle in opposition to Cerinthus. On the
other hand, Cerinthus himself was regarded by some as the author of
the Apocalypse (see Bk. VII. chap. 25, below), and most absurdly as
the author of the Fourth Gospel also (see above, chap. 24, note 1).
 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §7. Upon Caius, see the note given there.
The Disputation is the same that is quoted in that passage.
 Cf. Rev. xx. 4. On chiliasm in the early Church, see below,
chap. 39, note 19.
 It is a commonly accepted opinion founded upon this passage that
Caius rejected the apostolic authorship of the Apocalypse and
considered it a work of Cerinthus. But the quotation by no means
implies this. Had he believed that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse
commonly ascribed to John, he would certainly have said so plainly,
and Eusebius would just as certainly have quoted his opinion,
prejudiced as he was himself against the Apocalypse. Caius simply
means that Cerinthus abused and misinterpreted the vision of the
Apocalypse for his own sensual purposes. That this is the meaning is
plain from the words "being an enemy to the Divine Scriptures," and
especially from the fact that in the Johannine Apocalypse itself occur
no such sensual visions as Caius mentions here. The sensuality was
evidently superimposed by the interpretation of Cerinthus. Cf. Weiss'
N. T. Einleitung, p. 82.
 Upon Dionysius and his writings, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 40,
 The same passage is quoted with its context in Bk. VII. chap.
25, below. The verbs in the portion of the passage quoted here are all
in the infinitive, and we see, from Bk. VII. chap. 25, that they
depend upon an indefinite legousin, "they say"; so that Eusebius is
quite right here in saying that Dionysius is drawing from tradition in
making the remarks which he does. Inasmuch as the verbs are not
independent, and the statement is not, therefore, Dionysius' own, I
have inserted, at the beginning of the quotation, the words "they say
that," which really govern all the verbs of the passage. Dionysius
himself rejected the theory of Cerinthus' authorship of the
Apocalypse, as may be seen from Bk. VII. chap. 25, §7.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 26. 1.
 See ibid. III. 3. 4. This story is repeated by Eusebius, in Bk.
IV. chap. 14. There is nothing impossible in it. The occurrence fits
well the character of John as a "son of thunder," and shows the same
spirit exhibited by Polycarp in his encounter with Marcion (see below,
Bk. IV. chap. 14). But the story is not very well authenticated, as
Irenæus did not himself hear it from Polycarp, but only from others to
whom Polycarp had told it. The unreliability of such second-hand
tradition is illustrated abundantly in the case of Irenæus himself,
who gives some reports, very far from true, upon the authority of
certain presbyters (e.g. that Christ lived fifty years; II. 22. 5).
This same story, with much more fullness of detail, is repeated by
Epiphanius (Hær. XXX. 24), but of Ebion (who never existed), instead
of Cerinthus. This shows that the story was a very common one, while,
at the same time, so vague in its details as to admit of an
application to any heretic who suited the purpose. That somebody met
somebody in a bath seems quite probable, and there is nothing to
prevent our accepting the story as it stands in Irenæus, if we choose
to do so. One thing, at least, is certain, that Cerinthus is a
historical character, who in all probability was, for at least a part
of his life, contemporary with John, and thus associated with him in
tradition, whether or not he ever came into personal contact with him.
Chapter XXIX.--Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.
1. At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its
appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in
the Apocalypse of John.  They boasted that the author of their
sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were
appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor.
 Clement of Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata,
relates the following things concerning him. 
2. "They say that he had a beautiful wife, and after the ascension of
the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy, he led her
into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry
her. For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his,
that one ought to abuse the flesh. And those that have followed his
heresy, imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said,
commit fornication without shame.
3. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than
her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are
concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old
age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought
his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he
was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression,
`to abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of
those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in
accordance with the command of the Saviour, he did not wish to serve
two masters, pleasure and the Lord. 
4. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we
ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for
the sake of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge."
 So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the
truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely
 Rev. ii. 6, 15. Salmon, in his article Nicolaitans, in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog., states, as I think, quite correctly, that "there
really is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so
called after the death of the apostle John"; and in this he is in
agreement with many modern scholars. An examination of extant accounts
of this sect seems to show that nothing more was known of the
Nicolaitans by any of the Fathers than what is told in the Apocalypse.
Justin, whose lost work against heretics Irenæus follows in his
description of heresies, seems to have made no mention of the
Nicolaitans, for they are dragged in by Irenæus at the close of the
text, quite out of their chronological place. Irenæus (I. 26. 3; III.
11. 1) seems to have made up his account from the Apocalypse, and to
have been the sole source for later writers upon this subject. That
the sect was licentious is told us by the Apocalypse. That Nicolas,
one of the Seven, was their founder is stated by Irenæus (I. 26. 3),
Hippolytus (VII. 24), Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Hær. chap. 1), and
Epiphanius (Hær. 25), the last two undoubtedly drawing their account
from Hippolytus, and he in turn from Irenæus. Jerome and the writers
of his time and later accept this view, believing that Nicolas became
licentious and fell into the greatest wickedness. Whether the sect
really claimed Nicolas as their founder, or whether the combination
was made by Irenæus in consequence of the identity of his name with
the name of a sect mentioned in the Apocalypse, we cannot tell; nor
have we any idea, in the latter case, where the sect got the name
which they bore. Clement of Alexandria, in the passage quoted just
below, gives us quite a different account of the character of Nicolas;
and as he is a more reliable writer than the ones above quoted, and as
his statement explains excellently the appeal of the sect to Nicolas'
authority, without impeaching his character, which certainly his
position among the Seven would lead us to expect was good, and good
enough to warrant permanence, we feel safe in accepting his account as
the true one, and denying that Nicolas himself bore the character
which marked the sect of the Nicolaitans; though the latter may, as
Clement says, have arisen from abusing a saying of Nicolas which had
been uttered with a good motive.
 See Acts vi
 Stromata, III. 4.
 Compare Matt. vi. 24.
 This teaching was found in the Gospel of Matthias, or the
paradoseis Matthiou, mentioned in chap. 25 (see note 30 on that
Chapter XXX.--The Apostles that were Married.
1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the
above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who
rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives.  "Or will
they," says he,  "reject even the apostles? For Peter  and
Philip  begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in
marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet
his wife,  whom he did not take about with him, that he might not
be inconvenienced in his ministry."
2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to
subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is
worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as
follows:  "They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw
his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and
her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and
comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, `Oh thou, remember
the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect
disposition toward those dearest to them." This account being in
keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper
 A Chapter intervenes between the quotation given by Eusebius
just above and the one which follows. In it Clement had referred to
two classes of heretics,--without giving their names,--one of which
encouraged all sorts of license, while the other taught celibacy.
Having in that place refuted the former class, he devotes the Chapter
from which the following quotation is taken to a refutation of the
latter, deducing against them the fact that some of the apostles were
married. Clement here, as in his Quis dives salvetur (quoted in chap.
23), shows his good common sense which led him to avoid the extreme of
asceticism as well as that of license. He was in this an exception to
most of the Fathers of his own and subsequent ages, who in their
reaction from the licentiousness of the times advised and often
encouraged by their own example the most rigid asceticism, and thus
laid the foundation for monasticism.
 Strom.III. 6.
 Peter was married, as we know from Matt. viii. 14 (cf. 1 Cor.
ix. 5). Tradition also tells us of a daughter, St. Petronilla. She is
first called St. Peter's daughter in the Apocryphal Acts of SS. Nereus
and Achilles, which give a legendary account of her life and death. In
the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla was buried an Aurelia
Petronilla filia dulcissima, and Petronilla being taken as a
diminutive of Petrus, she was assumed to have been a daughter of
Peter. It is probable that this was the origin of the popular
tradition. Petronilla is not, however, a diminutive of Petrus, and it
is probable that this woman was one of the Aurelian gens and a
relative of Flavia Domitilla. Compare the article Petronilla in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. Petronilla has played a prominent rôle in art.
The immense painting by Guercino in the Palace of the Conservators in
Rome attracts the attention of all visitors.
 It is probable that Clement here confounds Philip the evangelist
with Philip the apostle. See the next Chapter, note 6. Philip the
evangelist, according to Acts xxi. 9, had four daughters who were
virgins. Clement (assuming that he is speaking of the same Philip) is
the only one to tell us that they afterward married, and he tells us
nothing about their husbands. Polycrates in the next Chapter states
that two of them at least remained virgins. If so, Clement's statement
can apply at most only to the other two. Whether his report is correct
as respects them we cannot tell.
 The passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in
this connection is 1 Cor. ix. 5; but this by no means proves that Paul
was married, and 1 Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite, though the
words might be used if he were a widower. The words of Philip. iv. 3
are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is no authority
for such a reference. Clement is the only Father who reports that Paul
was married; many of them expressly deny it; e.g. Tertullian, Hilary,
Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. The authority of these later Fathers is of
course of little account. But Clement's conclusion is based solely
upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is no argument for the truth of
 Strom.VII. 11. Clement, so far as we know, is the only one to
relate this story, but he bases it upon tradition, and although its
truth cannot be proved, there is nothing intrinsically improbable in
Chapter XXXI.--The Death of John and Philip.
1. The time and the manner of the death of Paul and Peter as well as
their burial places, have been already shown by us. 
2. The time of John's death has also been given in a general way,
 but his burial place is indicated by an epistle of Polycrates
 (who was bishop of the parish of Ephesus), addressed to Victor,
 bishop of Rome. In this epistle he mentions him together with
the apostle Philip and his daughters in the following words: 
3. "For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise
again on the last day, at the coming of the Lord, when he shall come
with glory from heaven and shall seek out all the saints. Among these
are Philip, one of the twelve apostles,  who sleeps in
Hierapolis,  and his two aged virgin daughters, and another
daughter who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; 
and moreover John, who was both a witness  and a teacher, who
reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and being a priest wore the
sacerdotal plate.  He also sleeps at Ephesus." 
4. So much concerning their death. And in the Dialogue of Caius which
we mentioned a little above,  Proclus,  against whom he
directed his disputation, in agreement with what has been quoted,
 speaks thus concerning the death of Philip and his daughters:
"After him  there were four prophetesses, the daughters of
Philip, at Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and the tomb of
their father." Such is his statement.
5. But Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, mentions the daughters of
Philip who were at that time at Cæsarea in Judea with their father,
and were honored with the gift of prophecy. His words are as follows:
"We came unto Cæsarea; and entering into the house of Philip the
evangelist, who was one of the seven, we abode with him. Now this man
had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy." 
6. We have thus set forth in these pages what has come to our
knowledge concerning the apostles themselves and the apostolic age,
and concerning the sacred writings which they have left us, as well as
concerning those which are disputed, but nevertheless have been
publicly used by many in a great number of churches,  and
moreover, concerning those that are altogether rejected and are out of
harmony with apostolic orthodoxy. Having done this, let us now proceed
with our history.
 See Bk. II. chap. 25, §§5 sqq.
 See chap. 23, §§3, 4.
 Upon Polycrates, see Bk. V. chap. 22, note 9.
 Upon Victor, see ibid. note 1.
 This epistle is the only writing of Polycrates which is
preserved to us. This passage, with considerably more of the same
epistle, is quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 24. From that Chapter we see
that the epistle was written in connection with the Quarto-deciman
controversy, and after saying, "We therefore observe the genuine day,"
Polycrates goes on in the words quoted here to mention the "great
lights of Asia" as confirming his own practice. (See the notes upon
the epistle in Bk. V. chap. 24.) The citation here of this incidental
passage from a letter upon a wholly different subject illustrates
Eusebius' great diligence in searching out all historical notices
which could in any way contribute to his history.
 Philip the apostle and Philip the evangelist are here
confounded. That they were really two different men is clear enough
from Luke's account in the Acts (cf. Acts vi. 2-5, viii. 14-17, and
xxi. 8). That it was the evangelist, and not the apostle, that was
buried in Hierapolis may be assumed upon the following grounds: (1)
The evangelist (according to Acts xxi. 8) had four daughters, who were
virgins and prophetesses. Polycrates speaks here of three daughters,
at least two of whom were virgins, and Proclus, just below, speaks of
four daughters who were prophetesses. (2) Eusebius, just below,
expressly identifies the apostle and evangelist, showing that in his
time there was no separate tradition of the two men. Lightfoot
(Colossians, p. 45) maintains that Polycrates is correct, and that it
was the apostle, not the evangelist, that was buried in Hierapolis;
but the reasons which he gives are trivial and will hardly convince
scholars in general. Certainly we need strong grounds to justify the
separation of two men so remarkably similar so far as their families
are concerned. But the truth is, there is nothing more natural than
that later generations should identify the evangelist with the apostle
of the same name, and should assume the presence of the latter
wherever the former was known to have been. This identification would
in itself be a welcome one to the inhabitants of Hierapolis, and hence
it would be assumed there more readily than anywhere else. Of course
it is not impossible that Philip the apostle also had daughters who
were virgins and prophetesses, but it is far more probable that
Polycrates (and possibly Clement too; see the previous Chapter)
confounded him with the evangelist,--as every one may have done for
some generations before them. Eusebius at any rate, historian though
he was, saw no difficulty in making the identification, and certainly
it was just as easy for Polycrates and Clement to do the same.
Lightfoot makes something of the fact that Polycrates mentions only
three daughters, instead of four. But the latter's words by no means
imply that there had not been a fourth daughter (see note 8, below).
 Hierapolis was a prominent city in Proconsular Asia, about five
miles north of Laodicea, in connection with which city it is mentioned
in Col. iv. 13. The ruins of this city are quite extensive, and its
site is occupied by a village called Pambouk Kelessi.
 The fact that only three of Philip's daughters are mentioned
here, when from the Acts we know he had four, shows that the fourth
had died elsewhere; and therefore it would have been aside from
Polycrates' purpose to mention her, since, as we see from Bk. V. chap.
24, he was citing only those who had lived in Asia (the province), and
had agreed as to the date of the Passover. The separate mention of
this third daughter by Polycrates has been supposed to arise from the
fact that she was married, while the other two remained virgins. This
is, however, not at all implied, as the fact that she was buried in a
different place would be enough to cause the separate mention of her.
Still, inasmuch as Clement (see the preceding Chapter) reports that
Philip's daughters were married, and inasmuch as Polycrates expressly
states that two of them were virgins, it is quite possible that she
(as well as the fourth daughter, not mentioned here) may have been a
married woman, which would, perhaps, account for her living in Ephesus
and being buried there, instead of with her father and sister in
Hierapolis. It is noticeable that while two of the daughters are
expressly called virgins, the third is not.
 mEURrtus; see chap. 32, note 15.
 The Greek word is petagon, which occurs in the LXX. as the
technical term for the plate or diadem of the high priest (cr. Ex.
xxviii. 36, &c.). What is meant by the word in the present connection
is uncertain. Epiphanius (Hær. LXXVII. 14) says the same thing of
James, the brother of the Lord. But neither James nor John was a
Jewish priest, and therefore the words can be taken literally in
neither case. Valesius and others have thought that John and James,
and perhaps others of the apostles, actually wore something resembling
the diadem of the high priest; but this is not at all probable. The
words are either to be taken in a purely figurative sense, as meaning
that John bore the character of a priest,--i.e. the high priest of
Christ as his most beloved disciple,--or, as Hefele suggests, the
report is to be regarded as a mythical tradition which arose after the
second Jewish war. See Kraus' Real-Encyclopædie der christlichen
Alterthümer, Band II. p. 212 sq.
 Upon John's Ephesian activity and his death there, see Bk. III.
chap. 1, note 6.
 Bk. II. chap. 25, §6, and Bk. III. chap. 28, §1. Upon Caius and
his dialogue with Proclus, see the former passage, note 8.
 Upon Proclus, a Montanistic leader, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note
 The agreement of the two accounts is not perfect, as Polycrates
reports that two daughters were buried at Hierapolis and one at
Ephesus, while Proclus puts them all four at Hierapolis. But the
report of Polycrates deserves our credence rather than that of
Proclus, because, in the first place, Polycrates was earlier than
Proclus; in the second place, his report is more exact, and it is hard
to imagine how, if all four were really buried in one place, the more
detailed report of Polycrates could have arisen, while on the other
hand it is quite easy to explain the rise of the more general but
inexact account of Proclus; for with the general tradition that Philip
and his daughters lived and died in Hierapolis needed only to be
combined the fact that he had four daughters, and Proclus' version was
complete. In the third place, Polycrates' report bears the stamp of
truth as contrasted with mere legend, because it accounts for only
three daughters, while universal tradition speaks of four. How
Eusebius could have overlooked the contradiction it is more difficult
to explain. He can hardly have failed to notice it, but was
undoubtedly unable to account for the difference, and probably
considered it too small a matter to concern himself about. He was
quite prone to accept earlier accounts just as they stood, whether
contradictory or not. The fact that they had been recorded was usually
enough for him, if they contained no improbable or fabulous stories.
He cannot be accused of intentional deception at this point, for he
gives the true accounts side by side, so that every reader might judge
of the agreement for himself. Upon the confusion of the apostle and
evangelist, see above, note 6.
 I read meta touton with the majority of the mss., with Burton,
Routh, Schwegler, Heinichen, &c., instead of meta touto, which occurs
in some mss. and in Rufinus, and is adopted by Valesius, Crusè, and
others. As Burton says, the copyists of Eusebius, not knowing to whom
Proclus here referred, changed touton to touto; but if we had the
preceding context we should find that Proclus had been referring to
some prophetic man such as the Montanists were fond of appealing to in
support of their position. Schwegler suggests that it may have been
the Quadratus mentioned in chap. 37, but this is a mere guess. As the
sentence stands isolated from its connection, touton is the harder
reading, and could therefore have more easily been changed into touto
than the latter into touton.
 Acts xxi. 8, 9. Eusebius clearly enough considers Philip the
apostle and Philip the evangelist identical. Upon this identification,
see note 6, above.
 hieron grammEURton, kai ton antilegomenon men,
homos...dedemosieumenon. The classification here is not inconsistent
with that given in chap. 25, but is less complete than it, inasmuch as
here Eusebius draws no distinction between antilegomena and nothoi,
but uses the former word in its general sense, and includes under it
both the particular classes (Antilegomena and nothoi) of chap. 25 (see
note 27 on that Chapter).
Chapter XXXII.--Symeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, suffers Martyrdom.
1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the
emperor whose times we are now recording,  a persecution was
stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular
uprising.  In this persecution we have understood that Symeon,
the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the
church of Jerusalem,  suffered martyrdom.
2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places,
 is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics
 he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since
it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways
for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his
attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death
similar to that of our Lord. 
3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes
as follows: "Certain of these heretics brought accusation against
Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of
David  and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the
age of one hundred and twenty years,  while Trajan was emperor
and Atticus governor." 
4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was
made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that
family.  And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one
of those that saw and heard the Lord,  judging from the length of
his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the
wife of Clopas,  who was the father of Symeon, as has been
already shown. 
5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from
one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas,
who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been
already recorded,  in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the
6. He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of
every church  as witnesses  and as relatives of the Lord.
And profound peace being established in every church, they remained
until the reign of the Emperor Trajan,  and until the
above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was
informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner
accused for the same cause  before the governor Atticus. 
And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all,
including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred
and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that
he should be crucified."
7. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the
events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had
remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that
attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation,
they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.
8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in
various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy
to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then
the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of
heretical teachers,  who, because none of the apostles was still
living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in
opposition to the preaching of the truth, the `knowledge which is
falsely so-called.' 
 Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d.
 Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next
Chapter, with the notes.
 See chap. 11.
 Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and
mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 11. Upon his life and writings, see Bk.
IV. chap. 8, note 1.
 In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, §4, Hegesippus speaks
of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted there
directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus.
 That is, by crucifixion, as stated in §6.
 It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the imperial
authorities, but was accused to them as a descendant of David and as a
Christian. The former accusation shows with what suspicion all members
of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible instigators
of a revolution (cf. chap. 20, note 2); the latter shows that in the
eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see the next
Chapter, note 6). In the next paragraph it is stated that search was
made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal family. This was
quite natural, after the attention of the government had been
officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon.
 The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain. It has
been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Ignatius) to
the year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius' Chron., which is
supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth year of
Trajan's reign. But an examination of the passage in the Chron., where
Eusebius groups together these two events and the persecutions in
Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the exact date of any
of them, and simply put them together as three similar events known to
have occurred during the reign of Trajan (cf. Lightfoot's Ignatius,
II. p. 447 sqq.). The year of Atticus' proconsulship we unfortunately
do not know, although Wieseler, in his Christen-Verfolgungen der
Cæsaren, p. 126, cites Waddington as his authority for the statement
that Herodes Atticus was proconsul of Palestine from 105 to 107; but
all that Waddington says (Fastes des prov. Asiat., p. 720) is, that
since the proconsul for the years 105 to 107 is not known, and
Eusebius puts the death of Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of
Trajan, we may assume that this was the date of Atticus'
proconsulship. This, of course, furnishes no support for the common
opinion. Lightfoot, on account of the fact that Symeon was the son of
Clopas, wishes to put the martyrdom earlier in Trajan's reign, and it
is probable that it occurred earlier rather than later; more cannot be
said. The great age of Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too
well authenticated to admit of doubt; at the same time, the figure 120
may well be an exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks. Renan (Les
Evangiles, p. 466) considers it very improbable that Symeon could have
had so long a life and episcopate, and therefore invents a second
Symeon, a great-grandson of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and
makes him the martyr mentioned here. But there is nothing improbable
in the survival of a contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and
there is no warrant for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous in
calling Symeon the son of Clopas, and also in emphasizing his great
 epi Traianou kaisaros kai hupatikou 'Attikou. The nouns being
without the article, the phrase is to be translated, "while Trajan was
emperor, and Atticus governor." In §6, below, where the article is
used, we must translate, "before Atticus the governor" (see
Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 59). The word hupatikos is an adjective
signifying "consular, pertaining to a consul." It "came to be used in
the second century especially of provincial governors who had held the
consulship, and at a later date of such governors even though they
might not have been consuls" (Lightfoot, p. 59, who refers to
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, I. 409).
 This is a peculiar statement. Members of the house of David
would hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he
belonged to that house. The statement is, however, quite indefinite.
We are not told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that they
really were of David's line, although the hosEURn with which Eusebius
introduces the charge does not imply any doubt in his own mind, as
Lightfoot quite rightly remarks. It is possible that some who were of
the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of being a member of
that family, but only of being a Christian, and that the report of the
occurrence may have become afterward confused.
 This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous
election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must
have been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the conclusion.
 Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in John xix. 25.
 See above, chap. 11.
 See above, chap. 20.
 See p. 389, note.
 mEURrtures. The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense
of "witnesses," referring to those who testified to Christ even if
they did not seal their testimony with death. This was the original
use of the word, and continued very common during the first two
centuries, after which it became the technical term for persons
actually martyred and was confined to them, while homologetes,
"confessor," gradually came into use as the technical term for those
who had borne testimony in the midst of persecution, but had not
suffered death. As early as the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and
Rev. ii. 13) mEURrtus was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing
them from other witnesses to the truth. See the remarks of Lightfoot,
in his edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46.
 This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius'
own words in chap. 20, §8. See note 5 on that Chapter.
 epi to auto logo, that is, was accused for the same reason that
the grandsons of Judas (whom Hegesippus had mentioned just before)
were; namely, because he belonged to the line of David. See chap. 20;
but compare also the remarks made in note 10, above.
 epi 'Attikou tou hupatikou. See above, note 9.
 On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.
 ten pseudonumon gnosin; 1 Tim. vi. 20. A few mss., followed by
Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusè, add the words (in
substance): "Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But let us proceed
with the course of our history." The majority of the mss., however,
endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed by Burton, Heinichen,
and most of the editors, omit the words, which are clearly an
Chapter XXXIII.--Trajan forbids the Christians to be sought after.
1. So great a persecution was at that time opened against us in many
places that Plinius Secundus, one of the most noted of governors,
being disturbed by the great number of martyrs, communicated with the
emperor concerning the multitude of those that were put to death for
their faith.  At the same time, he informed him in his
communication that he had not heard of their doing anything profane or
contrary to the laws,--except that they arose at dawn  and sang
hymns to Christ as a God; but that they renounced adultery and murder
and like criminal offenses, and did all things in accordance with the
2. In reply to this Trajan made the following decree: that the race of
Christians should not be sought after, but when found should be
punished. On account of this the persecution which had threatened to
be a most terrible one was to a certain degree checked, but there were
still left plenty of pretexts for those who wished to do us harm.
Sometimes the people, sometimes the rulers in various places, would
lay plots against us, so that, although no great persecutions took
place, local persecutions were nevertheless going on in particular
provinces,  and many of the faithful endured martyrdom in various
3. We have taken our account from the Latin Apology of Tertullian
which we mentioned above.  The translation runs as follows: 
"And indeed we have found that search for us has been forbidden. 
For when Plinius Secundus, the governor of a province, had condemned
certain Christians and deprived them of their dignity,  he was
confounded by the multitude, and was uncertain what further course to
pursue. He therefore communicated with Trajan the emperor, informing
him that, aside from their unwillingness to sacrifice,  he had
found no impiety in them.
4. And he reported this also, that the Christians arose  early in
the morning and sang hymns unto Christ as a God, and for the purpose
of preserving their discipline  forbade murder, adultery,
avarice, robbery, and the like. In reply to this Trajan wrote that the
race of Christians should not be sought after, but when found should
be punished." Such were the events which took place at that time.
 Plinius Cæcilius Secundus, commonly called "Pliny the younger"
to distinguish him from his uncle, Plinius Secundus the elder, was a
man of great literary attainments and an intimate friend of the
Emperor Trajan. Of his literary remains the most important are his
epistles, collected in ten books. The epistle of which Eusebius speaks
in this Chapter is No. 96 (97), and the reply of Trajan No. 97 (98) of
the tenth book. The epistle was written from Bithynia, probably within
a year after Pliny became governor there, which was in 110 or 111. It
reads as follows: "It is my custom, my Lord, to refer to thee all
questions concerning which I am in doubt; for who can better direct my
hesitation or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at
judicial examinations of the Christians; therefore I am ignorant how
and to what extent it is customary to punish or to search for them.
And I have hesitated greatly as to whether any distinction should be
made on the ground of age, or whether the weak should be treated in
the same way as the strong; whether pardon should be granted to the
penitent, or he who has ever been a Christian gain nothing by
renouncing it; whether the mere name, if unaccompanied with crimes, or
crimes associated with the name, should be punished. Meanwhile, with
those who have been brought before me as Christians I have pursued the
following course. I have asked them if they were Christians, and if
they have confessed, I have asked them a second and third time,
threatening them with punishment; if they have persisted, I have
commanded them to be led away to punishment. For I did not doubt that
whatever that might be which they confessed, at any rate pertinacious
and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There have been others
afflicted with like insanity who as Roman citizens I have decided
should be sent to Rome. In the course of the proceedings, as commonly
happens, the crime was extended, and many varieties of cases appeared.
An anonymous document was published, containing the names of many
persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians I
thought ought to be released, when they had followed my example in
invoking the gods and offering incense and wine to thine image,--which
I had for that purpose ordered brought with the images of the
gods,--and when they had besides cursed Christ--things which they say
that those who are truly Christians cannot be compelled to do. Others,
accused by an informer, first said that they were Christians and
afterwards denied it, saying that they had indeed been Christians, but
had ceased to be, some three years, some several years, and one even
twenty years before. All adored thine image and the statues of the
gods, and cursed Christ. Moreover, they affirmed that this was the sum
of their guilt or error; that they had been accustomed to come
together on a fixed day before daylight and to sing responsively a
song unto Christ as God; and to bind themselves with an oath, not with
a view to the commission of some crime, but, on the contrary, that
they would not commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, that they
would not break faith, nor refuse to restore a deposit when asked for
it. When they had done these things, their custom was to separate and
to assemble again to partake of a meal, common yet harmless (which is
not the characteristic of a nefarious superstition); but this they had
ceased to do after my edict, in which according to thy demands I had
prohibited fraternities. I therefore considered it the more necessary
to examine, even with the use of torture, two female slaves who were
called deaconesses (ministræ), in order to ascertain the truth. But I
found nothing except a superstition depraved and immoderate; and
therefore, postponing further inquiry, I have turned to thee for
advice. For the matter seems to me worth consulting about, especially
on account of the number of persons involved. For many of every age
and of every rank and of both sexes have been already, and will be
brought to trial. For the contagion of this superstition has permeated
not only the cities, but also the villages and even the country
districts. Yet it can apparently be arrested and corrected. At any
rate, it is certainly a fact that the temples, which were almost
deserted, are now beginning to be frequented, and the sacred rites,
which were for a long time interrupted, to be resumed, and fodder for
the victims to be sold, for which previously hardly a purchaser was to
be found. From which it is easy to gather how great a multitude of men
may be reformed if there is given a chance for repentance." The reply
of Trajan--commonly called "Trajan's Rescript"--reads as follows:
"Thou hast followed the right course, my Secundus, in treating the
cases of those who have been brought before thee as Christians. For no
fixed rule can be laid down which shall be applicable to all cases.
They are not to be searched for; if they are accused and convicted,
they are to be punished; nevertheless, with the proviso that he who
denies that he is a Christian, and proves it by his act (re
ipsa),--i.e. by making supplication to our gods,--although suspected
in regard to the past, may by repentance obtain pardon. Anonymous
accusations ought not to be admitted in any proceedings; for they are
of most evil precedent, and are not in accord with our age."
 hama te zo diegeiromenous. See note 9, below.
 This is a very good statement of the case. There was nothing
approaching a universal persecution,--that is a persecution
simultaneously carried on in all parts of the empire, until the time
 Mentioned in Bk. II. chap. 2. On the translation of Tertullian's
Apology employed by Eusebius, see note 9 on that Chapter. The present
passage is rendered, on the whole, with considerable fidelity; much
more accurately than in the two cases noticed in the previous book.
 Apol.chap. 2.
 The view which Tertullian here takes of Trajan's rescript is
that it was, on the whole, favorable,--that the Christians stood after
it in a better state in relation to the law than before,--and this
interpretation of the edict was adopted by all the early Fathers, and
is, as we can see, accepted likewise by Eusebius (and so he entitles
this Chapter, not "Trajan commands the Christians to be punished, if
they persist in their Christianity," but "Trajan forbids the
Christians to be sought after," thus implying that the rescript is
favorable). But this interpretation is a decided mistake. Trajan's
rescript expressly made Christianity a religio illicita, and from that
time on it was a crime in the sight of the law to be a Christian;
whereas, before that time, the matter had not been finally determined,
and it had been left for each ruler to act just as he pleased. Trajan,
it is true, advises moderation in the execution of the law; but that
does not alter the fact that his rescript is an unfavorable one, which
makes the profession of Christianity--what it had not been before--a
direct violation of an established law. Compare, further, Bk. IV.
chap. 8, note 14.
 katakrinas christianous tinas kai tes axias ekbalon. The Latin
original reads: damnatis quibusdam christianis, quibusdam gradu
pulsis. The Greek translator loses entirely the antithesis of
quibusdam ...quibusdam (some he condemned, others he deprived of their
dignity). He renders gradu by tes axias, which is quite allowable; but
Thelwall, in his English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,
renders the second phrase, "and driven some from their steadfastness,"
in which the other sense of gradus is adopted.
 Greek: zxo tou me boulesthai autous eidololatrein. Latin
original: præter obstinationem non sacrificandi. The eidololatrein is
quite indefinite, and might refer to any kind of idolatry; but the
Latin sacrificandi is definite, referring clearly to the sacrifices
which the accused Christians were required to offer in the presence of
the governor, if they wished to save their lives. I have, therefore,
translated the Greek word in the light of the Latin word which it is
employed to reproduce.
 Greek: anistasthai heothen. Latin original: coetus antelucanos.
The Latin speaks of "assemblies" (which is justified by the ante lucem
convenire of Pliny's epistle), while the Greek (both here and in §1,
above) speaks only of "arising," and thus fails to reproduce the full
sense of the original.
 Greek: pros to ten epistemen auton diaphulEURssein. Latin
original: ad confoederandum disciplinam. The Greek translation is
again somewhat inaccurate. episteme (literally, "experience,"
"knowledge") expresses certain meanings of the word disciplina, but
does not strictly reproduce the sense in which the latter word is used
in this passage; namely, in the sense of moral discipline. I have
again translated the Greek version in the light of its Latin original.
Chapter XXXIV.--Evarestus, the Fourth Bishop of the Church of Rome.
1. In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above,
 Clement  committed the episcopal government of the church
of Rome to Evarestus,  and departed this life after he had
superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.
 The Emperor Trajan.
 On Clement of Rome, see chap. 4, note 19.
 In Bk. IV. chap. 1, Eusebius gives eight years as the duration
of Evarestus' episcopate; but in his Chron. he gives seven. Other
catalogues differ widely, both as to the time of his accession and the
duration of his episcopate. The truth is, as the monarchical
episcopate was not yet existing in Rome, it is useless to attempt to
fix his dates, or those of any of the other so-called bishops who
lived before the second quarter of the second century.
Chapter XXXV.--Justus, the Third Bishop of Jerusalem.
1. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described,  a
certain Jew by the name of Justus  succeeded to the episcopal
throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the
circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
 See above, chap. 32.
 Of this Justus we know no more than Eusebius tells us here.
Epiphanius (Hær. LXVI. 20) calls him Judas.
Chapter XXXVI.--Ignatius and His Epistles.
1. At that time Polycarp,  a disciple of the apostles, was a man
of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the
church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.
2. And at the same time Papias,  bishop of the parish of
Hierapolis,  became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was
chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose
fame is still celebrated by a great many. 
3. Report says that he was sent from Syria to Rome, and became food
for wild beasts on account of his testimony to Christ. 
4. And as he made the journey through Asia under the strictest
military surveillance, he fortified the parishes in the various cities
where he stopped by oral homilies and exhortations, and warned them
above all to be especially on their guard against the heresies that
were then beginning to prevail, and exhorted them to hold fast to the
tradition of the apostles. Moreover, he thought it necessary to attest
that tradition in writing, and to give it a fixed form for the sake of
5. So when he came to Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote an epistle
to the church of Ephesus,  in which he mentions Onesimus, its
pastor;  and another to the church of Magnesia, situated upon the
Mæander, in which he makes mention again of a bishop Damas; and
finally one to the church of Tralles, whose bishop, he states, was at
that time Polybius.
6. In addition to these he wrote also to the church of Rome,
entreating them not to secure his release from martyrdom, and thus rob
him of his earnest hope. In confirmation of what has been said it is
proper to quote briefly from this epistle.
7. He writes as follows:  "From Syria even unto Rome I fight with
wild beasts, by land and by sea, by night and by day, being bound
amidst ten leopards  that is, a company of soldiers who only
become worse when they are well treated. In the midst of their
wrongdoings, however, I am more fully learning discipleship, but I am
not thereby justified. 
8. May I have joy of the beasts that are prepared for me; and I pray
that I may find them ready; I will even coax them to devour me quickly
that they may not treat me as they have some whom they have refused to
touch through fear.  And if they are unwilling, I will compel
them. Forgive me.
9. I know what is expedient for me. Now do I begin to be a disciple.
May naught of things visible and things invisible envy me;  that
I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Let fire and cross and attacks of wild
beasts, let wrenching of bones, cutting of limbs, crushing of the
whole body, tortures of the devil,--let all these come upon me if only
I may attain unto Jesus Christ."
10. These things he wrote from the above-mentioned city to the
churches referred to. And when he had left Smyrna he wrote again from
Troas  to the Philadelphians and to the church of Smyrna; and
particularly to Polycarp, who presided over the latter church. And
since he knew him well as an apostolic man, he commended to him, like
a true and good shepherd, the flock at Antioch, and besought him to
care diligently for it. 
11. And the same man, writing to the Smyrnæans, used the following
words concerning Christ, taken I know not whence:  "But I know
and believe that he was in the flesh after the resurrection. And when
he came to Peter and his companions he said to them, Take, handle me,
and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.  And immediately
they touched him and believed." 
12. Irenæus also knew of his martyrdom and mentions his epistles in
the following words:  "As one of our people said, when he was
condemned to the beasts on account of his testimony unto God, I am
God's wheat, and by the teeth of wild beasts am I ground, that I may
be found pure bread."
13. Polycarp also mentions these letters in the epistle to the
Philippians which is ascribed to him.  His words are as follows:
 "I exhort all of you, therefore, to be obedient and to practice
all patience such as ye saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed
Ignatius and Rufus and Zosimus,  but also in others from among
yourselves as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles;
being persuaded that all these ran not in vain, but in faith and
righteousness, and that they are gone to their rightful place beside
the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not the present
world, but him that died for our sakes and was raised by God for us."
14. And afterwards he adds:  "You have written to me, both you
and Ignatius, that if any one go to Syria he may carry with him the
letters from you. And this I will do if I have a suitable opportunity,
either I myself or one whom I send to be an ambassador for you also.
15. The epistles of Ignatius which were sent to us by him and the
others which we had with us we sent to you as you gave charge. They
are appended to this epistle, and from them you will be able to derive
great advantage. For they comprise faith and patience, and every kind
of edification that pertaineth to our Lord." So much concerning
Ignatius. But he was succeeded by Heros  in the episcopate of the
church of Antioch.
 On Polycarp, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 5.
 Of the life of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, we know very
little. He is mentioned by Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 3 and 4, who
informs us that he was a companion of Polycarp and a hearer of the
apostle John. The latter statement is in all probability incorrect
(see chap. 39. note 4): but there is no reason to question the truth
of the former. Papias' dates we cannot ascertain with any great degree
of accuracy. A notice in the Chron. Paschale, which makes him a martyr
and connects his death with that of Polycarp, assigning both to the
year 164 a.d. has been shown by Lightfoot (Contemp. Review, 1875, II.
p. 381) to rest upon a confusion of names, and to be, therefore,
entirely untrustworthy. We learn, however, from chap. 39, below, that
Papias was acquainted with personal followers of the Lord (e.g. with
Aristion and the "presbyter John"), and also with the daughters of
Philip. He must, therefore, have reached years of maturity before the
end of the first century. On the other hand, the five books of his
Expositions cannot have been written very long before the middle of
the second century, for some of the extant fragments seem to show
traces of the existence of Gnosticism in a somewhat advanced form at
the time he wrote. With these data we shall not be far wrong in saying
that he was born in the neighborhood of 70 a.d., and died before the
middle of the second century. He was a pronounced chiliast (see chap.
39, note 19), and according to Eusebius, a man of limited
understanding (see chap. 39, note 20); but the claim of the Tübingen
school that he was an Ebionite is not supported by extant evidence
(see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 384). On the writings of Papias, see below,
chap. 39, note 1.
 Four mss. insert at this point the words aner ta pEURnta hoti
mEURlista logiotatos kai tes graphes eidemon ("a man of the greatest
learning in all lines and well versed in the Scriptures"), which are
accepted by Heinichen, Closs, and Crusè. The large majority of the
best mss., however, supported by Rufinus, and followed by Valesius (in
his notes), Stroth, Laemmer, Burton, and the German translator,
Stigloher, omit the words, which are undoubtedly to be regarded as an
interpolation, intended perhaps to offset the derogatory words used by
Eusebius in respect to Papias in chap. 39, §13. In discussing the
genuineness of these words, critics (among them Heinichen) have
concerned themselves too much with the question whether the opinion of
Papias expressed here contradicts that expressed in chap. 39, and
therefore, whether Eusebius can have written these words. Even if it
be possible to reconcile the two passages and to show that Papias may
have been a learned man, while at the same time he was of "limited
judgment," as Eusebius informs us, the fact nevertheless remains that
the weight of ms. authority is heavily against the genuineness of the
words, and that it is much easier to understand the interpolation than
the omission of such an expression in praise of one of the apostolic
Fathers, especially when the lack of any commendation here and in
chap. 39 must be unpleasantly noticeable.
 Eusebius follows what was undoubtedly the oldest tradition in
making Evodius the first bishop of Antioch, and Ignatius the second
(see above, chap. 22, note 2). Granting the genuineness of the shorter
Greek recension of the Ignatian epistles (to be mentioned below), the
fact that Ignatius was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria is
established by Ep. ad Rom. 9, compared with ad Smyr. 11 and ad
Polycarp. 7. If the genuineness of the epistles be denied, these
passages seem to prove at least his connection with the church of
Antioch and his influential position in it, for otherwise the forgery
of the epistles under his name would be inconceivable. There are few
more prominent figures in early Church history than Ignatius, and yet
there are few about whom we have less unquestioned knowledge. He is
known in history pre-eminently as a martyr. The greater part of his
life is buried in complete obscurity. It is only as a man condemned to
death for his profession of Christianity that he comes out into the
light, and it is with him in this character and with the martyrdom
which followed that tradition has busied itself. There are extant
various Acts of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius which contain detailed
accounts of his death, but these belong to the fourth and subsequent
centuries, are quite contradictory in their statements, and have been
conclusively proved to be utterly unreliable and to furnish no
trustworthy information on the subject in hand. From writers before
Eusebius we have but four notices of Ignatius (Polycarp's Ep. ad Phil.
9, 13; Irenæus' Adv. Hær. V. 18. 3, quoted below; Origen, Prol. in
Cant., and Hom. VI. in Luc.). These furnish us with very little
information. If the notice in Polycarp's epistle be genuine (and
though it has been widely attacked, there is no good reason to doubt
it), it furnishes us with our earliest testimony to the martyrdom of a
certain Ignatius and to the existence of epistles written by him.
Irenæus does not name Ignatius, but he testifies to the existence of
the Epistle to the Romans which bears his name, and to the martyrdom
of the author of that epistle. Origen informs us that Ignatius, the
author of certain epistles, was second bishop of the church of Antioch
and suffered martyrdom at Rome. Eusebius, in the present Chapter, is
the first one to give us an extended account of Ignatius, and his
account contains no information beyond what he might have drawn from
the Ignatian epistles themselves as they lay before him, except the
statements, already made by Origen, that Ignatius was the second
bishop of Antioch and suffered martyrdom at Rome. The former statement
must have rested on a tradition, at least in part, independent of the
epistles (for they imply only the fact of his Antiochian episcopacy,
without specifying the time); the latter might have arisen from the
epistles themselves (in which it is clearly stated that the writer is
on his way to Rome to suffer martyrdom), for of course it would be
natural to assume that his expectation was realized. The connection in
which Eusebius records the martyrdom implies that he believed that it
took place in the reign of Trajan, and in his Chronicle he gives
precise dates for the beginning of his episcopate (the 212th Olympiad,
i.e. 69-72 a.d.) and for his martyrdom (the tenth year of Trajan, i.e.
107 a.d.). Subsequent notices of Ignatius are either quite worthless
or are based solely upon the epistles themselves or upon the
statements of Eusebius. The information, independent of the epistles,
which has reached us from the time of Eusebius or earlier,
consequently narrows itself down to the report that Ignatius was
second bishop of Antioch, and that he was bishop from about 70 to 107
a.d. The former date may be regarded as entirely unreliable. Even were
it granted that there could have been a bishop at the head of the
Antiochian church at so early a date (and there is no warrant for such
a supposition), it would nevertheless be impossible to place any
reliance upon the date given by Eusebius, as it is impossible to place
any reliance upon the dates given for the so-called bishops of other
cities during the first century (see Bk. IV. chap. 1, note 1). But the
date of Ignatius' martyrdom given by Eusebius seems at first sight to
rest upon a more reliable tradition, and has been accepted by many
scholars as correct. Its accuracy, however, has been impugned,
especially by Zahn and Lightfoot, who leave the date of Ignatius'
death uncertain, claiming simply that he died under Trajan; and by
Harnack, who puts his death into the reign of Hadrian. We shall refer
to this again further on. Meanwhile, since the information which we
have of Ignatius, independent of the Ignatian epistles, is so small in
amount, we are obliged to turn to those epistles for our chief
knowledge of his life and character. But at this point a difficulty
confronts us. There are extant three different recensions of epistles
ascribed to Ignatius. Are any of them genuine, and if so, which? The
first, or longer Greek recension, as it is called, consists of fifteen
epistles, which were first published in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries. Of these fifteen, eight are clearly spurious, and seven are
at least largely interpolated. The genuineness of the former and the
integrity of the latter now find no defenders among scholars. The
second, or shorter Greek recension, contains seven of the fifteen
epistles of the longer recension, in a much shorter form. Their titles
are the same that are given by Eusebius in this Chapter. They were
first discovered and published in the seventeenth century. The third,
or Syriac recension, contains three of these seven epistles (to
Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans), in a still shorter
form, and was discovered in the present century. Since its discovery,
opinions have been divided between it and the shorter Greek recension;
but the defense of the genuineness of the latter by Zahn and Lightfoot
may be regarded as finally settling the matter, and establishing the
originality of the shorter Greek recension as over against that
represented by the Syriac version. The former, therefore, alone comes
into consideration in discussing the genuineness of the Ignatian
epistles. Their genuineness is still stoutly denied by some; but the
evidence in their favor, external and internal, is too strong to be
set aside; and since the appearance of Lightfoot's great work, candid
scholars almost unanimously admit that the question is settled, and
their genuineness triumphantly established. The great difficulties
which have stood in the way of the acceptance of the epistles are,
first and chiefly, the highly developed form of church government
which they reveal; and secondly, the attacks upon heresy contained in
them. Both of these characteristics seem to necessitate a date later
than the reign of Trajan, the traditional time of Ignatius' martyrdom.
Harnack regards these two difficulties as very serious, if not
absolutely fatal to the supposition that the epistles were written
during the reign of Trajan; but in a very keen tract, entitled Die
Zeit des Ignatius (Leipzig, 1878), he has endeavored to show that the
common tradition that Ignatius suffered martyrdom under Trajan is
worthless, and he therefore brings the martyrdom down into the reign
of Hadrian, and thus does away with most of the internal difficulties
which beset the acceptance of the epistles. Whether or not Harnack's
explanation of Eusebius' chronology of the Antiochian bishops be
accepted as correct (and the number of its adherents is not great), he
has, at least, shown that the tradition that Ignatius suffered
martyrdom under Trajan is not as strong as it has been commonly
supposed to be, and that it is possible to question seriously its
reliability. Lightfoot, who discusses Harnack's theory at considerable
length (II. p. 450-469), rejects it, and maintains that Ignatius died
sometime during the reign of Trajan, though, with Zahn and Harnack, he
gives up the traditional date of 107 a.d., which is found in the
Chronicle of Eusebius, and has been very commonly accepted as
reliable. Lightfoot, however, remarks that the genuineness of the
epistles is much more certain than the chronology of Ignatius, and
that, therefore, if it is a question between the rejection of the
epistles and the relegation of Ignatius' death to the reign of Hadrian
(which he, however, denies), the latter alternative must be chosen
without hesitation. A final decision upon this knotty point has not
yet been, and perhaps never will be, reached; but Harnack's theory
that the epistles were written during the reign of Hadrian deserves
even more careful consideration than it has yet received. Granting the
genuineness of the Ignatian epistles, we are still in possession of no
great amount of information in regard to his life. We know from them
only that he was bishop of the church of Antioch in Syria, and had
been condemned to martyrdom, and that he was, at the time of their
composition, on his way to Rome to suffer death in the arena. His
character and opinions, however, are very clearly exhibited in his
writings. To quote from Schaff, "Ignatius stands out in history as the
ideal of a Catholic martyr, and as the earliest advocate of the
hierarchical principle in both its good and its evil points. As a
writer, he is remarkable for originality, freshness, and force of
ideas, and for terse, sparkling, and sententious style; but in
apostolic simplicity and soundness, he is inferior to Clement and
Polycarp, and presents a stronger contrast to the epistles of the New
Testament. Clement shows the calmness, dignity, and governmental
wisdom of the Roman character. Ignatius glows with the fire and
impetuosity of the Greek and Syrian temper which carries him beyond
the bounds of sobriety. He was a very uncommon man, and made a
powerful impression upon his age. He is the incarnation, as it were,
of the three closely connected ideas: the glory of martyrdom, the
omnipotence of episcopacy, and the hatred of heresy and schism.
Hierarchical pride and humility, Christian charity and churchly
exclusiveness, are typically represented in Ignatius." The literature
on Ignatius and the Ignatian controversy is very extensive. The
principal editions to be consulted are Cureton's The Ancient Syriac
Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp, the
Ephesians, and the Romans, with English translation and notes (the
editio princeps of the Syriac version), London and Berlin, 1845;
Zahn's Ignatii et Polycarpi Epistulæ, Martyria fragmenta, Lips. 1876
(Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, ed. Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Vol.
II); Bishop Lightfoot's St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp (The Apostolic
Fathers, Part II.), London, 1885. This edition (in two volumes) is the
most complete and exhaustive edition of Ignatius' epistles which has
yet appeared, and contains a very full and able discussion of all
questions connected with Ignatius and his writings. It contains the
text of the longer Greek recension and of the Syriac version, in
addition to that of the seven genuine epistles, and practically
supersedes all earlier editions. An English translation of all the
epistles of Ignatius (Syriac and Greek, in both recensions) is given
in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. pp. 45-126. The
principal discussions which it is necessary to refer to here are those
of Lightfoot in his edition of the Ignatian epistles just referred to;
Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochien, Gotha, 1873 (very full and able);
Harnack's Die Zeit des Ignatius, Leipzig, 1878; and the reviews of
Lightfoot's edition contributed by Harnack to the Expositor, December,
1885, January and March, 1886. For a more extended list of works on
the subject, and for a brief review of the whole matter, see Schaff's
Church History, Vol. II. p. 651-664.
 That Ignatius was on his way from Syria to Rome, under
condemnation for his testimony to Christ, and that he was expecting to
be cast to the wild beasts upon reaching Rome, appears from many
passages of the epistles themselves. Whether the tradition, as
Eusebius calls it, that he actually did suffer martyrdom at Rome was
independent of the epistles, or simply grew out of the statements made
in them, we cannot tell. Whichever is the case, we may regard the
tradition as reliable. That he suffered martyrdom somewhere is too
well attested to be doubted for a moment; and there exists no
tradition in favor of any other city as the place of his martyrdom,
except a late one reported by John Malalas, which names Antioch as the
place. This is accepted by Volkmar and by the author of Supernatural
Religion, but its falsity has been conclusively shown by Zahn (see his
edition of the Ignatian epistles, p. xii. 343, 381).
 The seven genuine epistles of Ignatius (all of which are
mentioned by Eusebius in this Chapter) fall into two groups, four
having been written from one place and three from another. The first
four--to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, and Romans--were
written from Smyrna, while Ignatius was on his way to Rome, as we can
learn from notices in the epistles themselves, and as is stated below
by Eusebius, who probably took his information from the statements of
the epistles, as we take ours. Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles lay to
the south of Smyrna, on one of the great highways of Asia Minor. But
Ignatius was taken by a road which lay further north, passing through
Philadelphia and Sardis (see Lightfoot, I. 33 sq.). and thus did not
visit the three cities to which he now sends epistles from Smyrna. The
four epistles written from Smyrna contain no indication of the
chronological order in which they were written, and whether Eusebius
in his enumeration followed the manuscript of the epistles which he
used (our present mss. give an entirely different order, which is not
at all chronological and does not even keep the two groups distinct),
or whether he exercised his own judgment, we do not know.
 Of this Onesimus, and of Damas and Polybius mentioned just
below, we know nothing more.
 Ignatius, Ep. ad Rom. chap. 5.
 leopEURrdois. This is the earliest use of this word in any
extant writing, and an argument has been drawn from this fact against
the authenticity of the epistle. For a careful discussion of the
matter, see Lightfoot's edition, Vol. II. p. 212.
 Compare 1 Cor. iv. 4.
 Compare the instances of this mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V.
chap. I, §42, and in Bk. VIII. chap. 7.
 The translation of this sentence is Lightfoot's, who prefers
with Rufinus and the Syriac to read the optative zelosai instead of
the infinitive zelosai, which is found in most of the mss. and is
given by Heinichen and the majority of the other editors. The sense
seems to require, as Lightfoot asserts, the optative rather than the
 That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the
Philadelphians, to the Smyrnæans, and to Polycarp is clear from
indications in the epistles themselves. The chronological order in
which the three were written is uncertain. He had visited both
churches upon his journey to Troas and had seen Polycarp in Smyrna.
 See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.
 Ep. ad Smyr. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this passage from Ignatius
in his de vir. ill. 16, refers it to the gospel which had lately been
translated by him (according to de vir. ill. 3), viz.: the Gospel of
the Nazarenes (or the Gospel according to the Hebrews). In his
Comment. in Isaiam, Bk. XVIII. introd., Jerome quotes the same passage
again, referring it to the same gospel (Evangelium quod Hebræorum
lectitant Nazaræi). But in Origen de prin. præf. 8, the phrase is
quoted as taken from the Teaching of Peter ("qui Petri doctrina
apellatur"). Eusebius' various references to the Gospel according to
the Hebrews show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above,
chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going
through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to suppose
that if this passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according
to the Hebrews he should not have known it. We seem then to be driven
to the conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, but was later incorporated either
from the Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some
common source or oral tradition.
 daimonion asomaton.
 Compare Luke xxiv. 39.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 28. 4.
 On Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14,
 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.
 Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.
 Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 13. The genuineness of this
Chapter, which bears such strong testimony to the Ignatian epistles,
has been questioned by some scholars, but without good grounds. See
below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.
 According to Eusebius' Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch
in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d.), and was succeeded by Cornelius
in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d.). In the History he is
mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given.
The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable (see on the
dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack's Zeit des
Ignatius). Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information. His
name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious
Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.
Chapter XXXVII.--The Evangelists that were still Eminent at that Time.
1. Among those that were celebrated at that time was Quadratus, 
who, report says, was renowned along with the daughters of Philip for
his prophetical gifts. And there were many others besides these who
were known in those days, and who occupied the first place among the
successors of the apostles. And they also, being illustrious disciples
of such great men, built up the foundations of the churches which had
been laid by the apostles in every place, and preached the Gospel more
and more widely and scattered the saving seeds of the kingdom of
heaven far and near throughout the whole world. 
2. For indeed most of the disciples of that time, animated by the
divine word with a more ardent love for philosophy,  had already
fulfilled the command of the Saviour, and had distributed their goods
to the needy.  Then starting out upon long journeys they
performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to
preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to
deliver to them the divine Gospels.
3. And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign
places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the
nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they
themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the
grace and the co-operation of God. For a great many wonderful works
were done through them by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at
the first hearing whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the
religion of the Creator of the universe.
4. But since it is impossible for us to enumerate the names of all
that became shepherds or evangelists in the churches throughout the
world in the age immediately succeeding the apostles, we have
recorded, as was fitting, the names of those only who have transmitted
the apostolic doctrine to us in writings still extant.
 This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as may
be gathered from Eusebius' mention of him here, and also from the
reference to him in the anonymous work against the Montanists (see
below, Bk. V. chap. 16). We know nothing about this Quadratus except
what is told us in these two passages, unless we identify him, as many
do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned below, in Bk. IV. chap. 3.
This identification is possible, but by no means certain. See Bk. IV.
chap. 3, note 2.
 This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius,
although he says there were "many others" that were well known in
those days, was unacquainted with the names of such persons as we,
too, are unacquainted with them. None will deny that there may have
been some men of prominence in the Church at this time, but Eusebius
apparently had no more information to impart in regard to them than he
gives us in this Chapter, and he makes up for his lack of facts in a
way which is not at all uncommon.
 That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.
 See Matt. xix. 21. Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers,
and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his
misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young
Chapter XXXVIII.--The Epistle of Clement and the Writings falsely
ascribed to him.
1. Thus Ignatius has done in the epistles which we have mentioned,
 and Clement in his epistle which is accepted by all, and which
he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth.
 In this epistle he gives many thoughts drawn from the Epistle to
the Hebrews, and also quotes verbally some of its expressions, thus
showing most plainly that it is not a recent production.
2. Wherefore it has seemed reasonable to reckon it with the other
writings of the apostle. For as Paul had written to the Hebrews in his
native tongue, some say that the evangelist Luke, others that this
Clement himself, translated the epistle.
3. The latter seems more probable, because the epistle of Clement and
that to the Hebrews have a similar character in regard to style, and
still further because the thoughts contained in the two works are not
very different. 
4. But it must be observed also that there is said to be a second
epistle of Clement. But we do not know that this is recognized like
the former, for we do not find that the ancients have made any use of
5. And certain men have lately brought forward other wordy and lengthy
writings under his name, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion.
 But no mention has been made of these by the ancients; for they
do not even preserve the pure stamp of apostolic orthodoxy. The
acknowledged writing of Clement is well known. We have spoken also of
the works of Ignatius and Polycarp. 
 In chap. 36, above.
 See above, chap. 16.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to
its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.
 Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second
epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle
(whether the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in
common circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine. This
epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian ms.,
complete in the ms. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in 1875.
The publication of the complete work proves, what had long been
suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, but a homily. It cannot
have been written by the author of the first epistle of Clement, nor
can it belong to the first century. It was probably written in Rome
about the middle of the second century (see Harnack's articles in the
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264-283 and 329-364),
and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses considerable
interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of
Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a
misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement. It is
published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those
editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily
by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is necessary to mention
only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn's Patrum Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876,
in which Harnack's prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and
the appendix to Lightfoot's edition of Clement (1877), which contains
the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation
also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq.
Compare the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and
Harnack's articles in the Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to
 There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of the
third and following centuries, the chief among which purports to
contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter,
and an account of Clement's family history and of his travels with
Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical romance.
This exists now in three forms (the Homilies, Recognitions, and
Epitome), all of which are closely related; though whether the first
two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first) are drawn from a
common original, or whether one of them is the original of the other,
is not certain. The works are more or less Ebionitic in character, and
play an important part in the history of early Christian literature.
For a careful discussion of them, see Salmon's article Clementine
Literature, in the Dict. of Christian Biography; and for the
literature of the subject, which is very extensive, see especially
Schaff's Church History, II. p. 435 sq. The fourth, fifth, and sixth
books of the Homilies contain extended conversations purporting to
have been held between Clement and Apion, the famous antagonist of the
Jews (see Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5). It is quite possible that the
"wordy and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,"
which Eusebius refers to here may be identical with the Homilies, in
which case we must suppose Eusebius' language to be somewhat inexact;
for the dialogues in the Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not
between Peter and Apion. It seems more probable, however, when we
realize the vast number of works of a similar character which were in
circulation during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius
refers here to another work, belonging to the same general class,
which is now lost. If such a work existed, it may well have formed a
basis for the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the
Homilies. In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we
must leave the matter quite undecided. It is not necessary here to
enumerate the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant.
Compare Schaff's Church History, II. 648 sq. Clement's name was a
favorite one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all
kinds were published under his name. The most complete collection of
these spurious works is found in Migne's Patr. Græc. Vols. I. and II.
 In chap. 36, above.
Chapter XXXIX.--The Writings of Papias.
1. There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title
Expositions of Oracles of the Lord.  Irenæus makes mention of
these as the only works written by him,  in the following words:
 "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a
hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For
five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenæus.
2. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means
declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy
apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the
doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. 
3. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along
with my interpretations  whatsoever things I have at any time
learned carefully from the elders  and carefully remembered,
guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take
pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth;
not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that
deliver  the commandments given by the Lord to faith,  and
springing from the truth itself.
4. If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I
questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,--what Andrew or
what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by
James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of
the Lord, and what things Aristion  and the presbyter John, 
the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to
be gotten from the books  would profit me as much as what came
from the living and abiding voice."
5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice
enumerated by him.  The first one he mentions in connection with
Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly
meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an
interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the
apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a
6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there
were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were
two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is
called John's.  It is important to notice this. For it is
probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that
it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to
7. And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received
the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that
he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least
he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his
writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been
quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other
wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has
been already stated.  But it must be noted here that Papias,
their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the
daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time  one rose
from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus,
surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the
grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
10. The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the
ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with
Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor
Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they
put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus,
and Matthias; and they prayed and said." 
11. The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to
him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and
teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things. 
12. To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some
thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the
kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.
 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the
apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were
spoken mystically in figures.
13. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, 
as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many
of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in
their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus
and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views. 
14. Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of
the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and
traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer
those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of
his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in
regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.
15. "This also the presbyter  said: Mark, having become the
interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order,
whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. 
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I
said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his
hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the
Lord's discourses,  so that Mark committed no error while he thus
wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one
thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to
state any of them falsely." These things are related by Papias
16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: "So then 
Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one
interpreted them as he was able."  And the same writer uses
testimonies from the first Epistle of John  and from that of
Peter likewise.  And he relates another story of a woman, who was
accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews.  These things we have thought it
necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated.
 logion kuriakon exegeseis. This work is no longer extant, but a
number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenæus, Eusebius,
and others, which are published in the various editions of the
Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn's
edition, Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacræ, I. p.
3-16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol.
I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and
sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions
in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a
commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a complete
Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing
Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best with the
language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is
controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or
Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our
canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at this
point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of
Papias' work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text;
secondly, "the interpretations which explained the text, and which
were the main object of the work"; and thirdly, the oral traditions,
which "were subordinate to the interpretation" (Contemporary Review,
1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a description of the plan
of Papias' work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as
to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels.
Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed
at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat
here. On the significance of the word logia, see below, note 26. As
remarked there, logia cannot be confined to words or discourses only,
and therefore the "oracles" which Papias expounded in his work may
well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete
Gospel or Gospels. In the absence of the work itself, however, we are
left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the
time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in
existence and already widely accepted. It is difficult, therefore, to
suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias' work, as
we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than
one or more of the commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot's
article already referred to for a discussion of this question. The
date of the composition of Papias' work is now commonly fixed at about
the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a.d.
The books and articles that have been written upon this work are far
too numerous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the
Contemporary Review, which has been already referred to, we should
mention also Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christian Biography,
Schleiermacher's essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735
sq.,--the first critical discussion of Papias' testimony in regard to
the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,--dissertations by
Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the
last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in
his Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also p. 389,
note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.
 hos monon auto graphenton. Irenæus does not expressly say that
these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says, "For five
books have been written by him" (zsti gar auto pente biblia
suntetagmena). Eusebius' interpretation of Irenæus' words is not,
however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenæus' meaning.
 Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4.
 The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the
statement of Irenæus, has been questioned by many, who have held that,
in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is meant
in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. p.
697 sq. A careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by
Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which
Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons bearing
the same name,--John. In fact, no other conclusion can be reached,
unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of
writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is no possible
excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand,
if we accept Eusebius' interpretation, we are met by a serious
difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived
in Asia Minor, early in the second century a man to whom Papias
appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is mentioned by
no other Father; who is, in fact, otherwise an entirely unknown
personage. And still further, no reader of Papias' work, before the
time of Eusebius, gathered from that work, so far as we know, a single
hint that the John with whom he was acquainted was any other than the
apostle John. These difficulties are so serious that they have led
many to deny that Papias meant to refer to a second John, in spite of
his apparently clear reference to such a person. Among those who deny
this second John's existence are such scholars as Zahn and Salmon.
(Compare, for instance, the latter's able article on Joannes the
Presbyter, in the Dict. of Christian Biography.) In reply to their
arguments, it may be said that the silence of all other early writers
does not necessarily disprove the existence of a second John; for it
is quite conceivable that all trace of him should be swallowed up in
the reputation of his greater namesake who lived in the same place.
Moreover, it is quite conceivable that Papias, writing for those who
were well acquainted with both Johns, may have had no suspicion that
any one would confound the presbyter with the apostle, and would
imagine that he was referring to the latter when he was speaking of
his personal friend John; and therefore he would have no reason for
stating expressly that there were two Johns, and for expressly
distinguishing the one from the other. It was, then, quite natural
that Irenæus, a whole generation later, knowing that Polycarp was a
disciple of the apostle John, and finding constant mention of a John
in Papias' works, should simply take for granted that the same John
was meant; for by his time the lesser John may easily, in the minds of
most people, have become lost in the tradition of his greater
namesake. In view of these possibilities, it cannot be said that the
silence of other Fathers in regard to this John is fatal to his
existence; and if this is so, we are hardly justified in doing such
violence to Papias' language as is required to identify the two Johns
mentioned by him in the passage quoted below. Among those who accept
Eusebius' conclusion, that Papias refers to two different persons, are
such scholars as Tischendorf, Donaldson, Westcott and Lightfoot. If
Eusebius has recovered for us from the ancient history of the Church
an otherwise unknown personage, it will not be the only time that he
has corrected an error committed by all his predecessors. In this
case, as in a number of other cases, I believe Eusebius' wide
information, sharp-sightedness, and superiority to the trammels of
traditionalism receive triumphant vindication and we may accept his
conclusion that Papias was personally acquainted with a second John,
who was familiarly known as "the Presbyter," and thus distinguished
from the apostle John, who could be called a presbyter or elder only
in the general sense in which all the leading men of his generation
were elders (see below, note 6), and could not be designated
emphatically as "the presbyter." In regard to the connection of this
"presbyter John" with the Apocalypse, see below, note 14. But although
Papias distinguishes, as we may conclude, between two Johns in the
passage referred to, and elsewhere, according to Eusebius, pronounces
himself a hearer of the second John, it does not necessarily follow
that Irenæus was mistaken in saying that he was a hearer of the
apostle John; for Irenæus may have based his statement upon
information received from his teacher, Polycarp, the friend of Papias,
and not upon the passage quoted by Eusebius, and hence Papias may have
been a hearer of both Johns. At the same time, it must be said that if
Papias had been a disciple of the apostle John, he could scarcely have
failed to state the fact expressly somewhere in his works; and if he
had stated it anywhere, Eusebius could hardly have overlooked it. The
conclusion, therefore, seems most probable that Eusebius is right in
correcting Irenæus' statement, and that the latter based his report
upon a misinterpretation of Papias' own words. In that case, we have
no authority for speaking of Papias as a disciple of John the apostle.
 This sentence gives strong support to the view that oral
traditions did not form the basis of Papias' work, but that the basis
consisted of written documents, which he interpreted, and to which he
then added the oral traditions which he refers to here. See
Contemporary Review, 1885, II. p. 388 sq. The words tais hermeneiais
have been translated by some scholars, "the interpretations of them,"
thus making the book consist only of these oral traditions with
interpretations of them. But this translation is not warranted by the
Greek, and the also at the beginning of the sentence shows that the
work must have contained other matter which preceded these oral
traditions and to which the "interpretations" belong.
 As Lightfoot points out (Contemp. Rev. ibid. p. 379 sq.), Papias
uses the term "elders" in a general sense to denote the Fathers of the
Church in the generations preceding his own. It thus includes both the
apostles and their immediate disciples. The term was thus used in a
general sense by later Fathers to denote all earlier Fathers of the
Church; that is, those leaders of the Church belonging to generations
earlier than the writers themselves. The term, therefore, cannot be
confined to the apostles alone, nor can it be confined, as some have
thought (e.g. Weiffenbach in his Das Papias Fragment), to
ecclesiastical officers, presbyters in the official sense. Where the
word presbuteros is used in connection with the second John (at the
close of this extract from Papias), it is apparently employed in its
official sense. At least we cannot otherwise easily understand how it
could be used as a peculiar designation of this John, which should
distinguish him from the other John. For in the general sense of the
word, in which Papias commonly uses it, both Johns were elders.
Compare Lightfoot's words in the passage referred to above.
 paraginomenois, instead of paraginomenas, agreeing with
entolEURs. The latter is the common reading, but is not so well
supported by manuscript authority, and, as the easier reading, is to
be rejected in favor of the former. See the note of Heinichen in loco.
 That is, "to those that believe, to those that are possessed of
 Of this Aristion we know only what we can gather from this
mention of him by Papias.
 See above, note 6.
 ek ton biblion. These words have been interpreted by many
critics as implying that Papias considered the written Gospel
accounts, which were extant in his time, of small value, and preferred
to them the oral traditions which he picked up from "the elders." But
as Lightfoot has shown (ibid. p. 390 sq.), this is not the natural
interpretation of Papias' words, and makes him practically stultify
and contradict himself. He cannot have considered the written
documents which he laid at the base of his work as of little value,
nor can he have regarded the writings of Matthew and Mark, which he
refers to in this Chapter as extant in his time, and the latter of
which he praises for its accuracy, as inferior to the oral traditions,
which came to him at best only at second hand. It is necessary to
refer the ton biblion, as Lightfoot does, to "interpretations" of the
Gospel accounts, which had been made by others, and to which Papias
prefers the interpretations or expositions which he has received from
the disciples of the apostles. This interpretation of the word alone
saves us from difficulties and Papias from self-stultification.
 See above, note 4.
 The existence of two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John
is attested also by Dionysius of Alexandria (quoted in Bk. VII. chap.
25, below) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 9). The latter, however,
says that some regard them both as memorials of the one John, the
apostle; and Zahn, in his Acta Joannis, p. cliv. sq., endeavors to
prove that a church stood outside of the walls of Ephesus, on the spot
where John was buried, and another inside of the walls, on the site of
the house in which he had resided, and that thus two spots were
consecrated to the memory of a single John. The proof which he brings
in support of this may not lead many persons to adopt his conclusions,
and yet after reading his discussion of the matter one must admit that
the existence of two memorials in Ephesus, such as Dionysius,
Eusebius, and Jerome refer to, by no means proves that more than one
John was buried there.
 A similar suggestion had been already made by Dionysius in the
passage quoted by Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 25, and Eusebius was
undoubtedly thinking of it when he wrote these words. The suggestion
is a very clever one, and yet it is only a guess, and does not pretend
to be more. Dionysius concludes that the Apocalypse must have been
written by some person named John, because it testifies to that fact
itself; but the style, and other internal indications, lead him to
think that it cannot have been written by the author of the fourth
Gospel, whom he assumes to be John the apostle. He is therefore led to
suppose that the Apocalypse was written by some other John. He does
not pretend to say who that John was, but thinks it must have been
some John that resided in Asia; and he then adds that there were said
to be two tombs in Ephesus bearing the name of John,--evidently
implying, though he does not say it, that he is inclined to think that
this second John thus commemorated was the author of the Apocalypse.
It is plain from this that he had no tradition whatever in favor of
this theory, that it was solely an hypothesis arising from critical
difficulties standing in the way of the ascription of the book to the
apostle John. Eusebius sees in this suggestion a very welcome solution
of the difficulties with which he feels the acceptance of the book to
be beset, and at once states it as a possibility that this "presbyter
John," whom he has discovered in the writings of Papias, may have been
the author of the book. But the authenticity of the Apocalypse was too
firmly established to be shaken by such critical and theological
difficulties as influenced Dionysius, Eusebius, and a few others, and
in consequence nothing came of the suggestion made here by Eusebius.
In the present century, however, the "presbyter John" has again played
an important part among some critics as the possible author of certain
of the Johannine writings, though the authenticity of the Apocalypse
has (until very recently) been so commonly accepted even by the most
negative critics that the "presbyter John" has not figured at all as
the author of it; nor indeed is he likely to in the future.
 In chap. 31, above. On the confusion of the evangelist with the
apostle Philip, see that Chapter, note 6.
 That is, in the time of Philip.
 Acts i. 23.
 Compare the extract from Papias given by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. V.
32), in which is contained a famous parable in regard to the fertility
of the millennium, which is exceedingly materialistic in its nature,
and evidently apocryphal. "The days will come when vines shall grow,
each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand
twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the
shoots ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give
five and twenty measures of wine," &c.
 Chiliasm, or millennarianism,--that is, the belief in a visible
reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years before the general
judgment,--was very widespread in the early Church. Jewish chiliasm
was very common at about the beginning of the Christian era, and is
represented in the voluminous apocalyptic literature of that day.
Christian chiliasm was an outgrowth of the Jewish, but spiritualized
it, and fixed it upon the second, instead of the first, coming of
Christ. The chief Biblical support for this doctrine is found in Rev.
xx. 1-6, and the fact that this book was appealed to so constantly by
chiliasts in support of their views was the reason why Dionysius,
Eusebius, and others were anxious to disprove its apostolic
authorship. Chief among the chiliasts of the ante-Nicene age were the
author of the epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and
Tertullian; while the principal opponents of the doctrine were Caius,
Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, and Eusebius. After the time of
Constantine, chiliasm was more and more widely regarded as a heresy,
and received its worst blow from Augustine, who framed in its stead
the doctrine, which from his time on was commonly accepted in the
Church, that the millennium is the present reign of Christ, which
began with his resurrection. See Schaff's Church History, II. p. 613
sq., for the history of the doctrine in the ante-Nicene Church and for
the literature of the subject.
 sphodra smikros ton noun. Eusebius' judgment of Papias may have
been unfavorably influenced by his hostility to the strong chiliasm of
the latter; and yet a perusal of the extant fragments of Papias'
writings will lead any one to think that Eusebius was not far wrong in
his estimate of the man. On the genuineness of the words in his
praise, given by some mss., in chap. 36, §2, see note 3 on that
 See above, note 19.
 We cannot, in the absence of the context, say with certainty
that the presbyter here referred to is the "presbyter John," of whom
Papias has so much to say, and who is mentioned in the previous
paragraph, and yet this seems quite probable. Compare Weiffenbach's
Die Papias Fragmente über Marcus und Matthaeus, p. 26 sq.
 Papias is the first one to connect the Gospel of Mark with
Peter, but the tradition recorded by him was universally accepted by
those who came after him (see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4). The
relation of this Gospel of Mark to our canonical gospel has been a
very sharply disputed point, but there is no good reason for
distinguishing the Gospel referred to here from our second Gospel
which corresponds excellently to the description given by Papias.
Compare the remarks of Lightfoot, ibid. p. 393 sq. We know from other
sources (e.g. Justin Martyr's Dial. c. 106) that our second Gospel was
in existence in any case before the middle of the second century, and
therefore there is no reason to suppose that Papias was thinking of
any other Gospel when he spoke of the Gospel written by Mark as the
interpreter of Peter. Of course it does not follow from this that it
was actually our second Gospel which Mark wrote, and of whose
composition Papias here speaks. He may have written a Gospel which
afterward formed the basis of our present Gospel, or was one of the
sources of the synoptic tradition as a whole; that is, he may have
written what is commonly known as the "Ur-Marcus" (see above, Bk. II.
chap. 15, note 4). As to that, we cannot decide with absolute
certainty, but we may say that Papias certainly understood the
tradition which he gives to refer to our Gospel of Mark. The exact
significance of the word hermeneutes as used in this sentence has been
much disputed. It seems best to give it its usual significance,--the
significance which we attach to the English word "interpreter." See
Weiffenbach, ibid. p. 37 sq. It may be, supposing the report to be
correct, that Peter found it advantageous to have some one more
familiar than himself with the language of the people among whom he
labored to assist him in his preaching. What language it was for which
he needed an interpreter we cannot say. We might think naturally of
Latin, but it is not impossible that Greek or that both languages were
meant; for Peter, although of course possessed of some acquaintance
with Greek, might not have been familiar enough with it to preach in
it with perfect ease. The words "though not indeed in order" (ou
mentoi tEURxei) have also caused considerable controversy. But they
seem to refer chiefly to a lack of chronological arrangement, perhaps
to a lack of logical arrangement also. The implication is that Mark
wrote down without regard to order of any kind the words and deeds of
Christ which he remembered. Lightfoot and most other critics have
supposed that this accusation of a "lack of order" implies the
existence of another written Gospel, exhibiting a different order,
with which Papias compares it (e.g. with the Gospel of Matthew, as
Weiss, Bleck, Holtzmann, and others think; or with John, as Lightfoot,
Zahn, Renan, and others suppose). This is a natural supposition, but
it is quite possible that Papias in speaking of this lack of order is
not thinking at all of another written Gospel, but merely of the order
of events which he had received from tradition as the true one.
 logon, "discourses," or logion, "oracles." The two words are
about equally supported by ms. authority. The latter is adopted by the
majority of the editors; but it is more likely that it arose from
logon under the influence of the logion, which occurred in the title
of Papias' work, than that it was changed into logon. The matter,
however, cannot be decided, and the alternative reading must in either
case be allowed to stand. See the notes of Burton and Heinichen, in
 men oun. These words show plainly enough that this sentence in
regard to Matthew did not in the work of Papias immediately follow the
passage in regard to Mark, quoted above. Both passages are evidently
torn out of their context; and the latter apparently stood at the
close of a description of the origin of Matthew's Gospel. That this
statement in regard to Matthew rests upon the authority of "the
presbyter" we are consequently not at liberty to assert.
 On the tradition that Matthew wrote a Hebrew gospel, see above,
chap. 24, note 5. Our Greek Gospel of Matthew was certainly in
existence at the time Papias wrote, for it is quoted in the epistle of
Barnabas, which was written not later than the first quarter of the
second century. There is, therefore, no reason for assuming that the
Gospel of Matthew which Papias was acquainted with was a different
Gospel from our own. This, however, does not prove that the logia
which Matthew wrote (supposing Papias' report to be correct) were
identical with, or even of the same nature as our Gospel of Matthew.
It is urged by many that the word logia could be used only to describe
a collection of the words or discourses of the Lord, and hence it is
assumed that Matthew wrote a work of this kind, which of course is
quite a different thing from our first Gospel. But Lightfoot has shown
(ibid. p. 399 sq.) that the word logia, "oracles," is not necessarily
confined to a collection of discourses merely, but that it may be used
to describe a work containing also a narrative of events. This being
the case, it cannot be said that Matthew's logia must necessarily have
been something different from our present Gospel. Still our Greek
Matthew is certainly not a translation of a Hebrew original, and hence
there may be a long step between Matthew's Hebrew logia and our Greek
Gospel. But if our Greek Matthew was known to Papias, and if it is not
a translation of a Hebrews original, then one of two alternatives
follows: either he could not accept the Greek Matthew, which was in
current use (that is, our canonical Matthew), or else he was not
acquainted with the Hebrew Matthew. Of the former alternative we have
no hint in the fragments preserved to us, while the latter, from the
way in which Papias speaks of these Hebrew logia, seems highly
probable. It may, therefore, be said to be probable that Papias, the
first one that mentions a Hebrew Matthew, speaks not from personal
knowledge, but upon the authority of tradition only.
 Since the first Epistle of John and the fourth Gospel are
indisputably from the same hand (see above, chap. 24, note 18),
Papias' testimony to the apostolic authorship of the Epistle, which is
what his use of it implies, is indirect testimony to the apostolic
authorship of the Gospel also.
 On the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter, see above,
chap. 3, note 1.
 It is very likely that the story referred to here is identical
with the story of the woman taken in adultery, given in some mss., at
the close of the eighth Chapter of John's Gospel. The story was
clearly not contained in the original Gospel of John, but we do not
know from what source it crept into that Gospel, possibly from the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, where Eusebius says the story related
by Papias was found. It must be noticed that Eusebius does not say
that Papias took the story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
but only that it was contained in that Gospel. We are consequently not
justified in claiming this statement of Eusebius as proving that
Papias himself was acquainted with the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(see above, chap. 25, note 24). He may have taken it thence, or he
may, on the other hand, have taken it simply from oral tradition, the
source whence he derived so many of his accounts, or, possibly, from
the lost original Gospel, the "Ur-Matthæus."
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet