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

Home>Teachings

Introduction to Orthodoxy

Apologetic Materials

Catechetical Materials

Church History

Contemporary Issues

Daily Devotional

Lives of Saints

Orthodox Calendar

Patristic Homilies

Polemical Website

Recommended Links

Search This Website

Spiritual Discourses

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

Book II

Book II.

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

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

1 First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias,¹ who, as has been shown² was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate,³ for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one.⁴ He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose.⁵ And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name,⁶ which belongs to the martyrs of Christ, who are worthy of the meed of victory.

2 Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just⁷ on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord⁸ because he was known as a son of Joseph,⁹ and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,”¹⁰ as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3 But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes¹¹ writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”¹²

4 But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.¹³ But there were two Jameses:¹⁴ one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller,¹⁵ and another who was beheaded.”¹⁶ Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”¹⁷

5 At that time also the promise of our Saviour to the king of the Osrhoenians was fulfilled. For Thomas, under a divine impulse, sent Thaddeus to Edessa as a preacher and evangelist of the religion of Christ, as we have shown a little above from the document found there?¹⁸

7 When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour’s teaching. And from that time down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ,¹⁹ offering no common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour toward them also.

8 These things have been drawn from ancient accounts; but let us now turn again to the divine Scripture. When the first and greatest persecution was instigated by the Jews against the church of Jerusalem in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen, and when all the disciples, except the Twelve, were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria,²⁰ some, as the divine Scripture says, went as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, but could not yet venture to impart the word of faith to the nations, and therefore preached it to the Jews alone.²¹

9 During this time Paul was still persecuting the church, and entering the houses of believers was dragging men and women away and committing them to prison.²²

10 Philip also, one of those who with Stephen had been entrusted with the diaconate, being among those who were scattered abroad, went down to Samaria,²³ and being filled with the divine power, he first preached the word to the inhabitants of that country. And divine grace worked so mightily with him that even Simon Magus with many others was attracted by his words.²⁴

11 Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he was thought to be the great power of God.²⁵ But at this time, being amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine power, he reigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism.²⁶ 12And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his most impure heresy.²⁷ For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves.²⁸ The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment.²⁹

13 But as the preaching of the Saviour’s Gospel was daily advancing, a certain providence led from the land of the Ethiopians an officer of the queen of that country,³⁰ for Ethiopia even to the present day is ruled, according to ancestral custom, by a woman. He, first among the Gentiles, received of the mysteries of the divine word from Philip in consequence of a revelation, and having become the first-fruits of believers throughout the world, he is said to have been the first on returning to his country to proclaim the knowledge of the God of the universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Saviour among men;³¹ so that through him in truth the prophecy obtained its fulfillment, which declares that “Ethiopia stretcheth out her hand unto God.”³²

14 In addition to these, Paul, that “chosen vessel,”³³ “not of men neither through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and of God the Father who raised him from the dead,”³⁴ was appointed an apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice which was uttered in a revelation from heaven.³⁵

1 And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the provinces, of reporting to the emperor the novel occurrences which took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius³⁶ of the reports which were noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection of our Saviour Jesus from the dead.

2 He gave an account also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how, after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed by many to be a God.³⁷ They say that Tiberius referred the matter to the Senate,³⁸ but that they rejected it, ostensibly because they had not first examined into the matter (for an ancient law prevailed that no one should be made a God by the Romans except by a vote and decree of the Senate), but in reality because the saving teaching of the divine Gospel did not need the confirmation and recommendation of men.

3 But although the Senate of the Romans rejected the proposition made in regard to our Saviour, Tiberius still retained the opinion which he had held at first, and contrived no hostile measures against Christ.³⁹

4 These things are recorded by Tertullian,⁴⁰ a man well versed in the laws of the Romans,⁴¹ and in other respects of high repute, and one of those especially distinguished in Rome.⁴² In his apology for the Christians,⁴³ which was written by him in the Latin language, and has been translated into Greek,⁴⁴ he writes as follows:⁴⁵

5 “But in order that we may give an account of these laws from their origin, it was an ancient decree⁴⁶ that no one should be consecrated a God by the emperor until the Senate had expressed its approval. Marcus Aurelius did thus concerning a certain idol, Alburnus.⁴⁷ And this is a point in favor of our doctrine,⁴⁸ that among you divine dignity is conferred by human decree. If a God does not please a man he is not made a God. Thus, according to this custom, it is necessary for man to be gracious to God.

6 Tiberius, therefore, under whom the name of Christ made its entry into the world, when this doctrine was reported to him from Palestine, where it first began, communicated with the Senate, making it clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine.⁴⁹ But the Senate, since it had not itself proved the matter, rejected it. But Tiberius continued to hold his own opinion, and threatened death to the accusers of the Christians.”⁵⁰ Heavenly providence had wisely instilled this into his mind in order that the doctrine of the Gospel, unhindered at its beginning, might spread in all directions throughout the world.

1 Thus, under the influence of heavenly power, and with the divine co-operation, the doctrine of the Saviour, like the rays of the sun, quickly illumined the whole world;⁵¹ and straightway, in accordance with the divine Scriptures,⁵² the voice of the inspired evangelists and apostles went forth through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.

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

3 But the divine grace being now poured out upon the rest of the nations Cornelius, of Caesarea in Palestine, with his whole house, through a divine revelation and the agency of Peter, first received faith in Christ;⁵³ and after him a multitude of other Greeks in Antioch,⁵⁴ to whom those who were scattered by the persecution of Stephen had preached the Gospel. When the church of Antioch was now increasing and abounding, and a multitude of prophets from Jerusalem were on the ground,⁵⁵ among them Barnabas and Paul and in addition many other brethren, the name of Christians first sprang up there,⁵⁶ as from a fresh and life-giving fountain.⁵⁷

4 And Agabus, one of the prophets who was with them, uttered a prophecy concerning the famine which was about to take place,⁵⁸ and Paul and Barnabas were sent to relieve the necessities of the brethren.⁵⁹

After the Death of Tiberius, Caius Appointed Agrippa King of the Jews,
Having Punished Herod with Perpetual Exile.

1 Tiberius died, after having reigned about twenty-two years,⁶⁰ and Caius succeeded him in the empire.⁶¹ He immediately gave the government of the Jews to Agrippa,⁶² making him king over the tetrarchies of Philip and of Ly-sanias; in addition to which he bestowed upon him, not long afterward, the tetrarchy of Herod,⁶³ having punished Herod (the one under whom the Saviour suffered⁶⁴ ) and his wife Herodias with perpetual exile⁶⁵ on account of numerous crimes. Josephus is a witness to these facts.⁶⁶

2 Under this emperor, Philo⁶⁷ became known; a man most celebrated not only among many of our own, but also among many scholars without the Church. He was a Hebrew by birth, but was inferior to none of those who held high dignities in Alexandria. How exceedingly he labored in the Scriptures and in the studies of his nation is plain to all from the work which he has done. How familiar he was with philosophy and with the liberal studies of foreign nations, it is not necessary to say, since he is reported to have surpassed all his contemporaries in the study of Platonic and Pythagorean. philosophy, to which he particularly devoted his attention.⁶⁸

1 Philo has given us an account, in five books, of the misfortunes of the Jews under Caius.⁶⁹ He recounts at the same time the madness of Caius: how he called himself a god, and performed as emperor innumerable acts of tyranny; and he describes further the miseries of the Jews under him, and gives a report of the embassy upon which he himself was sent to Rome in behalf of his fellow-countrymen in Alexandria;⁷⁰ how when he appeared before Caius in behalf of the laws of his fathers he received nothing but laughter and ridicule, and almost incurred the risk of his life.

2 Josephus also makes mention of these things in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, in the following words:⁷¹ “A sedition having arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks,⁷² three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius.

3 One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion,⁷³ who uttered many slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they neglected the honors due to Caesar. For while all other subjects of Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name.

4 And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of Alexander the Alabarch,⁷⁴ and not unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations.

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

6 Thus far Josephus. And Philo himself, in the work On the Embassy⁷⁵ which he wrote, describes accurately and in detail the things which were done by him at that time. But I shall omit the most of them and record only those things which will make clearly evident to the reader that the misfortunes of the Jews came upon them not long after their daring deeds against Christ and on account of the same.

7 And in the first place he relates that at Rome in the reign of Tiberius, Sejanus, who at that time enjoyed great influence with the emperor, made every effort to destroy the Jewish nation utterly;⁷⁶ and that in Judea, Pilate, under whom the crimes against the Saviour were committed, attempted something contrary to the Jewish law in respect to the temple, which was at that time still standing in Jerusalem, and excited them to the greatest tumults.⁷⁷

The Misfortunes Which Overwhelmed the Jews
After Their Presumption Against Christ.

1 After the death of Tiberius, Caius received the empire, and, besides innumerable other acts of tyranny against many people, he greatly afflicted especially the whole nation of the Jews⁷⁸ These things we may learn briefly from the words of Philo, who writes as follows:⁷⁹

2 “So great was the caprice of Caius in his conduct toward all, and especially toward the nation of the Jews. The latter he so bitterly hated that he appropriated to himself their places of worship in the other cities,⁸⁰ and beginning with Alexandria he filled them with images and statues of himself (for in permitting others to erect them he really erected them himself). The temple in the holy city, which had hitherto been left untouched, and had been regarded as an inviolable asylum, he altered and transformed into a temple of his own, that it might be called the temple of the visible Jupiter, the younger Caius.”⁸¹

3 Innumerable other terrible and almost indescribable calamities which came upon the Jews in Alexandria during the reign of the same emperor, are recorded by the same author in a second work, to which he gave the title, On the Virtues.⁸² With him agrees also Josephus, who likewise indicates that the misfortunes of the whole nation began with the time of Pilate, and with their daring crimes against the Saviour.⁸³

4 Hear what be says in the second book of his Jewish War, where he writes as follows:⁸⁴ “Pilate being sent to Judea as procurator by Tiberius, secretly carried veiled images of the emperor, called ensigns,⁸⁵ to Jerusalem by night. The following day this caused the greatest disturbance among the Jews. For those who were near were confounded at the sight, beholding their laws, as it were, trampled under foot. For they allow no image to be set up in their city.”

5 Comparing these things with the writings of the evangelists, you will see that it was not long before there came upon them the penalty for the exclamation which they had uttered under the same Pilate, when they cried out that they had no other king than Caesar.⁸⁶

6 The same writer further records that after this another calamity overtook them. He writes as follows:⁸⁷ “After this he stirred up another tumult by snaking use of the holy treasure, which is called Corban,⁸⁸ in the construction of an aqueduct three hundred stadia in length.⁸⁹

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

8 In addition to these the same author records⁹⁰ many other tumults which were stirred up in Jerusalem itself, and shows that from that time seditions and wars and mischievous plots followed each other in quick succession, and never ceased in the city and in all Judea until finally the siege of Vespasian overwhelmed them. Thus the divine vengeance overtook the Jews for the crimes which they dared to commit against Christ.

It is worthy of note that Pilate himself, who was governor in the time of our Saviour, is reported to have fallen into such misfortunes under Caius, whose times we are recording, that he was forced to become his own murderer and executioner;⁹¹ and thus divine vengeance, as it seems, was not long in overtaking him. This is stated by those Greek historians who have recorded the Olympiads, together with the respective events which have taken place in each period.⁹²

1 Caius had held the power not quite four years,⁹³ when he was succeeded by the emperor Claudius. Under him the world was visited with a famine,⁹⁴ which writers that are entire strangers to our religion have recorded in their histories.⁹⁵ And thus the prediction of Agabus recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,⁹⁶ according to which the whole world was to be visited by a famine, received its fulfillment.

2 And Luke, in the Acts, after mentioning the famine in the time of Claudius, and stating that the brethren of Antioch, each according to his ability, sent to the brethren of Judea by the hands of Paul and Barnabas,⁹⁷ adds the following account.

1 ”⁹⁸ Now about that time” (it is clear that he means the time of Claudius) “Herod the King⁹⁹ stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.”

2 And concerning this James, Clement, in the seventh book of his Hypotyposes,¹⁰⁰ relates a story which is worthy of mention; telling it as he received it from those who had lived before him. He says that the one who led James to the judgment-seat, when he saw him bearing his testimony, was moved, and confessed that he was himself also a Christian.

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

4 And then, as the divine Scripture says,¹⁰¹ Herod, upon the death of James, seeing that the deed pleased the Jews, attacked Peter also and committed him to prison, and would have slain him if he had not, by the divine appearance of an angel who came to him by night, been wonderfully released from his bonds, and thus liberated for the service of the Gospel. Such was the providence of God in respect to Peter.

Agrippa, Who Was Also Called Herod,
Having Persecuted the Apostles,
Immediately Experienced the Divine Vengeance.

1 The consequences of the king’s undertaking against the apostles were no, long deferred, but the avenging minister of divine justice overtook him immediately after his plots against them, as the Book of Acts records.¹⁰² For when he had journeyed to Caesarea, on a notable feast-day, clothed in a splendid and royal garment, he delivered an address to the people from a lofty throne in front of the tribunal. And when all the multitude applauded the speech, as if it were the voice of a god and not of a man, the Scripture relates that an angel of the Lord smote him, and being eaten of worms he gave up the ghost.¹⁰³

2 We must admire the account of Josephus for its agreement with the divine Scriptures in regard to this wonderful event; for he clearly bears witness to the truth in the nineteenth book of his Antiquities, where he relates the wonder in the following words:¹⁰⁴

3 “He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea¹⁰⁵ when hecame to Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower.¹⁰⁶ There he held games in honor of Caesar, learning that this was a festival observed in behalf of Caesar’s safety.¹⁰⁷ At this festival was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men in the province.

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

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

6 The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impiousflattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head.¹⁰⁸ And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune,¹⁰⁹ and he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.

7 And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence, seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, ‘I, your god, am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus I on the spot disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our destiny must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed our life by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is pronounced happiness.’¹¹⁰

8 And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude, with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was filled with lamentation and tears.¹¹¹ And the king as he lay in a lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could not refrain from weeping himself.

9 And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign.¹¹² Four years he ruled under the Emperor Caius-three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was added in the fourth year that of Herod¹¹³ -and three years during the reign of the Emperor Claudius.”

10 I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these things as well as in others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures. But if there should seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names.¹¹⁴

1 Luke, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel as saying, at the consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time referred to,¹¹⁵ “rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody; who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.”¹¹⁶ Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning this man. He records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances:¹¹⁷

2 “While Fadus was procurator of Judea¹¹⁸ a certain impostor called Theudas¹¹⁹ persuaded a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and afford them an easy passage.

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

1¹²⁰ “And at this time¹²¹ it came to pass that the great famine¹²² took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen,¹²³ having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the needy.”

2 You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, “each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul.”¹²⁴

3 But splendid monuments¹²⁵ of this Helen, Of whom the historian has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is now called Aelia,¹²⁶ But she is said to have been queen of the Adiabeni.¹²⁷

1 But faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus Christ having now been diffused among all men,¹²⁹ the enemy of man’s salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself. He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon,¹³⁰ aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.

2 This is stated by Justin,¹³¹ one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles. Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place.¹³² Take and read the work of this man, who in the first Apology¹³³ which he addressedto Antonine in behalf of our religion writes as follows:¹³⁴

3 “And after the ascension ofthe Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors. One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,¹³⁵ who in the reign of Claudius Caesar¹³⁶ performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber,¹³⁷ between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, To Simon the Holy God.¹³⁸

4 And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first God. And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena¹³⁹ who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him.”¹⁴⁰

5 Justin relates these things, and Irenaeus also agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man¹⁴¹ and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the above-mentioned work of Irenaeus.

6 We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy.¹⁴² From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have reigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.

7 But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded,¹⁴³ are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.¹⁴⁴

8 For what ever could be conceived of, viler than thevilest thing - all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices.¹⁴⁵

1 The evil power,¹⁴⁶ who hates all that isgood and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness,¹⁴⁷ as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour.

2 For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them “every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God.”¹⁴⁸

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

4 Immediately¹⁴⁹ the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,¹⁵⁰ he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.

5 And coming to the city of Rome,¹⁵¹ by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue.¹⁵²

6 But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome¹⁵³ against this great corrupter of life. He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.¹⁵⁴

1 And thus when the divine word had made its home among them,¹⁵⁵ the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself.¹⁵⁶ And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,¹⁵⁷ a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.¹⁵⁸

2 And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.¹⁵⁹ Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.¹⁶⁰ And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”¹⁶¹

1 And they say that this Mark was the first1 that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.¹⁶²

2 And the multitude of believers, both men and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life.”¹⁶³

1 It is also said that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter, who was then preaching there.¹⁶⁴ Nor is this indeed improbable, for the work of which we have spoken, and which was composed by him some years later, clearly contains those rules of the Church which are even to this day observed among us.

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

3 In the work to which he gave the title, On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants,¹⁶⁵ after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention,¹⁶⁶ he says that these men were called Therapeutae and the women that were with them Therapeutrides.¹⁶⁷ He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity.

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

5 He bears witness, however, that first of all 5 they renounce their property. When they begin the philosophical¹⁶⁸ mode of life, he says, they give up their goods to their relatives, and then, renouncing all the cares of life, they go forth beyond the walls and dwell in lonely fields and gardens, knowing well that intercourse with people of a different character is unprofitable and harmful. They did this at that time, as seems probable, under the influence of a spirited and ardent faith, practicing in emulation the prophets’ mode of life.

6 For in the Acts of the Apostles, a work universally acknowledged as authentic,¹⁶⁹ it is recorded that all the companions of the apostles sold their possessions and their property and distributed to all according to the necessity of each one, so that no one among them was in want. “For as many as were possessors of lands or houses,” as the account says, “sold them and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet, so that distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.”¹⁷⁰

7 Philo bears witness to facts very much like those here described and then adds the following account:¹⁷¹ “Everywhere in the world is this race¹⁷² found. For it was fitting that both Greek¹⁷³ and Barbarian should share in what is perfectly good. But the race particularly abounds in Egypt, in each of its so-called nomes,¹⁷⁴ and especially about Alexandria.

8 The best men from every quarter emigrate, as if to a colony of the Therapeut’s fatherland,¹⁷⁵ to a certain very suitable spot which lies above the lake Maria¹⁷⁶ upon a low hill excellently situated on account of its security and the mildness of the atmosphere.”

9 And then a little further on, after describing the kind of houses which they had, he speaks as follows concerning their churches, which were scattered about here and there:¹⁷⁷ “In each house there is a sacred apartment which is called a sanctuary and monastery,¹⁷⁸ where, quite alone, they perform the mysteries of the religious life. They bring nothing into it, neither drink nor food, nor any of the other things which contribute to the necessities of the body, but only the laws, and the inspired oracles of the prophets, and hymns and such other things as augment and makeperfect their knowledge and piety.”

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

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

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

13 Then again he writes as follows concerning the new psalms which they composed:¹⁸⁰ “So that they not only spend their time in meditation, but they also compose songs and hymns to God in every variety of metre and melody, though they divide them, of course, into measures of more than common solemnity.”

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

15 But if any one thinks that what has been said is not peculiar to the Gospel polity, but that it can be applied to others besides those mentioned, let him be convinced by the subsequent words of the same author, in which, if he is unprejudiced, he will find undisputed testimony on this subject. Philo’s words are as follows:¹⁸¹

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

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

18 But if after these things any one still obstinately persists in denying the reference, let him renounce his incredulity and be convinced by yet more striking examples, which are to be found nowhere else than in the evangelical religion of the Christians.¹⁸²

19 For they say that there were women also with those of whom we are speaking, and that the most of them were aged virgins¹⁸³ who had preserved their chastity, not out of necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks,¹⁸⁴ but rather by their own choice, through zeal and a desire for wisdom. And that in their earnest desire to live with it as their companion they paid no attention to the pleasures of the body, seeking not mortal but immortal progeny, which only the pious soul is able to bear of itself.

20 Then after a little he adds still more emphatically:¹⁸⁵ “They expound the Sacred Scriptures figuratively by means of allegories. For the whole law seems to these men to resemble a living organism, of which the spoken words constitute the body, while the hidden sense stored up within the words constitutes the soul. This hidden meaning has first been particularly studied by this sect, which sees, revealed as in a mirror of names, the surpassing beauties of the thoughts.”

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

22 These things the above-mentioned author has related in his own work, indicating a mode of life which has been preserved to the present time by us alone,recording especially the vigils kept in connectionwith the great festival, and the exercises performed during those vigils, and the hymns customarily recited by us, and describing how, while one sings regularly in time, the others listen in silence, and join in chanting only the close of the hymns; and how, on the days referred to they sleep on the ground on beds of straw, andto use his own words,¹⁸⁶ “taste no wine at all, norany flesh, but water is their only drink, and therelish with their bread is salt and hyssop.”

23 In addition to this Philo describes the order of dignities which ists among those who carry on the services of the church, mentioning the diaconate, and the office of bishop, which takes the precedence over all the others.¹⁸⁷ But whosoever desires a more accurate knowledge of these matters may get it from the history already cited.

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

1 Copious in language, comprehensive in thought, sublime and elevated in his views of divine Scripture, Philo has produced manifold and various expositions of the sacred books. On the one hand, he expounds in order the events recorded in Genesis in the books to which he gives the title Allegories of the Sacred Laws;¹⁸⁹ on the other hand, he makes successive divisions of the chapters in the Scriptures which are the subject of investigation, and gives objections and solutions, in the books which he quite suitably calls Questions and Answers an Genesis and Exodus.¹⁹⁰

2 There are, besides these, treatises expressly worked out by him on certain subjects, such as the two books On Agriculture,¹⁹¹ and the same number On Drunkenness;¹⁹² and some others distinguished by different titles corresponding to the contents of each; for instance, Concerning the things which the Sober Mind desires and execrates,¹⁹³ On the Confusion of Tongues,¹⁹⁴ On Flight and Discovery,¹⁹⁵ On Assembly for the sake of Instruction,¹⁹⁶ On the question, ‘Who is heir to things divine?’ or On the division of things into equal and unequal,¹⁹⁷ and still further the work On the three Virtues which with others have been described by Moses.¹⁹⁸

3 In addition to these is the work On those whose Names have been changed and why they have been changed,¹⁹⁹ in which he says that he hadwritten also two hooks On Covenants.²⁰⁰

4 And there is also a work of his On Emigration,²⁰¹ and one On the life of a Wise Man made perfect in Righteousness, or On unwritten Laws;²⁰² and still further the work On Giants or On the Immutability of God,²⁰³ and a first, second, third, fourth and fifth book On the proposition, that Dreams according to Moses are sent by God.²⁰⁴ These are the hooks on Genesis that have come down to us.

5 But on Exodus we are acquainted with the first, second, third, fourth and fifth books of Questions and Answers;²⁰⁵ also with that On the Tabernacle,²⁰⁶ and that On the Ten Commandments,²⁰⁷ and the four books On the laws which refer especially to the principal divisions of the ten Commandments,²⁰⁸ and another On animals intended for sacrifice and On the kinds of sacrifice,²⁰⁹ and another On the rewards fixed in the law for the good, and on the punishments and curses fixed for the wicked.²¹⁰

6 In addition to all these there are extantalso some single-volumed works of his; as for instance, the work On Providence,²¹¹ and the book composed by him On the Jews,²¹² and The Statesman;²¹³ and still further, Alexander, or On the possession of reason by the irrational animals.²¹⁴ Besides these there is a work On the proposition that every wicked man is a slave, to which is subjoined the work On the proposition that every goad man is free.²¹⁵

7 After these was composed by him the work On the contemplative life, or On suppliants,²¹⁶ from which we have drawn the facts concerning the life of the apostolic men; and still further, the Interpretation of the Hebrew names in the law and in the prophets are said to be the result of his industry.²¹⁷

8 And he is said to have read in the presence of the whole Roman Senate during the reign of Claudius²¹⁸ the work which he had written, when he came to Rome under Caius, concerning Caius’ hatred of the gods, and to which, with ironical reference to its character, he had given the title On the Virtues.²¹⁹ And his discourses were so much admired as to be deemed worthy of a place in the libraries.

9 At this time, while Paul was completing his journey “from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum,”²²⁰ Claudius drove the Jews out of Rome; and Aquila and Priscilla, leaving Rome with the other Jews, came to Asia, and there abode with the apostle Paul, who was confirming the churches of that region whose foundations he had newly laid. The sacred book of the Acts informs us also of these things.²²¹

1 While Claudius was still emperor, it happened that so great a tumult and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were forcibly crowded together at the gate of the temple perished,²²² being trampled under foot by one another. Thus the festival became a season of mourning for all the nation, and there was weeping in every house. These things are related literally²²³ by Josephus.

2 But Claudius appointed Agrippa,²²⁴ son of Agrippa, king of the Jews, having sent Felix²²⁵ as procurator of the whole country of Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea.²²⁶ And after he had reigned thirteen years and eight months²²⁷ he died, and left Nero as his successor in the empire.

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

2 His words are as follows²²⁸ : “There arose a quarrel between the high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other.²²⁹ And each of them collected a body of the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other. And there was no one that would interpose; but these things were done at will as if in a city destitute of a ruler.

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

4 And the same author again relates that about the same time there sprang up in Jerusalem a certain kind of robbers,²³⁰ “ who byday,” as he says, “and in the middle of the city slew those who met them.”

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

6 The first that was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest;²³¹ and after him many were killed every day, until the fear became worse than the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly expecting death.

1 After other matters he proceeds as follows:²³² “But the Jews were afflicted with a greater plague than these by the Egyptian false prophet.²³³ For there appeared in the land an impostor who aroused faith in himself as a prophet, and collected about thirty thousand of those whom he had deceived, and led them from the desert to the so-called Mount of Olives whence he was prepared to enter Jerusalem by force and to overpower the Roman garrison and seize the government of the people, using those who made the attack with him as body guards.

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

3 Josephus relates these events in the secondbook of his History.²³⁴ But it is worth while comparing the account of the Egyptian given here with that contained in the Acts of the Apostles. In the time of Felix it was said to Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle, “Art not thou he Who before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?”²³⁵ These are the events which took place in the time of Felix.²³⁶

Paul Having Been Sent Bound from Judea to Rome,
Made His Defense, and Was Acquitted of Every Charge.

1 Festus²³⁷ was sent by Nero to be Felix’s successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome²³⁸ Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner.²³⁹ And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles,²⁴⁰ brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the word of God without restraint.²⁴¹

2 Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching,²⁴² and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom.²⁴³ In this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy,²⁴⁴ in which he mentions his first defense and his impending death.

3 But hear his testimony on these matters: “At my first answer,” he says, “no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.”²⁴⁵

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

5 Wherefore he adds to the words, “And he delivered me from the mouth of the lion,” this sentence: “The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom,”²⁴⁶ indicating his speedy martyrdom; which he also foretells still more clearly in the same epistle, when he writes, “For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.”²⁴⁷

6 In his second epistle to Timothy, moreover, he indicates that Luke was with him when he wrote,²⁴⁸ but athis first defense not even he.²⁴⁹ Whence it is probable that Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles at that time, continuing his history down to the period when he was with Paul.²⁵⁰

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

8 It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul’s defense of his doctrine was more easily received; but that when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as well as others the subjects of his attacks.²⁵¹

1 But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Caesar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord,²⁵² to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem bad been entrusted by the apostles.²⁵³ The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.

2 Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bearlonger the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue²⁵⁴ and of piety which he exhibited in his life, wasesteemed by all as the most just of men, andconsequently they slew him. Opportunity forthis deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea,and that the province was thus without a governor and head.²⁵⁵

3 The manner of James’ death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club.²⁵⁶ But Hegesippus,²⁵⁷ who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs.²⁵⁸ He writes as follows:

4 “James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.²⁵⁹ He has been called the Just²⁶⁰ by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

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

6 He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.²⁶¹

7 Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias,²⁶² which signifies in Greek, ‘Bulwark of the people’ and ‘Justice,’²⁶³ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.²⁶⁴

8 Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs,²⁶⁵ asked him, ‘What is the gate of Jesus?’²⁶⁶ and he replied that he was the Saviour.

9 On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one’s coming to give to every man according to his works.²⁶⁷ But as many as believed did so on account of James.

10 Therefore when many even of the rulersbelieved, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole peoplewould be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, ‘We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ.²⁶⁸ We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee. For we bear thee witness, as do all the people, that thou art just, and dost not respect persons.²⁶⁹

11 Do thou therefore persuade themultitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in thee. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple,²⁷⁰ that from that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, and that thy words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover.’

12 The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: ‘Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have: confidence, forasmuch as the people are led, astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.’²⁷¹

13 And he answered with a loud voice, ‘Why do ye ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.’²⁷²

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

15 And they cried out, saying, ‘Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.’ And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah,²⁷³ ‘Let us take away²⁷⁴ the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’

16 So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee, Lord God our Father,²⁷⁵ forgive them, for they know not what they do.’²⁷⁶

17 And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites,²⁷⁷ who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet,²⁷⁸ cried out, saying, ‘Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you.’²⁷⁹

18 And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom.²⁸⁰ And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple.²⁸¹ He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.”²⁸²

19 These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.²⁸³ James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

20 Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,²⁸⁴ “These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

21 And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words:²⁸⁵ “But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus²⁸⁶ to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus,²⁸⁷ who, as we have already said,²⁸⁸ had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.²⁸⁹

22 Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others,²⁹⁰ and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.²⁹¹

23 But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king,²⁹² requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge.²⁹³

24 And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him, of the high priesthood,²⁹⁴ which he had held threemonths, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.”²⁹⁵

25 These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic²⁹⁶ epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed;²⁹⁷ at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude,²⁹⁸ which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also,²⁹⁹ with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.³⁰⁰

1 When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign,³⁰¹ Annianus³⁰² succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria.³⁰³

The Persecution Under Nero in Which Paul and Peter
Were Honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.

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

2 To describe the greatness of his depravity does not lie within the plan of the present work. As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives,³⁰⁴ every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man’s extraordinary madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his wife,³⁰⁵ with very many others of his own family as he would private and public enemies, with various kinds of deaths.

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

4 The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows:³⁰⁶ “Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine,³⁰⁷ particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome.³⁰⁸ We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.”

5 Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,³⁰⁹ and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.³¹⁰ This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

6 It is confirmed likewise by Caius,³¹¹ a member of the Church,³¹² who arose³¹³ under Zephyrinus,³¹⁴ bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus,³¹⁵ the leader of the Phrygian heresy,³¹⁶ speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid:

7 “But³¹⁷ I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican³¹⁸ or to the Ostian way,³¹⁹ you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.”³²⁰

8 And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,³²¹ in his epistle to the Romans,³²² in the following words: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth.³²³ And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.”³²⁴ I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

The Jews, Afflicted with Innumerable Evils,
Commenced the Last War Against the Romans.

1 Josephus again, after relating many things in connection with the calamity which came upon the whole Jewish nation, records,³²⁵ in addition to many other circumstances, that a great many³²⁶ of the most honorable among the Jews were scourged in Jerusalem itself and then crucified by Florus.³²⁷ It happened that he was procurator of Judea when the war began to be kindled, in the twelfth year of Nero.³²⁸

2 Josephus says³²⁹ that at that time a terrible commotion was stirred up throughout all Syria in consequence of the revolt of the Jews, and that everywhere the latter were destroyed without mercy, like enemies, by the inhabitants of the cities, “so that one could see cities filled with unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged scattered about with the bodies of infants, and women without even a covering for their nakedness, and the whole province full of indescribable calamities, while the dread of those things that were threatened was greater than the sufferings themselves which they anywhere endured.”³³⁰ Such is the account of Josephus; and such was the condition of the Jews at that time.

³The view that the Seven were deacons appears first in Irenaeus (adv. Haer. I. 26. 3; III. 12. 10; IV. 15. I), then in Cyprian (Ep. 64. 3), and was the commonly accepted opinion of the Roman Church in the third century (for, while they had forty-six presbyters, they had only seven deacons; see below, Bk. VI. chap. 43), and has been ever since almost universally accepted. In favor of the identification are urged this early and unanimous tradition, the similarity of the duties assigned to the Seven and to later deacons, and the use of the words diakonia and diakonein in connection with the “Seven” in Acts vi. It must be remarked, however, that ancient tradition is not unanimously in favor of the identification, for Chrysosram (Homily XIV. on Acts) denies it; still further, the functions of the Seven and of later deacons were not identical, for the former were put in charge of the financial affairs of the Jerusalem church, while the latter acted simply as bishops’ assistants. In fact, it was the bishop of the second century, not the deacon, that had charge of the church finances. And finally, no weight can be laid upon the use of the terms diakonein and diakonia in connection with the Seven, for these words are used always in a general, never in an official sense in other parts of the Acts and of the New Testament, and, what is still more decisive, the same word (diakonia) is used in the same passage in connection with the apostles; the Seven are “to serve tables” (diakonein taij trapezaij,) the apostles are to give themselves to “the service of the word” (diakonia tou logou.) There is just as much reason, therefore, on linguistic grounds, for calling the apostles “deacons” as for giving that name to the Seven. On the other hand, against the opinion that the Seven were deacons, are to be urged the facts that they are never called “deacons” by Luke or by any other New Testament writer; that we are nowhere told, in the New Testament or out of it, that there were deacons in the Jerusalem church, although Luke had many opportunities to call the Seven “deacons” if he had considered them such; and finally, that according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 18), the Ebionitic churches of Palestine in his time had only presbyters and Archisynagogi (chiefs of the synagogue). These Ebionites were the Jewish Christian reactionaries who refused to advance with the Church catholic in its normal development; it is therefore at least significant that there were no deacons among them in the fourth century.

In view of these considerations I feel compelled to doubt the traditional identification, although it is accepted without dissent by almost all scholars (cf. e.g. Lightfoot’s article on The Christian Ministry in his Commentary on Philippians). There remain but two possibilities: either the Seven constituted a merely temporary committee (as held by Chrysostom, and in modern times, among others, by Vitringa, in his celebrated work on the Synagogue, and by Stanley in his Essays on the Apostolic Age); or they were the originals of permanent officers in the Church, other than deacons. The former alternative is possible, but the emphasis which Luke lays upon the appointment is against it, as also the fact that the very duties which these men were chosen to perform were such as would increase rather than diminish with the growth of the Church, and such as would therefore demand the creation of a new and similar committee if the old were not continued.

In favor of the second alternative there is, it seems to me, much to be said. The limits of this note forbid a full discussion of the subject. But it may be urged: First, that we find in the Acts frequent mention of a body of men in the Jerusalem church known as “elders.” Of the appointment of these elders we have no account, and yet it is clear that they cannot have been in existence when the apostles proposed the appointment of the Seven. Secondly, although the Seven were such prominent and influential men, they are not once mentioned as a body in the subsequent chapters of the Acts, while, whenever we should expect to find them referred to with the apostles, it is always the “elders” that are mentioned. Finally, when the elders appear for the first time (Acts xi. 30), we find them entrusted with the same duties which the Seven were originally appointed to perform: they receive the alms sent by the church of Antioch. It is certainly, to say the least, a very natural conclusion that these “elders” occupy the office of whose institution we read in Acts vi.

Against this identification of the Seven with the elders of the Jerusalem church it might be urged: First, that Luke does not call them elders. But it is quite possible that they were not called by that name at first, and yet later acquired it; and in that case, in referring to them in later times, people would naturally call the first appointed “the Seven,” to distinguish them from their successors, “the elders,”-the well-known and frequently mentioned officers whose number may well have been increased as the church grew. It is thus easier to account for Luke’s omission of the name “elder,” than it would be to account for his omission of the name “deacon,” if they were deacons. In the second place, it might be objected that the duties which the Seven were appointed to perform were not commensurate with those which fell to the lot of the elders as known to us. This objection, however, loses its weight when we realize that the same kind of a development went on in connection with the bishop, as has been most clearly pointed out by Hatch in his Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and by Harnack in his translation of that work and in his edition of the Teaching of the Apostles. Moreover, in the case of the Seven, who were evidently the chiefest men in the Jerusalem church after the apostles, and at the same time were “full of the Spirit,” it was very natural that, as the apostles gradually scattered, the successors of these Seven should have committed to them other duties besides the purely financial ones.

The theory presented in this note is not a novel one. It was suggested first by Böhmer (in his Diss. Juris eccles.), who was followed by Ritschl (in his Entstehung der all-kath. Kirche), and has been accepted in a somewhat modified form by Lange (in his Apostolisches Zeitalter), and by Lechler (in his Apost. und Nachapost. Zeitalter). Before learning that the theory had been proposed by others, I had myself adapted it and had embodied it in a more elaborate form in a paper read before a ministerial association in the spring of 1888. My confidence in its validity has of course been increased by the knowledge that it has been maintained by the eminent scholars referred to above.

⁷James is not called the “Just” in the New Testament, but Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23) says that he was called thus by all from the time of Christ, on account of his great piety, and it is by this name that he is known throughout history.

⁹Eusebius testimony is in favor of the half-brother theory; for had he considered James the son of Mary, he could not have spoken in this way.

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

¹²all Iakwbon ton dikaion episkopon twn Ierosolumwn elesqai,, as the majority of the mss. and editions read. Laemmer, followed by Heinichen, substitutes genesqai for elesqai on the authority oftwo important codices. The other reading, however, is as well, ifnot better, supported.

How soon after the ascension of Christ, James the Just assumeda leading position in the church of Jerusalem, we do not know.He undoubtedly became prominent very soon, as Paul in 37 (or40) a.d. sees him in addition to Peter on visiting Jerusalem. Butwe do not know of his having a position of leadership until theJerusalem Council in 51 (Acts xv. and Gal. ii.), where he is one of the three pillars, standing at least upon an equality in influence with Peter and John. But this very expression “three pillars of the Church” excludes the supposition that he was bishop of the Church in the modern sense of the term-he was only one of the rulers of the Church. Indeed, we have abundant evidence from other sources that the monarchical episcopacy was nowhere known at that early age. It was the custom of all writers of the second century and later to throw back into the apostolic age their own church organization, and hence we hear of bishops appointed by the apostles in various churches where we know that the episcopacy was a second century growth.

¹⁴Clement evidently identifies James, the brother of the Lord, with James, the son of Alphaeus (compare the words just above: “These delivered it to the rest of the apostles,” in which the word “apostles,” on account of the “Seventy” just following, seems to be used in a narrow sense, and therefore this lames to be one of the Twelve), and he is thus cited as a witness to the cousin hypothesis (see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 13). Papias, too, in a fragment given by Routh (Rel. Sac. I. p. 16) identifies the two. But Hegesippus (quoted by Eusebius in chap. 23) expressly states that there were many of this name, and that he was therefore called James the Just to distinguish him from others. Eusebius quotes this passage of Clement with apparently no suspicion that it contradicts his own opinion in regard to the relationship of James to Christ. The contradiction, indeed, appears only upon careful examination.

¹⁵Josephus (Ant. XX. 9. 1) says he was stoned to death. The account of Clement agrees with that of Hegesippus quoted by Eusesebius in chap. 23, below, which see.

¹⁶James, the son of Zebedee, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa I., 44 a.d. See Acts xii. 2, and Bk. II. chap. 9 below.

¹⁹The date of the introduction of Christianity into Edessa is not known (see above, Bk. I. chap. 13, notes 1 and 3) but it was the seat of a bishop in the third century, and in Eusebius’ time was filled with magnificent churches and monasteries.

²⁵thn megalhn dunamin tou qeou. Compare Acts viii. 10, which has h dunamij tou qeou h kaloumenh. According to Irenaeus (I. 23. 1) he was called “the loftiest of all powers, i.e. the one who is father over all things” (sublissimam virtutem, hoc est, enm qui sit nuper omnia Pater); according to Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 (see below, chap. 13), ton prwton qeon; according to the Clementine Homilies (II. 22) he wished to be called “a certain supreme power of God” (anwtath tij dunamij.) According to the Clementine Recognitions (II. 7) he was called the “Standing one” (hinc ergo Stans appellatur).

²⁶Eusebius here utters the universal belief of the early Church, which from the subsequent career of Simon, who was considered the founder of all heresies, and the great arch-heretic himself, read back into his very conversion the hypocrisy for which he was afterward distinguished in Church history. The account of the Acts does not say that his belief was hypocritical, and leaves it to be implied (if it be implied at all) only from his subsequent conduct in endeavoring to purchase the gift of God with money.

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

²⁸Another instance of the external and artificial conception of heresy which Eusebius held in common with his age.

²⁹Acts viii. tells of no punishment which befell Simon further than the rebuke of Peter which Hippolytus (Phil. vi. 15) calls a curse, and which as such may have been regarded by Eusebius as a deserved punishment, its effect clinging to him, and finally bringing him to destruction (see below, chap. 14, note 8).

³⁰Acts viii. 26 sqq. This queen was Candace, according to the Biblical account; but Candace was the name, not of an individual, but of a dynasty of queens who ruled in Meroë, an island formed by two branches of the Nile, south of Egypt. See Pliny, H. N. VI. 35 (Delphin edition); Dion Cassius, LIV. 5; and Strabo, XVII. 1. 54 (Müller’s edit., Paris, 1877).

³¹Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 12. 8) says that this Eunuch returned to Ethiopia and preached there. But by no one else, so far as I know, is the origin of Christianity in Ethiopia traced back to him. The first certain knowledge we have of the introduction of Christianity into Ethiopia is in the fourth century, under Frumentius and Aedesius, of whom Rufinus, I. 9, gives the original account; and yet it is probable that Christianity existed there long before this time. Compare Neander’s Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 46. See also H. R. Reynolds’ article upon the “Ethiopian Church” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, II. 232 sqq.

³⁵See Acts ix. 3 sqq.; Acts xxii. 6 sqq.; Acts xxvi. 12 sqq.; Gal. i. 16; 1 Cor. xv. 8-10.

³⁶That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by Tertullian (Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Mar-tyr (Apol. I. 35 and Apol. I. 48) mentions certain Acts of Pilate as well known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate which are still extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of these Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the Gospel of Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and Epistles are collected in Tischendorf’s Evang. Apoc., and most of them are translated by Cowper in his Apocryphal Gospels. See also the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the excellent article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. lxii sqq.

³⁷The existing Report of Pilate (translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, ibid. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius’ description, containing as it does a detailed account of Christ’s miracles and of his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf referred to in the previous note.

³⁹That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.

⁴⁰Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst Nöldechen in the Zeitschrift fÜr wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1886, Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about 230. Tertullian’s father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200 a.d.), and died at an advanced age (22+). That he was a presbyter rests only upon the authority of Jerome (de vir. ill. 53), and is denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of works,-apologetic, polemic, and practical-a few in Greek, but most of them in Latin,-and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol. IlI. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is given in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1-125. Our main sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome’s de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A. Hauck, Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften, Erlangen, 1877. For the literature, see Schaff’s Church Hist. II. p. 818.

⁴¹His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.

⁴²Kai twn malista epi 9Rwmhj lamprwn. Rufinus translates inter nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, taking epi Rwmhj to mean the Latin language. But this is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says expressly, one of the especially distinguished men in Rome. From his work de cultu Feminarum, Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.

⁴³Tertullian’s Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is “one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church” (Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197-204. Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (Die Schriften Tertullian’s, Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Nöldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its date may be accepted as practically established.

⁴⁴Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs ns in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of Tertullian’s which he quotes is his Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian’s works, or at least the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen’s note in his edition of Eusebius' History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of Tertullian’s Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible.

⁴⁶Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian’s Apology, p. 56) that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero’s De Legibus in the words: Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.

⁴⁷Markoj ‘Aimilioj outwj peri tinoj eidwlou pepoihken’ Albournon.. Latin: Scit M. Aemilius de cleo suo Alburno. In Adv. Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says, Alioquin si sic homo Deum commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non regem, nec imperatorem.

I cannot discover that this eidwloj or Deus Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.

⁴⁸Literally, “This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of) our doctrine” (kai touto uper tou hmwn logou pepoihtai); but the freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense. The original Latin reads: facit et hoc ad causam nostram.

⁴⁹This entire account bears all the marks of untruthfulness, and cannot for a moment be thought of as genuine. Tertullian was probably, as Neander suggests, deceived by falsified or interpolated documents from some Christian source. He cannot have secured his knowledge from original state records. The falsification took place, probably, long after the time of Tiberius. Tertullian is the first writer to mention these circumstances, and Tertullian was not by any means a critical historian. Compare Neander’s remarks in his Church History, Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. (Torrey’s Translation).

⁵⁰Were this conduct of Tiberius a fact, Trajan’s rescript and all subsequent imperial action upon the subject would become inexplicable.

⁵¹Compare Col. i. 6. That Christianity had already spread over the whole world at this time is, of course, an exaggeration; but the statement is not a mere rhetorical flourish; it was believed as a historical fact. This conception arose originally out of the idea that the second coming of Christ was near, and the whole world must know of him before his coming. The tradition that the apostles preached in all parts of the world is to be traced back to the same cause.

⁵⁴See Acts xi. 20. The Textus Receptus of the New Testament reads at this point Ellhnistaj, a reading which is strongly supported by external testimony and adopted by Westcott and Hort. But the internal evidence seems to demand Ellhnaj, and this reading is found in some of the oldest versions and in a few mss., and is adopted by most modern critics, including Tischendorf. Eusebius is a witness for the latter reading. He takes the word Ellhnaj in a broad sense to indicate all that are not Jews, as is clear from his insertion of the allwn, ”other Greeks,” after speaking of Cornelius, who was not a Greek, but a Roman. Closs accordingly translates Nichtjuden, and Stigloher Heiden.

⁵⁶See Acts xi.26. This name was first given to the disciples by the heathen of Antioch, not by the Jews, to whom the word “Christ” meant too much; nor by the disciples themselves, for the word seldom appears in the New Testament, and nowhere in the mouth of a disciple. The word xristianoj has a Latin termination, but this does not prove that it was invented by Romans, for Latinisms were common in the Greek of that day. It was probably originally given as a term of contempt, but accepted by the disciples as a term of the highest honor.

⁵⁷ap euqalouj kai gonimou phghj. Two mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius, Closs, and Crusè, read ghj; but all the other mss., together with Rufinus, support the reading phghj, which is adopted by the majority of editors.

⁵⁸See Acts xi. 28. Agabus is known to us only from this and one other passage of the Acts (xxi. 10), where he foretells the imprisonment of Paul. The famine here referred to took place in the reign of Claudius, where Eusebius puts it when he mentions it again in chap. 8. He cannot therefore be accused, as many accuse him, of putting the famine itself into the reign of Tiberius, and hence of committing a chronological error. He is following the account of the Acts, and mentions the prominent fact of the famine in that connection, without thinking of chronological order. His method is, to be sure, loose, as he does not inform his readers that he is anticipating by a number of years, but leaves them to discover it for themselves when they find the same subject taken up again after a digression of four chapters. Upon the famine itself, see below, chap. 8.

⁶²Herod Agrippa I. He was a son of Aristobulus, and a grandson of Herod the Great. He was educated in Rome and gained high favor with Caius, and upon the latter’s accession to the throne received the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, and in a.d. 39 the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea, which had belonged to Herod Antipas. After the death of Caius, his successor, Claudius, appointed him also king over the province of Judea and Samaria, which made him ruler of all Palestine, a dominion as extensive as that of Herod the Great. He was a strict observer of the Jewish law, and courted the favor of the Jews with success. It was by him that James the Elder was beheaded, and Peter imprisoned (Acts xii.). He died of a terrible disease in a.d. 44. See below, chap. 10.

⁶⁵He was banished in a.d. 39 to Lugdunum in Gaul (according to Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 7. 2; or to Spain, according to his B. J. II. 9. 6), and died in Spain (according to B. J. II. 9. 6).

⁶⁷Philo was an Alexandrian Jew of high family, who was born probably about 20-10 b.c. (in his Legat. ad Cajum, he calls himself an old man). Very little is known about his life, and the time of his death is uncertain. The only fixed date which we have is the embassy to Caligula (a.d. 40), and he lived for at least some time after this. He is mentioned by Jerome (de vir. ill. 11), who says he was born of a priestly family; but Eusebius knows nothing of this, and there is probably no truth in the statement. He is mentioned also by Josephus in his Ant. XVIII. 8. 1. He was a Jewish philosopher, thoroughly imbued with the Greek spirit, who strove to unite Jewish beliefs with Greek culture, and exerted immense influence upon the thought of subsequent ages, especially upon Christian theology. His works (Biblical, historical, philosophical, practical, &c.) are very numerous, and probably the majority of them are still extant. For particulars, see chap. 18, below. For an excellent account of Philo, see Schürer, Geschichte des Füdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi; zweite Auflage, Bd. II. p. 831 to 884 (Leipzig, 1886), where the chief literature upon the subject is given.

⁶⁸Philo was thoroughly acquainted with Greek literature in all its departments, and shows great familiarity with it in his works. The influence of Plato upon him was very great, not only upon his philosophical system, but also upon his language; and all the Greek philosophers were studied and honored by him. He may, indeed, himself be called one of them. His system is eclectic, and contains not only Platonic, but also Pythagorean, and even Stoic, elements. Upon his doctrinal system, see especially Schürer, ibid. p. 836 sq.

⁶⁹Upon this work, see Schürer, p. 855 sqq. According to him, the whole work embraced five books, and probably bore the title peri aretwn kai presbeiaj proj Gaion. Eusebius cites what seems to be the same work under these two different titles in this and in the next chapter; and the conclusion that they were but one work is confirmed by the fact that Eusebius (in chap. 18) mentions the work under the title On the Virtues, which he says that Philo humorously prefixed to his work, describing the impiety of Caius. The omission of the title h presbeia in so complete a catalogue of Philo’s works makes its identification with peri aretwn very probable. Of the five, only the third and fourth are extant,-eij Flakkon, Adversus Flaccum, and peri presbeiaj proj Gaion, de legatione ad Cajum (found in Mangey’s ed. Vol. II. p. 517-600). Book I., which is lost, contained, probably, a general introduction; Book II., which is also lost, contained an account of the oppression of the Jews during the time of Tiberius, by Sejanus in Rome, and by Pilate in Judea (see below, note 9); Book III., Adversus Flaccum (still extant), contains an account of the persecution of the Jews of Alexandria at the beginning of the reign of Caius; Book IV., Legatio ad Cajum (still extant), describes the sufferings which came upon the Jews as a result of Caius’ command that divine honors should everywhere be paid him; Book V., the palinwdia (which is lost), contained an account of the change for the better in the Jews’ condition through the death of Caius, and the edict of toleration published by Claudius. Upon the other works of Philo, see chap. 18, below.

⁷⁰The occasion of this embassy was a terrible disturbance which had arisen between the Jews and Greeks in Alexandria, and had continued with occasional interruptions for more than a year. Much blood had been shed, and affairs were becoming constantly worse. All efforts to secure peace utterly failed, and finally, in 40 a.d., the Greeks dispatched an embassy to the emperor, hoping to secure from him an edict for the extermination of the Jews. The Jews, on their side, followed the example of the Greeks, sending an embassy for their own defense, with Philo at its head. The result was as Eusebius relates, and the Jews were left in a worse condition than before, from which, however, they were speedily relieved by the death of Caius. Claudius, who succeeded Caius, restored to them for a time religious freedom and all the rights which they had hitherto enjoyed.

⁷²This sedition, mentioned above, began in 38 a.d., soon after the accession of Caius. The Jews, since the time of Alexander the Great, when they had come in great numbers to the newly founded city, Alexandria, had enjoyed with occasional interruptions high favor there, and were among the most influential inhabitants. They possessed all the rights of citizenship and stood upon an equality with their neighbors in all respects. When Alexandria fell into the hands of the Romans, all the inhabitants, Jews as well as Greeks, were compelled to take a position subordinate to the conquerors, but their condition was not worse than that of their neighbors. They had always, however, been hated more or less by their fellow-citizens on account of their prosperity, which was the result of superior education and industry. This enmity came to a crisis under Caius, when the financial condition of Egypt was very bad, and the inhabitants felt themselves unusually burdened by the Roman demands. The old hatred for their more prosperous neighbors broke out afresh, and the terrible disturbance mentioned was the result. The refusal of the Jews to worship Caius as a God was made a pretext for attacking them, and it was this refusal which gained for them the hatred of Caius himself.

⁷³Apion, chief of the Greek deputies, was a grammarian of Alexandria who had won great fame as a writer and Greek scholar. He seems to have been very unscrupulous and profligate, and was a bitter and persistent enemy of the Jews, whom he attacked very severely in at least two of his works-the Egyptian History and a special work Against the Jews, neither of which is extant. He was very unscrupulous in his attacks, inventing the most absurd and malicious falsehoods, which were quite generally believed, and were the means of spreading still more widely the common hatred of the Jews. Against him Josephus wrote his celebrated work, Contra Apionem (more fully de antiquitate Judaeorum contra Apionem), which is still extant, and in the second book of which he exposes the ignorance and mendacity of Apion. In the Pseudo-Clementines he plays an important (but of course fictitious) role as an antagonist of the Gospel. The extant fragments of Apion’s works are given, according to Lightfoot, in Müller’s Fragm. Hist. Graec. II. 506 sq., and in Fabricius' Bibl. Graec. I. 503, and VII. 50. Compare Lightfoot’s article in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog.

⁷⁴The Alabarch was the chief magistrate of the Jews at Alexandria. Alexander was a very rich and influential Jew, who was widely known and held in high esteem. His son Tiberius Alexander was appointed procurator of Judea in 46 a.d., as successor of Cuspius Fadus. Philo thus belonged to a high and noble Jewish family. The accuracy of Josephus’ statement that Philo was the brother of the Alabrach Alexander has been denied (e.g., by Ewald. Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes, Vol. VI. p. 235), and the Alabarch has been assumed to have been the nephew of Philo, but this without sufficient ground (compare Schürer, ibid. p. 832, note 5).

⁷⁵See note 1, above. The work is cited here under the title hresbeia (Legatio).

⁷⁶The Jews in Rome had enjoyed the favor of Augustus, and had increased greatly in numbers and influence there. They were first disturbed by Tiberius, who was very hostile to them, and to whose notice all the worst sides of Jewish character were brought by their enemies, especially by Sejanus, who had great influence with the emperor, and was moreover a deadly enemy of the Jews. The Jews were driven out of Rome, and suffered many acts of violence. After the death of Sejanús, which took place in 31 a.d., they were allowed to return, and their former rights were restored.

⁷⁷Pilate proved himself exceedingly tyrannical and was very obnoxious to the Jews, offending them greatly at different times during his administration by disregarding their religious scruples as no procurator before him had ventured to do. Soon after his accession he changed his quarters from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and introduced the Roman standard into the Holy City. The result was a great tumult, and Pilate was forced to yield and withdraw the offensive ensigns (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 2; see the next chapter). At another time he offended the Jews by hanging in his palace some shields inscribed with the names of heathen deities, which he removed only upon an express order of Tiberius (Philo, ad Caium, chap. 38). Again, he appropriated a part of the treasure of the temple to the construction of an aqueduct, which caused another terrible tumult which was quelled only after much bloodshed (Josephus, B. J. II. 9. 4; see the next chapter). For further particulars about Pilate, see chap. 7, below.

⁷⁸Caius’ hostility to the Jews resulted chiefly (as mentioned above, chap. 5, note 4) from their refusal to pay him divine honors, which he demanded from them as well as from his other subjects. His demands had caused terrible disturbances in Alexandria; and in Jerusalem, where he commanded the temple to be devoted to his worship, the tumult was very great and was quieted only by the yielding of the emperor, who was induced to give up his demands by the request of Agrippa, who was then at Rome and in high favor with him. Whether the Jews suffered in the same way in Rome we do not know, but it is probable that the emperor endeavored to carry out the same plan there as elsewhere.

⁸⁰en taij allaij polesi. The reason for the use of the word “other” is not quite clear, though Philo perhaps means all the cities except Jerusalem, which he mentions a little below.

⁸¹“‘Caius the younger,0’ to distinguish him from Julius Caesar who bore the name Caius, and who was also deified” (Valesius).

⁸²This work is probably the same as that mentioned in the beginning of chap. 5. (See chap. 5, note 1.) The work seems to have borne two titles h presbeia and peri aretwn. See Schürer, ibid. p. 859, who considers the deuterw here the addition of a copyist, who could not reconcile the two different titles given by Eusebius.

⁸³This is rather an unwarranted assumption on the part of Eusebius, as Josephus is very far from intimating that the calamities of the nation were a consequence of their crimes against our Saviour.

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

⁸⁹Josephus, in Ant. XVIII. 3. 2, says that the aqueduct was 200 stadia long. In the passage which Eusebius quotes the number given is 400, according to the Greek mss. of Josephus, though the old Latin translation agrees with Eusebius in reading 300. The situation of the aqueduct we do not know, though the remains of an ancient aqueduct have been found to the south of Jerusalem, and it is thought that this may have been the same. It is possible that Pilate did not construct a new aqueduct, but simply restored one that had been built in the time of Solomon. Schultz (Jerusalem, Berlin, 1845) suggests the number 40, supposing that the aqueduct began at Bethlehem, which is 40 stadia from Jerusalem.

⁹¹Pilate’s downfall occurred in the following manner. A leader of the Samaritans had promised to disclose the sacred treasures which Moses was reported to have concealed upon Mt. Gerizim, and the Samaritans came together in great numbers from all quarters. Pilate, supposing the gathering to be with rebellious purpose, sent troops against them and defeated them with great slaughter. The Samaritans complained to Vitellius, governor of Syria, who sent Pilate to Rome (36 a.d.) to answer the charges brought against him. Upon reaching Rome he found Tiberius dead and Caius upon the throne. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to defend himself, and, according to tradition, was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where a monument is still shown as Pilate’s tomb. According to another tradition he committed suicide upon the mountain near Lake Lucerne, which bears his name.

⁹²Eusebius, unfortunately, does not mention his authority in this case, and the end of Pilate is recorded by no Greek historians known to us. We are unable, therefore, to form a judgment as to the trustworthiness of the account.

⁹³Caius ruled from March 16, a.d. 37, to Jan. 24, a.d. 41, and was succeeded by his uncle Claudius.

⁹⁴Several famines occurred during the reign of Claudius (cf. Dion Cassius, LX. 11, Tacitus, Annal. XII. 13, and Eusebius, Chron., year of Abr. 2070) in different parts of the empire, but no universal famine is recorded such as Eusebius speaks of. According to Josephus (Ant. XX. 2.5 and 5. 2), a severe famine took place in Judea while Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander were successively procurators. Fadus was sent into Judea upon the death of Agrippa (44 a.d.), and Alexander was succeeded by Cumanus in 48 a.d. The exact date of Alexander’s accession we do not know, but it took place probably about 45 or 46. This famine is without doubt the one referred to by Agabus in Acts xi. 28. The exact meaning of the word oikouenh, in that passage, is a matter of dispute. Whether it refers simply to Palestine, or is used to indicate a succession of famines in different parts of the world, or is employed only in a rhetorical sense, it is impossible to say. Eusebius understands the word in its widest sense, and therefore assumes a universal famine; but he is mistaken in his assumption.

⁹⁵The only non-Christian historians, so far as we know, to record a famine during the reign of Claudius, are Dion Cassius and Tacitus, who mention a famine in Rome, and Josephus, who speaks of the famine in Judea (see the previous note for the references). Eusebius, in his Chron., mentions famines both in Greece and in Rome during this reign, but upon what authority we do not know. As already remarked, we have no extant account of a general famine at this time.

¹⁰⁰On Clement’s Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,-in how far true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This story of James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true, though external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin legends concerning James’ later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his statement and it is not improbable that the report originated through a confusion of this James with James the Just.

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

¹⁰⁶Caesarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem. In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point, called “Strato’s Tower"; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the city of Caesarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea. It was a city of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of utter desolation.

¹⁰⁷The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler’s Chronologie des ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed in connection with the date of Agrippa’s death which is fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.

¹⁰⁸The passage in Josephus reads: “But as he presently afterward looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him.” This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks serious, but so severe an accusation-an accusation which impeaches. the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner-should not be made except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says: “Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa’s death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge.” And in a note he adds: “It is not the substitution of an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of Josephus, which runs thus: anakuyaj d oun met oligon [ton boubwna] thj eautou kefalhj uper kaqezomenon eiden [epi sxoiniou tinoj] aggelon [te] touton euquj enohse kakwn einai, ton kai pote twn agaqwn genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and aition is added after einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden aggelon touton euquj enohse kakwn einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not feel at all sure that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton boubwna, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to extract some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant. XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name: boubwna de oi =Pwmaioi ton ornin touton kalousi. Möller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this ‘the one case’ in which, so far as he recollects, ‘a sinceritatis via paululum deflexit noster'; and even here the indictment cannot be made good. The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii.21, are altogether unjustifiable” (Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christian Biog. II. p. 325). The Greek word boubwn means, according to Liddell and Scott, (1) the groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies “an owl,” and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the Latin into Greek without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant. XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure, explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a copyist of Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had probably never seen that explanation.

Whiston in his translation of Josephus inserts a note to the following effect: “We have a mighty cry made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles, because the present copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the words boubwna ...epi sxoiniou, tinoj, i.e. ‘an owl ...on a certain rope,’ which Josephus’ present copies retain, and only have the explanatory word aggelon, or ‘angel,’ as if he meant that ‘angel of the Lord’ which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not that owl, which Josephus called ‘an angel or messenger, formerly of good but now of bad news,’ to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient records and particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we are, whether Josephus’ and Eusebius’ copies of the fourth century were just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not admit of any such exposition. ‘This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of good fortune'; which can belong only to that bird the ‘owl,’ which, as it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant. XVIII. 6. 7, so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy forewarner of his death in five days’ time. If the improper word aition, or ‘cause,’ be changed for Josephus’ proper word aggelon, ‘angel,’ or ‘messenger,’ and the foregoing words, boubwa epi sxoiniou tinoj, be inserted, Eusebius’ text will truly represent that in Josephus.”

¹⁰⁹Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in chains-having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius-an owl made its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius died in the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass. The story was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good faith.

¹¹⁰The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read epi thj makarizomenhj lamprothtoj, which I have adopted in preference to the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in substituting makariothtoj for lamprothtoj.

¹¹¹This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.

¹¹²He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of Philip and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.

¹¹⁴Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name, while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa, instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he entertained any uncertainty in the matter.

¹¹⁵kata ton dhloumenon xronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa’s death. But Luke writes pro gap toutwn twn hmerwn, “Before these days.”

¹¹⁹There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare Wieseler’s Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald’s Gesch. des Füdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost’s Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in loco.

A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius’ conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas of Josephus,-an identification which is impossible, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke’s accounts. But a protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius. A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a glaring anachronism-an anachronism which every reader had the means of exposing-for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius’ anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology. He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.

¹²²Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of his Ant., chap. 2, §5.

¹²³Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After their death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).

¹²⁴Acts xi. 29, Acts xi. 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul. But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.

¹²⁵“Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too, testifies that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a palace in Jerusalem” (Stroth).

¹²⁶Aelia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).

¹²⁷Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris, Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith’s Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.

¹²⁸It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius' History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is highly probable that he did not have access to any of their works. The accounts of the heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church. The sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way and very likely for the same reason.

¹³⁰Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq. (quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him. Indeed the Tübingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and Simon rests upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the author of the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article, Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576). The original of Simon then is not to be found in Paul. The third century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton-the basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon legends-a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magnus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. p. 68r sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c. Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions; Irenaeus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian’s Apology, On Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.: Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.; Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); Epiphanius, Haer. XXI.: and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1. See also Lipsius, article in Schinkel’s Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.

¹³⁵Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapoils (the modern Nâblus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of Kuryet JÎt (see Robinson’s Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note). Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin’s report, for the reason that Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own country, than that Josephus was. Simon’s activity may have extended to Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his birthplace.

¹³⁶Justin here assigns Simon’s visit to Rome to the reign of Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenaeus also does. Other accounts assign it to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death; suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited Rome at some time or another.

¹³⁷That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.

¹³⁸In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio, &c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus. This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am. ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenaeus, I. 23. 1 (who, however, simply says “It is said,” and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general a poor authority even if he be independent of Justin at this point, which is not probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the statue and his silence is a strong argument against it.

¹³⁹A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23; by Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Haer. 21; and by Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence, &c. The Simonians, according to Irenaeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon’s doctrines and practice, as recorded by these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.

¹⁴⁰This conception of the idea (ennoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamij and the ennoia as the original principles from whose union all beings emanated. These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the different systems.

¹⁴⁴This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense. This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject, Neander was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since that time the subject has been treated intelligently and discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else. See his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 158 sqq.

¹⁴⁵This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatinn, &c., went to the opposite extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of these extremes we perceive the same principle-a dualism of matter and spirit, therefore of body and mind-the former considered as the work of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of the two opposite results asceticism or antinomianism, according to the character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church Hist. II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of heresy, naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were therefore indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their worst forms.

¹⁴⁹The significance of the word “immediately” as employed her is somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius may have been using at this point some unknown source and that the word “immediately” refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter (perhaps his Caesarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius. The figure employed here is most remarkable.

¹⁵⁰Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper, but Eusebius evidently uses the word “Judea” in a wide sense, to indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, VI. 8.

¹⁵¹Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics. They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the devil.

¹⁵³Upon the historic truth of Peter’s visit to Rome, see below, chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius. Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon’s arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter’s arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes. The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter’s later lif from the New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to 63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that he met his death there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the summer of 64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus’ visit to Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon’s visit to Rome; but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter, which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions. The earlier date for Simon’s visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition. Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon’s meeting with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much, as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested above (note 4).

¹⁵⁴A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an excellent illustration of Eusebius’ rhetorical style.

¹⁵⁵The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery. Eusebius gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.: that Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who went there during the reign of Claudius. But this tradition is sufficiently disproved by history. The origin of the Church was due to unknown persons, though it is possible we may obtain a hint of them in the Andronicus and Junta of Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned as apostles, and who were therefore, according to the usage of the word in Paul’s writings, persons that introduced Christianity into a new place-missionaries proper, who did not work on others’ ground.

¹⁵⁷John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their missionary journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone (Acts xv. 39), and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv. 10 and Philemon 24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle (1 Pet. v. 13). For the later traditions concerning Mark, see the next chapter, note 1.

¹⁵⁸That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter, or as a record of what he had heard from him, is the universal tradition of antiquity. Papias, in the famous and much-disputed passage (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the tradition. Justin Martyr refers to Mark’s Gospel under the name “Memoirs (apomnhoneumata) of Peter” (Dial. c. Tryph. 106; the translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. I. p. 252, which refers the autou to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, N. T. Einleitung, p. 44, note 4). Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 11. 1, quoted below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV. 5), and Origen (quoted below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over again by the Fathers.

The question as to the real authorship of our second Gospel, or rather as to its composition and its relation to Matthew and Luke, is a very difficult one. The relationship of the three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarum), who defended the traditional order, but made Mark dependent upon Matthew. This view prevailed until the beginning of the present century, when the problem was attacked anew, and since then it has been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible. The three have been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible order has found its advocates; a common source has been assumed for the three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gospel according to the Hebrews (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an original Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary documents have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted only oral tradition as the basis. According to Baur’s tendency theory, Matthew (polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an original Luke (polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which was based upon both and written in the interest of neutrality, and lastly by our present Luke, designed as a final irenicum. This view now finds few advocates. The whole matter is still unsettled, but criticism seems to be gradually converging toward a common ground type (or rather two independent types) for all three while at the same time maintaining the relative independence of the three, one toward the other. What these ground types were, is a matter of still sharper dispute, although criticism is gradually drawing their larger features with more and more certainty and clearness. (The latest discussion upon the subject by Handmann, das Hebräer-Evangelium, makes the two types the “Ur-Marcus” and the Gospel of the Hebrews.) That in the last analysis, however, some space must still be left for floating tradition, or for documents irreducible to the one or two types, seems absolutely certain. For further information as to the state of discussion upon this intricate problem, see among recent works, especially Weiss, Einleitung, p. 473 sqq., Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. 575 sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great fullness. Conservative opinion puts the composition of all the synoptic Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see III. 4, note 12); but the critical school, while throwing the original type back of that date, considers the composition of our present Gospels to have been the gradual work of years, assuming that they were not finally crystallized into the form in which we have them before the second century.

¹⁵⁹This mention of the “pleasure” of Peter, and the “authority” given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts the account of Clement to which Eusebius here appeals as his authority. In Bk. VI. chap. 14 he quotes from the Hypotyposes of Clement, a passage which must be identical with the one referred to in this place, for it is from the same work and the general account is the same; but there Clement says expressly, “which when Peter understood he neither directly hindered nor encouraged it.”

¹⁶⁰The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39. Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details of the account as given by Eusebius. Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III. chap. 39.

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

¹⁶²That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius (Haer. LI. 6), by Jerome (de vir. ill. 8), by Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43), and by the Acta Barnabae, p. 26 (Tischendorf’s Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74), which were written probably in the third century. Eusebius gained his knowledge apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula, “they say” (fasin.). In chap. 24, below, he says that Annianus succeeded Mark as a leader of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth year of Nero (62 a.d.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and Jerome gives the same date for his death. But if the tradition that he wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter’s death, as the best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenaeus) be correct, then this date is hopelessly wrong. The varying traditions are at best very uncertain, and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New Testament, is involved in obscurity.

¹⁶⁴This tradition that Philo met Peter in Rome and formed an acquaintance with him is repeated by Jerome (de vir ill. 11), and by Photius (Cod. 105), who even goes further, and says directly that Philo became a Christian. The tradition, however, must be regarded as quite worthless. It is absolutely certain from Philo’s own works, and from the otherwise numerous traditions of antiquity that he never was a Christian, and aside from the report of Eusebius (for Jerome and Photius do not represent an independent tradition) there exists no hint of such a meeting between Peter and Philo; and when we realize that Philo was already an old man in the time of Caius (see above, chap. 4, note 8), and that Peter certainly did not reach Rome before the later years of Nero’s reign, we may say that such a meeting as Eusebius records (only upon tradition, logoj exel) is certainly not historical. Where Eusebius got the tradition we do not know. It may have been manufactured in the interest of the Philonic authorship of the De vita contemplativa, or it may have been a natural outgrowth of the ascription of that work to him, some such explanation suggesting itself to the reader of that work as necessary to explain Philo’s supposed praise of Christian monks. Philo’s visit to Rome during the reign of Caligula being a well-known historic fact, and Peter’s visit to Rome during the reign of Claudius being assumed as likewise historic (see above, chap. 14, note 8), it was not difficult to suppose a meeting between them (the great Christian apostle and the great Jewish philosopher), and to invent for the purpose a second visit of Philo to Rome. It seems probable that the ascription of the work De vita contemplativa to Philo came before the tradition of his acquaintance with Peter in Rome (which is first mentioned by Eusebius); but in any case the two were mutually corroborative.

¹⁶⁵peri biou qewrhtikou h iketwn; De Vita Contemplativa. This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, II. 471-486. Eusebius is the first writer to mention it, and he identifies the Therapeutae described in it with the Christian monks, and assumes in consequence that monasticism in the form in which he knew it existed in the apostolic age, and was known and praised by Philo. This opinion was generally adopted by the Fathers (with the single exception of Photius, Cod. 105, who looked upon the Therapeutae as a Jewish sect) and prevailed unquestioned until the Reformation, when in the Protestant reaction against monasticism it was denied that monks existed in the apostolic age, and that the Therapeutae were Christians at all. Various opinions as to their identity have been held since that time, the commonest being that they were a Jewish sect or school, parallel with the Palestinian Essenes, or that they were an outgrowth of Alexandrian Neo-Pythagoreanism. The former opinion may be said to have been the prevailing one among Christian scholars until Lucius, in his work entitled Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Gesch. der Askese (Strassburg, 1879), proved (what had been asserted already by Graetz and Jost) that the Therapeutae are really to be identified with Christian monks, and that the work De Vita Contemplativa is not a genuine work of Philo’s. If the former proposition is proved, the latter follows of necessity, for it is absolutely impossible to suppose that monasticism can have existed in so developed a form (or indeed in any form) in the time of Philo. On the other hand it may be proved that the work is not Philonic, and yet it may not follow that the Therapeutae are to be identified with Christian monks. And so some scholars reject the Philonic authorship while still maintaining the Jewish character of the Therapeutae (e.g. Nicolas, Kuenen, and Weingarten; see Schürer, Gesch. der Fuden im Zeitalter Fesu Christi, p. 863). In the opinion of the writer, who agrees therein with the great majority of scholars, Lucius has conclusively demonstrated both his propositions, and has shown that the work De Vita Contemplativa is the production of some Christian of the latter part of the third century, who aimed to produce an apology for and a panegyric of monasticism as it existed in his day, and thus to secure for it wider recognition and acceptance. Lucius concludes with the following words: “Wir haben es demnach in D.V.C. mit einer Tendenzschrift zu thun, welche, da sie eine welt ausgebildete und in zahlreichen Ländern verbreitete Askese, so wie Zustäde voraussetzt, genau wie dieselben nur im Christenthum des dritten Jahrhunderts vorhanden waren, kaum anders aufgefasst werden kann, als eine, etwa am Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts, unter dem Namen Philo’s, zu Gunsten der Christlichen Askese, verfasste Apologie, als erstes Glied eines an derartigen Producte _beraus reichen Litteratur-zweige der alten Kirche.” Compare with Lucius’ work the reviews of it by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol., 1880, pp. 423-440, and by Schürer in the Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1880, No. 5. The latter especially has added some important considerations with reference to the reasons for the composition of this work under the name of Philo. Assuming then the correctness of Lucius’ conclusions, we see that Eusebius was quite right in identifying the Therapeutae with the Christian monks as he knew them in his day, but that he was quite wrong in accepting the Philonic authorship of the work in question, and in concluding that the institution of monasticism as he knew it existed already in the apostolic age (compare note 19, below).

¹⁶⁶It may fairly be doubted whether the work does not really contain considerable that is not in strict accordance with the facts observed by the author, whether his account is not to an extent idealized, and whether, in his endeavor to emphasize the Jewish character of the Therapeutae, with the design of establishing the antiquity of monasticism (compare the review of Schürer referred to above), he has not allowed himself to introduce some imaginative elements. The strong asseveration which he makes of the truthfulness of his account would rather increase than allay this suspicion, and the account itself at certain points seems to bear it out. On the whole, however, it may be regarded as a reasonably accurate sketch. Were it not such, Eusebius would not have accepted it, so unreservedly as he does, as an account of Christian monks. Lucius’ exhibition of the points of similarity between the practices of the Therapeutae, as described here, and of early Christian monks, as known from other sources, is very interesting (see p. 158 sq.).

¹⁶⁷qerapeutai and qerapeutridej, “worshipers” or “physicians"; from qerapeuw, which means either to do service to the gods, or to tend the sick.

¹⁷³Heinichen omits, without explanation, the words kai thn Ellada, which are found in all the other editions that I have examined. Inasmuch as Heinichen gives no hint of an alternatereading at this point, I can conclude only that the words wereaccidentally omitted by him.

¹⁷⁴Egypt, exclusive of the cities Alexandria and Ptolemais, was divided into land districts, originally 36 in number, which were called nomoi (see Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire, Scribner’s ed. I. p. 255 sq.).

¹⁷⁵patrida. This word, as Schürer points out (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1880, no. 5), is not a noun, as it is commonly regarded (and hence translated “fatherland"), but an adjective (and hence to be translated “eine vaterländische Colonie,” “a colony of the fatherland"); the oikoumenh, mentioned in the previous paragraph, being the fatherland of the Therapeutae.

¹⁷⁶uper limnhj Mariaj. In Strabo the name is given as h Marewtij or Mareia limnh. The Lake Mareotis (as it is most commonly called) lies in the northern part of the Delta, just south of Alexandria. It was in ancient times much more of a lake than it is now, and the description of the climate as given here is quite accurate.

¹⁸³How Eusebius, who knew that Philo lived wrote during the reign of Claudius, could have overlooked the fact that Christianity had not at that time been long enough established to admit of virgins growing old within the Church, is almost inexplicable. It is but another example of his carelessness in regard to chronology which comes out so often in his history. Compare Stroth’s words: “In der That ein wichtiger Beweis, der gerade der irrigen Meinung des Eusebius am meisten entgegen ist. Denn sie hätten alt zum Christenthum kommen m_ssen, sonst konnten sie ja zu Philo’s Zeiten unmöglich im Christenthum alt geworden sein, dessen Schrift Eusebius selbst indie Regierung des Claudius setzt. Es ist beinahe unbegreiflich, wie ein so guter Kopf, wie Eusebius ist, in so grobe Irrthümer fallen konnte.”

¹⁸⁴For a description of the religious cults among the Greeks and Romans, that demanded virginity in their priests or priestesses, see Döllinger’s Heidenthum und Fudenthum, p. 182 and 521 sq.

¹⁸⁷Ibid. §§8-10. The author of the D. V. C. mentions young men that serve at table (diakonountej,) and a president (proedroj) who leads in the exposition of the Scriptures. Eusebius is quite right in finding in these persons deacons and bishops. The similarity is too close to be merely accidental, and the comment of Stroth upon this passage is quite unwarranted: “Was einer doch alles in einer Stelle finden kann, wenn er es darin finden will! Philo sagt, dass bei ihren gemeinschaftlichen Gastmählern einige bei Tische dienten (diakonountej,) hieraus macht Eusebius Diakonate; und dass bei ihren Untersuchungen _ber die Bibel einer (proedroz) den Vorsitz habe; hieraus macht Eusebius die bischöfliche würde (episkophj proedrian).”

¹⁸⁸On Philo’s works, see Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes, II. p. 831 sqq. The best (though it leaves much to be desired complete edition of Philo’s works is that of Mangey: 2 vols., folio, London, 1742; English translation of Philo’s works by Yonge, 4 vols., London, 1854-55. Upon Philo’s life, see chaps. 4-6, above. Eusebius, in his Proep. Evang., quotes extensively from Philo’s works and preserves some fragments of which we should otherwise be ignorant.

¹⁸⁹nomwn ierwn allhgoriai. This work is still extant, and, according to Schürer, includes all the works contained in the first volume of Mangey’s edition (except the De Opificio Mundi, upon which see Schürer, p. 846 sqq. and note 11, below), comprising 16 different titles. The work forms the second great group of writings upon the Pentateuch, and is a very full and allegorical commentary upon Genesis, beginning with the second chapter and following it verse by verse through the fourth chapter; but from that point on certain passages are selected and treated at length under special titles, and under those titles, in Schürer’s opinion, were publisher by Philo as separate works, though really forming a part of one complete whole. From this much confusion has resulted. Eusebius embraces all of the works as far as the end of chap. 4 (including five titles in Mangey) under the one general title, but from that point on he too quotes separate works under special titles but at the end (§5, below) he unites them all as the “extant works on Genesis.” Many portions of the commentary are now missing. Compare Schürer, ibid. pp. 838-846.

¹⁹⁰zhthmata kai luseij: Quaestiones et solutiones. According to Schürer (ibid. p. 836 sq.), a comparatively brief catechetical interpretation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers, embracing probably six books on Genesis and five on Exodus, and forming the first great group of writings upon the Pentateuch. So far as Eusebius seems to have known, they covered only Genesis and Exodus, and this is all that we are sure of, though some think that they included also the remainder of the Pentateuch. About half of his work (four books on Genesis and two on Exodus) is extant in an Armenian version (published by Aucher in 2 vols., Venet. 1822 and ‘26, and in Latin by Ritter, vols. 6 and 7 of his edition of Philo’s works); and numerous Latin and Greek fragments still exist (see Sch_rer, p. 837 sqq.).

¹⁹¹peri gewrgiaj duo: De Agricultura duo (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 11). Upon Genesis ix. 20, forming a part (as do all the works mentioned in §§2-4 except On the Three Virtues, and On the Unwritten Laws, which belong to the third group of writings on the Pentateuch) of the large commentary, nomwn ierwn allhgoriai, mentioned above (note 2). This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 300-356, as two works with distinct titles: peri gewrgiaj and peri futourgiaj Nwe to deuteron (Schürer, p. 843).

¹⁹²peri meqhj tosauta: De ebrietate duo (so Jerome, ibid.). Upon Gen. ix. 21. Only the second book is extant (Mangey, I. 357-391), but from its beginning it is plain that another book originally preceded it (Schürer, p. 843).

¹⁹³peri wn nhyaz o nouz euxetai kai katapatai. Jerome, de vir. ill. 11, de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur. Upon Gen. ix. 24. Still extant, and given by Mangey (I. 392-403), who, however, prints the work under the title peri tou ecenhye Nwe: De Sobrietate; though in two of the best mss. (according to Mangey, I. 392, note) the title agrees closely with that given by Eusebius (Schürer, p. 843).

¹⁹⁴peri sugkusewz twn dialektwn. Upon Gen. xi. 1-9. Still extant, and given by Mangey, I. 404-435 (Schürer, p. 844).

¹⁹⁵pri fugnz kai eupesewz. The same title is found in Johannes Monachus (Mangey, I. 546, note), and it is probably correct, as the work treats of the flight and the discovery of Hagar (Gen. xvi. 6-14).It is still extant and is given by Mangey (I. 546-577) under the title peri fugadwn, ‘On Fugitives.’ The text of Eusebius in this place has been very much corrupted. The reading which I give is supported by good ms. authority, and is adopted by Valesius, Stroth, and Laemmer. But Nicephorus reads peri fughz kai airesewz kai o peri fusewz kai euresewz, which is also supported by ms. authority, and is adopted by Burton, Schwegler, and Heinichen. But upon comparing the title of the work, as given by Johannes Monachus and as found in the various mss. of Philo, with the contents of the work itself, there can be little doubt of the correctness of the shorter reading. Of the second work, which the longer reading introduces into the text of Eusebius, we have no knowledge, and Philo can hardly have written it. Schürer, who adopts the shorter reading, expresses himself very strongly (p. 845, note 34).

¹⁹⁶peri thz proz ta paideumata sunodou, “On Assembly for the sake oil instruction.” Upon Gen. xvi. 1-6, which is interpreted to mean that one must make himself acquainted with the lower branches of knowledge (Hagar) before he can go on to the higher (Sarah), and from them obtain the fruit, viz.: virtue (Isaac). Still extant, and given by Mangey, I. 519-545 (Schürer, 844 sqq.).

¹⁹⁷peri te tou, tiz o twn qeiwn esti klhronomoz, h peri thz eiz taisa kai enantia tomhz. From this double title Jerome (de vir. ill. 11) wrongly makes two works. The writing is still extant, and is given by Mangey (I. 473-518) under the title peri tou tiz o twn qeiwn pragmatwn klhponomoz (Schürer, 844).

¹⁹⁸peri twn triwn aretwn az sun allaiz anegraye Mwushz. This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey under the title peri triwn aretwn htoi peri andreiaz kai filanqrwpiaz kai metanoiaz: peri andreiaz, II. 375-383; peri filanqrwpiaz, II. 383-405; peri metanoiaz, II. 405-407. Jerome gives the simple title De tribus virtutibus liber unus.

According to Schürer (p. 852 sqq.) it forms an appendix to the third great group of works upon the Pentateuch, containing those laws which do not belong to any one of the ten commandments in particular, but fall under the head of general cardinal virtues. The third group, as Sch_rer describes it (p. 846), aims to give for non-Jews a complete view of the Mosaic legislation, and embraces, first, the work upon the Creation (which in the mss. and editions of Philo is wrongly placed at the beginning in connection with the great Allegorical Commentary, and is thus included in that by Eusebius in his list of Philo’s works, so that he does not make special mention of it); second, the lives of great and good men, the living unwritten law; and third, the Mosaic legislation proper (1. The ten commandments; 2. The special laws connected with each of these); and finally an appendix treating of certain cardinal virtues, and of reward and punishments. This group is more historic and less allegoric than the two others, which are rather esoteric and scientific.

¹⁹⁹peri twn metonomazomenwn kai wn eneka metonomazontai, De Mutatione nominum. Upon Gen. xvii. 1-22. This work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 578-619. See Schürer, p. 485.

²⁰⁰en w fhsi suntetaxenai kai peri diaqhkwn prwton kai deuteron. Nearly all the mss., followed by some of the editors, read prwthz kai deuteraj, instead of prwton kai deuteron, thus making Eusebius mention a work “On the first and second covenants,” instead of a first and second book “On the covenants.” It is plain from Philo’s own reference to the work (on p. 586 in Mangey’s ed.) that he wrote two books “On covenants,” and not a work “On the two covenants.” I have therefore felt warranted in reading with Heinichen and some other editors prwton kai deuteron, a reading which is more natural in view of the absence of an article with diaqhkwn, and which is confirmed by Nicephorus Callistus. This reading must be correct unless we are to suppose that Eusebius misread Philo. Fabricius suggests that Eusebius probably wrote a kai b, which the copyists wrongly referred to the “covenants” instead of to the number of the books, and hence gave the feminine instead of the neuter form.

This work “On covenants,” or “On the whole discussion concerning covenants” (as Philo gives it), is now lost, as it was already in the time of Eusebius; at least he knew of it only from Philo’s reference to it. See Schürer, p. 845.

²⁰¹peri apoikiaz: De Migratione Abrahami. Upon Gen. xii. 1-6. The work is still extant, and is given by Mangey, I. 436-472. See Schürer, p. 844.

²⁰²biou safou tou kata dikaiosunhn teleiwqentoj, h nomwn agrafwn. (According to Schürer, dikaiosunhn here is a mistake for didaskalian, which is the true reading in the original title.) This work, which is still extant, is given by Mangey, II. 1-40, under the same title (didaskalian, however, instead of dikaiosunhn), with the addition, o esti peri ‘Abraam: De Abrahamo. It opens the second division of the third great group of writings on the Pentateuch (see note 11, above): the biographical division, mentioning Enos, Enoch and Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but dealing chiefly with Abraham. The biographies of Isaac and Jacob probably followed, but they are lost, and we have no trace of them, so that the life of Joseph (see below, note 26) in the mss. follows directly upon that of Abraham (Schürer, p. 848 sqq.).

²⁰³peri gigantwn, h peri tou mh trepesqai to qeion. Upon Gen. vi. 1-4 and Gen. vi. 4-12. The two parts of this work, both of which are still extant, form really but one book; for instance, Johannes Mona-chus (ineditus) quotes from the latter part under the title peri gigantwn (according to Mangey, I. 262, note, and 272, note). But the two are divided in Mangey’s edition, where the first is given under the title peri gigantwn (I. 262-272), the second under the title oti atrepton (I. 272-299). See Schürer, p. 843. The title is found in the form given at the beginning of this note in all the mss. of Eusebius except two, which have kai instead of h, thus making two separate works. This reading is adopted by Heinichen and by Closs, but is poorly supported by ms. authority, and since the two titles cover only one work, as already mentioned, the h is more natural than the kai.

²⁰⁴peri te tou kata Mwusea qeopemptouj einai touj oneirouj prwton, deuteron, k.t.l. Two books are extant, the first upon Gen. xxviii. 12 sqq. and Gen. xxxi. 11 sqq. (given by Mangey, I. 620-658), the second upon Gen. xxxvii. and xl.-xli. (given by Mangey, I. 659-699). Jerome (de vir. ill. II) follows Eusebius in mentioning five books, and there is no occasion to doubt the report. Schürer thinks that the two extant books are the second and third of the original five (Schürer, 845 sqq.).

²⁰⁵zhthmata kai luseij; see above, note 3. Eusebius knew only five books upon Exodus, and there is no reason to think there were any more.

²⁰⁶Philo wrote a work entitled peri biou Mwsewj: Vita Mosis, which is still extant, but is not mentioned in the catalogue of Eusebius. It contains a long description of the tabernacle, and consequently Schürer concludes that the work mentioned here by Eusebius (peri thj skhnhj) represents that portion of the larger work. If this be the case, it is possible that the section in the mss. used by Eusebius was detached from the rest of the work and constituted an independent book. The omission of the title of the larger work is doubtless due, as Schürer remarks, to the imperfect transmission of the text of Eusebius’ catalogue. See Schürer, p. 855.

²⁰⁷peri twn deka logiwn: De Decalogo. Still extant, and given by Mangey, II. 180-209. Jerome has the condensed title de tabernaculo et decalogo libri quattuor, and this introduces the third division of the third general group of works upon the Pentateuch (see note II, above), and, according to Schürer, should be joined directly to the bioj politikoj, or Life of Joseph, and not separated from it by the insertion of the Life of Moses (as is done by Mangey), which does not belong to this group (Schürer, p. 849 sqq.).

²⁰⁸ta peri twn anaferomenwn en eidei nomwn eij ta sunteinonta kefalaia twn deka logwn, abgd: De specialibus legibus. A part of the third division of the third general group of works (see note II, above). It is still extant in four books, each with a special title, and each containing many subdivisions. They are given by Mangey: first book, II. 210-269, in seven parts: de circumcisione, de monarchia Liber I., de monarchia Liber II., de praemiis sacerdotum, de victimis, de sacrificantibus, or de victimis offerentibus, de mercede meretricis non accipienda in sacrarium; second book, 270-298, incomplete in Mangey, but entire in Tischendorf’s Philonea, p. 1-83; third book, 299-334; fourth book, 335-374: made up like the first of a number of tracts on special subjects. Philo, in this work, attempts to bring all the Mosaic laws into a system under the ten rubrics of the decalogue: for instance, under the first two commandments, the laws in regard to priests and sacrifices; under the fourth, the laws in regard to the Sabbath, &c. See Schürer, p. 850 sqq.

²⁰⁹peri twn eij taj ierourgiaj zwwn, kai tina ta twn qusiwn eioh. This is really only a portion of the first book of the work just mentioned, given in Mangey under the title de victimis (II. 237-250). It is possible that these various sections of books-or at least this one-circulated separately, and that thus Eusebius took it for an independent work. See Schürer, p. 851.

²¹⁰peri twn prokeimenwn en tw nomw toij men agaqoij aqlwn, toij de ponhroij epitimiwn kai a rwn, still extant and given by Mangey (incorrectly as two separate works) under the titles peri aqlwn kai epitimiwn, de praemiis et poenis (II. 408-428), and peri arwn, de execrationibus (II. 429-437). The writing forms a sort of epilogue to the work upon the Mosaic legislation. Schürer, p. 854.

²¹¹to peri pronoiaj, De providentia. This work is extant only in an Armenian version, and is published with a Latin translation by Aucher, Vol. I. p. 1-121 (see above, note 3), and in Latin by Ritter (Vol. VIII.). Two Greek fragments, one of considerable extent, are preserved by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evang. VII. 21, and VIII. 14. In the Armenian the work consists of two books, but the first is of doubtful genuineness, and Eusebius seems to have known only one, for both quotations in the Praep. Evang. are from the present second book, and the work is cited in the singular, as also in the present passage, where to is to be read instead of ta, though some mss. have the latter. The work (which is not found m Mangey’s ed.) is one of Philo’s separate works which does not fall under any of the three groups upon the Pentateuch.

²¹²peri ‘Ioudaiwn, which is doubtless to be identified with the h uper ‘Ioudaiwn apologia, which is no longer extant, but which Eusebius mentions, and from which he quotes in his Praep. Evang. VIII. 2. The fragment given by Eusebius is printed by Mangey in Vol. II. p. 632-634, and in Dähne’s opinion (Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1883, p. 990) the two preceding fragments given by Mangey (p. 626 sqq.) also belong to this Apology. The work entitled de nobilitate (Mangey, II. 437-444) possibly formed a part of the Apology. This is Dähne’s opinion (see ibid. p. 990, 1037), with whom Schürer agrees. The genuineness of the Apology is generally admitted, though it has been disputed on insufficient grounds by Grätz (Gesch. der Juden, III. p. 680, third ed.), who is followed by Hilgenfeld (in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie, 1832, p. 275 sq. and in his Ketzergesch. des Urchristenthums, p. 87 sq.). This too, like the preceding, was one of the separate works of Philo. See Schürer, p. 861 sq.

²¹³o politikoj. Still extant, and given by Mangey (II. 41-79) under the title bioj politikoj oper esti peri ’ Iwshf: De Josepho. Photius, Bib. Cod. 103, gives the title peri biou politikou. This forms a part of the second division of the third great group upon the Pentateuch (see above, note 11), and follows directly the Life of Abraham, the Lives of Isaac and Jacob probably having fallen out (compare note 15, above). The work is intended to show how the wise man should conduct himself in affairs of state or political life. See Schürer, p. 849.

²¹⁴o ‘Alecandroj h peri tou logou exein ta aloga zwa, De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, as the title is given by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 11). The work is extant only in Armenian, and is given by Aucher, I. p. 123-172, and in Latin by Ritter, Vol. VII. Two short Greek fragments are also found in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes, according to Schürer. This book is also one of the separate works of Philo, and belongs to his later writings. See Schürer, p. 860 sqq.

²¹⁵o peri tou doulon einai panta faulon, w echj estin o peri tou panta spoudaion eleuqeron einai. These two works formed originally the two halves of a single work, in which the subject was treated from its two sides,-the slavery of the wicked man and the freedom of the good man. The first half is lost; but the second half is extant, and is given by Mangey (II. 445-470). A long fragment of the extant second half is given also by Eusebius, in his Praep. Evang. VIII. 12. The genuineness of the work has been disputed by some, but is defended with success by Lucius, Der Essenismus, p. 13-23, Strasburg, 1881 (Schürer, p. 85).

²¹⁷twn en /omw de kai profhtaij ‘Ebraikwn onomatwn ai ermh-neiai. The way in which Eusebius speaks of this work tou autou spoudai einai legontai) shows that it lay before him as an anonymous work, which, however, was “said to be the result of Philo’s industry.” Jerome, too, in speaking of the same work (at the beginning of his own work, De nominibus Hebraicis), says that, according to the testimony of Origen, it was the work of Philo. For Jerome, too, therefore, it was an anonymous work. This testimony of Origen cannot, according to Schürer, be found in his extant works, but in his Comment. in Joann. II. 27 (ed. Lommatzsch, I. 50) he speaks of a work upon the same subject, the author of which he does not know. The book therefore in view of the existing state of the tradition in regard to it, is usually thought to be the work of some other writer than Philo. In its original form it is no longer extant (and in the absence of this original it is impossible to decide the question of authorship), though there exist a number of works upon the same subject which are probably based upon this lost original. Jerome, e.g., informs us that his Liber de Nominibus Hebraicis (Migne, III. 771) is a revision of it. See Schürer, p. 865 sq.

²¹⁸“This report is very improbable, for a work full of hatred to the Romans and of derogatory references to the emperor Caligula could not have been read before the Roman Senate, especially when the author was a Jew” (Closs). It is in fact quite unlikely that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (see above, chap. 17, note 1). The report given here by Eusebius owes its origin perhaps to the imagination of some man who supposed that Philo was in Rome during the reign of Claudius (on the ground of the other tradition already referred to), and whose fancy led him to picture Philo as obtaining at that time his revenge upon the emperor Caligula in this dramatic way. It was not difficult to imagine that this bitterly sarcastic and vivid work might have been intended for public reading, and it was art attractive suggestion that the Senate might have constituted the audience.

²²²This disturbance (described by Jos. B. J. II. 12. 1, and Ant. XX. 5. 3) took place in 48 a.d. while Cumanus was procurator of Judea. During the Passover feast the procurator, as was the custom, brought extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any uproar which might arise among the great mass of people. One of the soldiers, with the view of insulting the Jews, conducted himself indecently in their presence, whereupon so great an uproar arose that the procurator felt obliged to collect his troops upon the temple hill, but the appearance of the soldiers so greatly alarmed the multitude assembled there that they fled in all directions and crushed each other to death in their eagerness to escape. Josephus, in his Jewish War, gives the number of the slain as ten thousand, and in the Antiquities as twenty thousand. The latter work was written last, but knowing Josephus’ fondness for exaggerating numbers, we shall perhaps not accept the correction as any nearer the truth. That Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse suspicion as to his honesty,-he could have had no object for changing “twenty” to “thirty,” when the former was certainly great enough,-we need simply remember how easily numbers become altered in transcription. Valesius says that this disturbance took place under Quadratus in 52 a.d. (quoting Pearson’s Ann. Paull. p. 11 sqq., and Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54). But Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the eighth year of Claudius (48 a.d.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh year. Jost and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date.

²²³Eusebius simply sums up in the one sentence what fills half a page in Josephus.

²²⁴Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of his father’s death (44 a.d.) he was but seventeen years of age, and his youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his father, which was therefore again converted into a Roman province, and Fadus was sent as procurator. In 49 a.d. Agrippa was given the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod (a brother of Agrippa I.), and in 53 a.d. he was transferred to the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias with the title of King. He was never king of the Jews in the same sense in which his father was, as Judea remained a Roman province throughout his reign, while his dominion comprised only the northeastern part of Palestine. He enjoyed, however, the right of appointing and removing the high priests, and under Nero his domain was somewhat increased by the addition of several cities of Galilee, and Perea. He sided with the Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went to Rome, where he died in 100 a.d., the last prince of the Herodian line. It was before this Agrippa that Paul made his defense recorded in Acts xxvi.

²²⁵Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator of Judea in 52 (or, according to Wieseler, 53) a.d. The territory over which he ruled included Samaria and the greater part of Galilee and Perea, to which Judea was added by Nero, according to Josephus, B. J. II. 13. 2. Ewald, in the attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Ann. XII. 54, and Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2-7. 1,-the former of whom makes Cumanus and Felix contemporary procurators, each over a part of the province, while the latter makes Felix the successor of Cumanus,-concludes that Felix was sent to Judea as the assistant of Cumanus, and became procurator upon the banishment of the latter. This is not impossible, though we have no testimony to support it. Compare Wieseler, p. 67, note. Between 59 and 61 (according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22, note 1, below) he was succeeded by Porcius Festus. For the relations of these two procurators to the apostle Paul, see Acts xx. sqq. Eusebius, in his Chron., puts the accession of Felix in the eleventh year of Claudius (51 a.d.), and the accession of Festus in the fourteenth year (54 a.d.), but both of these dates are clearly incorrect (cf. Wieseler, p. 68, note).

²²⁶Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time to have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he was wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agrippa II. having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3) and a few cities of Galilee and Perea. He had, however, the authority over the temple and the power of appointing the high priests (see Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 11 and 9. 1, 4, 6, 7), which bad been given by Claudius to his uncle, the king of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. XX. 1. 3).

²²⁸Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 8. Felix showed himself throughout very mean and cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual disturbances.

²²⁹This disturbance arose toward the end of Felix’s term, under the high priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a short time before. No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.

²³⁰B. J. II. 13. 3. These open robberies and murders, which took place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part a result of the conduct of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see the next note). At least his conduct in this case started the practice, which was kept up with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at that time.

²³¹This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon intimate terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebuking him at pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix that he bribed a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his murder. The friend accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers into the city, who, being unknown, mingled freely with the people and slew Jonathan and many others with him, in order to turn away suspicion as to the object of the crime. See Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 5. Josephus has omitted to mention Jonathan’s appointment to the high priesthood, and this has led Valesius to conclude that he was not really a high priest, but simply one of the upper class of priests. But this conclusion is unwarranted, as Josephus expressly calls him the high priest in the passage referred to (cf. also the remarks of Reland, quoted in Havercamp’s ed. of Josephus, p. 912). Wieseler (p. 77, note) thinks that Jonathan was not high priest at this time, but that he had been high priest and was called so on that account. He makes Ananias high priest from 48 to 57, quoting Anger, De temporum in Act. Ap. ratione.

²³³An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets that arose during this century. He prophesied that Jerusalem, which had made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by God, who would throw down the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the victory over the oppressors and rule the world. For this purpose he collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack.

²³⁴Josephus gives two different accounts of this event. In the B. J. he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the desert to the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the Egyptian “escaped with a few,” while most of his followers were either destroyed or captured. In Ant. XX. 8. 6, which was written later, he states that the Egyptian led a multitude “out from Jerusalem” to the Mount of Olives, and that when they were attacked by Felix, four hundred were slain and two hundred taken captive. There seems to be here a glaring contradiction, but we are able to reconcile the two accounts by supposing the Egyptian to have brought a large following of robbers from the desert, which was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem, until the number reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the rabble dispersed, but that Felix slew or took captive the six hundred robbers, against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egyptian escaped with a small number (i.e. small in comparison with the thirty thousand), who may well have been the four thousand mentioned by the author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by Eusebius. It is no more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this ease than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to assume a mistake upon the part of either one, though as already remarked, numbers are so treacherous in transcription that the difference may really have been originally less than it is. Whenever the main elements of two accounts are in substantial agreement, little stress can be laid upon a difference in figures. Cf. Tholuck, Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Com. on Acts, p. 254).

²³⁶Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as he seems to do. But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he expressly assigns to Nero’s reign, and there is no reason to suppose that the order of events given by him is incorrect. Valesius and Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since Paul was two years in Caesarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul’s arrest and just before he was carried to Caesarea, must have taken place before the end of the reign of Claudius. But it happens to be a fact that Felix was succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth year of Nero (see chap. 22, note 2, below). There is, therefore, no ground for accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the present case.

²³⁷The exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it is known that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.d.; for at that time his successor, Albinus, was already procurator, as we can see from Josephus, B. J. VI. 5. 3. But from the events recorded by Josephus as happening during his term of office, we know he must have been procurator at least a year; his accession, therefore, took place certainly as early as 61 a.d., and probably at least a year earlier, i.e. in 60 a.d., the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest possible margin for his accession is from 59-61. Upon this whole question, see Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He seems to have been a just and capable governor,-in this quite a contrast to his predecessor.

²³⁸Acts xxv. sqq. The determination of the year in which Paul was sent as a prisoner to Rome depends in part upon the determination of the year of Festus’ accession. He was in Rome (which he reached in the spring) at least two years before the Neronic persecution (June, 64 a.d.), therefore as early as 62 a.d. He was sent from Caesarea the previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn of 61. If Festus became procurator in 61, this must have been the date. But if, as is probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then Paul was sent to Rome in the autumn of the same year, and reached Rome in the spring of 61. This is now the commonly accepted date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out (cf. Wieseler, ibid.). Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot have become procurator before 60 a.d., and hence Paul cannot have been taken to Rome before the fall of that year.

²⁴²Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He introduces the statement with the formula logoj exei, which indicates probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the tradition was. Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here, but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the Pastoral Epistles, which apparently necessitate a second imprisonment. But were this the case, he would hardly have used the formula logoj exei. The report may have arisen solely upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have originated with Eusebius himself. In accordance with this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul’s death as 67 a.d. Jerome (de vir. ill. 5) and other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome gives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the tradition soon became firmly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment. Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but this is very difficult. On the other hand, most opponents of the epistles (e.g. the Tübingen critics and the majority of the new critical school) deny the second imprisonment. As to the place where Paul spent the interval-supposing him to have been released-there is again a difference of opinion. The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be genuine, seem to necessitate another visit to the Orient. But for such a visit there is no ancient tradition, although Paul himself, in the Epistle to the Philippians, expresses his expectation of making such a visit. On the other hand, there is an old tradition that he visited Spain (which must of course have been during this interval, as he did not reach it before the first imprisonment). The Muratorian Fragment (from the end of the second century) records this tradition in a way to imply that it was universally known. Clement of Rome (Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness for such a visit, but the interpretation of his words is doubtful, so that little weight can be laid upon his statement. In later times the tradition of this visit to Spain dropped out of the Church. The strongest argument against the visit is the absence of any trace of it in Spain itself. If any church there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim and the tradition have been preserved at least in that church. This appears to the writer a fatal argument against a journey to Spain. On the other hand, the absence of all tradition of another journey to the Orient does not militate against such a visit, for tradition at any place might easily preserve the fact of a visit of the apostle, without preserving an accurate account of the number of his visits if more than one were made. Of the defenders of the Pastoral Epistles, that accept a second imprisonment, some assume simply a journey to the Orient, others assume also the journey to Spain. Between the spring of 63 a.d., the time when he was probably released, if released, and the date of his death (at the earliest the summer of 64), there is time enough, but barely so, for both journeys. If the date of Paul’s death be put later with Eusebius and Jerome (as many modern critics put it), the time is of course quite sufficient. Compare the various Lives of Paul, Commentaries, etc., and especially, among recent works, Schaff’s Church Hist. I. p. 231 sqq.; Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. p. 283 sqq.; Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 295 sqq.; and Weizsäcker’s Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 453 sqq.

²⁴⁴Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly genuine, and placed them among the Homologumena, or undisputed writings (compare Bk. III. chaps. 3 and 25). The external testimony for them is very strong, but their genuineness has, during the present century, been quite widely denied upon internal grounds. The advanced critical scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline authorship as completely established, and many otherwise conservative scholars follow their lead. It is impossible here to give the various arguments for or against their genuineness; we may refer the reader particularly to Holtzmann’s Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (1880), and to his Einleitung (1886), for the most complete presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., and to his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the Meyer Series, for a defense of their genuineness, and also to Woodruff’s article in the Andover Review, October, 1886, for a brief and somewhat popular discussion of the subject. The second epistle must have been written latest of all Paul’s epistles, just before his death,-at the termination of his second captivity, or of his first, if his second be denied.

²⁵⁰This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecution of Nero and of the death of Paul. On the other hand, some who accept Luke’s authorship of the Acts, put the composition into the latter part of the century and explain the omission of the persecution and the death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g. Weiss, who dates the Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus brings the Acts down to a still later date (see his Einleitung, p. 585 sqq.). It is now becoming quite generally admitted that Luke’s Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be so, the Acts must have been written still later. There is in fact no reason for supposing the book to have been written at the point of time at which its account of Paul ceases. The design of the book (its text is found in the eighth verse of the first chapter) was to give an account of the progress of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome, not to write the life of Paul. The record of Paul’s death at the close of the book would have been quite out of harmony with this design, and would have formed a decided anti-climax, as the author was wise enough to understand. He was writing, not a life of Paul, nor of any apostle or group of apostles, but a history of the planting of the Church of Christ. The advanced critics, who deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of Paul, of course put its composition much later,-some into the time of Domitian, most into the second century. But even such critics admit the genuineness. of certain portions of the book (the celebrated “We” passages), and the old Tübingen theory of intentional misrepresentation on the part of the author is finding less favor even among the most radical critics.

²⁵¹Whether Eusebius’ conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact that Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part of his reign. The famous “first five years,” however exaggerated the reports about them, must at least have been of a very different character from the remainder of his reign. But those five years of clemency and justice were past before Paul reached Rome.

²⁵⁸As the Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf. Book IV. chap. 22). This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 108 sqq., with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.

²⁵⁹meta twn apostolwn, “with the apostles"; as Rufinus rightly translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the Greek were meta touj apostolouj. This statement of Hegesippus is correct. James was a leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, §3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles. See chap. 1, note 11.

²⁶¹“The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the Ascents of James, and other Apocryphal sources. He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite saint (cf. his advice to Paul, Acts xxi. 23, Acts xxi. 24), who drank no wine, ate no flesh, never shaved nor took a bath, and wore only linen. But the Biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic, rather than Essenic and ascetic” (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. p. 268). For Peter’s asceticism, see the Clementine Recognitions, VII. 6; and for Matthew’s, see Clement of Alexandria’s Paedagogus, II. 1.

, which signifies “bulwark of the people.” The same name is given to James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v.

²⁶⁴To what Hegesippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way. He may have been thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in §15, below, but the reference is certainly very much strained.

²⁶⁶For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh Rel. Sac. I. p. 434 sq., and Heinichen’s Mel. IV., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. III., p. 654 sqq. The explanation given by Grabe (in his Spic. PP. p. 254), seems to me the best. According to him, the Jews wish to ascertain James’ opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers him a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, “What (of what sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ? Is it a gate which opens into life (or a way which leads to life); or is it a gate which opens upon death (or a way which leads to death)?” Cf. Matt. vii. 13, Matt. vii. 14, where the two ways and the two gates are compared. The Jews had undoubtedly often heard Christ called “the Way,” and thus they might naturally use the expression in asking James’ opinion about Jesus, “Is he the true or the false way?” or, “Is this way true or false?” The answer of James which follows is then perfectly consistent: “He is the Saviour,” in which words he expresses as decidedly as he can his belief that the way or the gate of Christ led to salvation. And so below, in §12, where he gives a second answer to the question, expressing his belief in Christ still more emphatically. This is somewhat similar to the explanation of Heinichen (ibid. p. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive ‘Ihsou as in virtual apposition to qura: “What is this way, Jesus?” But Grabe seems to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.

²⁶⁷Rufinus translates non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and he is followed by Fabricius (Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. p. 603). This rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence. And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as both anastasin and erxomenon are left entirely indefinite. The Greek runs, ouk episteuon anastasin, oute erxomenon apodounai, k.t.l. Cf. the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage. Of these seven sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the resurrection from the dead. If Hegesippus’ words, therefore, be understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in error.

²⁶⁸This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of Hegesippus’ account. James’ position as a Christian must have been well enough known to prevent such a request being made to him in good faith (and there is no sign that it was made in any other spirit); and at any rate, after his reply to them already recorded, such a repetition of the question in public is absurd. Fabricius, who does not think the account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem to have asked him a second time, thinking that they could either flatter or frighten him into denying Christ.

²⁷⁰epi to pterunion tou naou. Some mss. read tou ierou, and in the preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical with the phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on a pinnacle of the temple. ieroj is the general name for the temple buildings as a whole, while naoj is a specific name for the temple proper.

²⁷¹Some mss., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and Heinichen, add staurwqentoj, “who was crucified,” and Stroth, Closs, and Crusé follow this reading in their translations. But many of the best mss. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton, Routh, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I prefer to follow their example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous line.

²⁷³Isa. iii. 10. Jess (p. 50) says, “Auch darin ist Hegesipp nur ein Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten Testamente Weissagungen auffindet. Abet mit Bezug darauf darf man niche vergessen,-dass dergleichen mehr oratorische Benutzung als exegetische Erklärungen sein sollen.” Cf. the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew (Papiscus and Philo), chap. 1.

²⁷⁴arwmen. The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads dhswmen, but Justin Martyr’s Dial., chap. 136, reads arwmen (though in chaps. 17 and 133 it reads dhswmen). Tertullian also in his Adv. Marc. Bk. III. chap. 22, shows that he read arwmen, for he translates auferamus.

²⁷⁷‘Paxabeim, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to “the Rechabites.” But Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an individual, just as he uses the name ‘Phxab which immediately precedes. The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from 1 Chron. ii. 55 to have belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which came into Palestine with the Israelites. Jehonadab enjoined upon his descendants a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which they observed with great strictness for centuries, and received a blessing from God on account of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19). That a Rechabite, who did not belong to the tribe of Judah, nor even to the genuine people of Israel, should have been a priest seems at first sight inexplicable. Different solutions have been offered. Some think that Hegesippus was mistaken,-the source from which he took his account having confounded this ascetic Rechabite with a priest,-but this is hardly probable. Plumptre, in Smith’s Bib. Dict. art. Rechabites (which see for a full account of the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by God (Jer. xxxv. 19) included their solemn adoption among the people of Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore into the number of the priests. Others (e.g. Tillemont, H. E. I. p. 633) have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore identified with them. The language here, however, seems to imply a native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least believed this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not. See Routh, I. p. 243 sq.

²⁷⁹In Epiphanius, Haer. LXXVIII. 14, these words are put into the mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites; but there is no ground for such an assumption. The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechabite of Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius’, as the more exact, was undoubtedly the later tradition, and an intentional improvement upon the vagueness of the original.

²⁸⁰Clement (in chap. 5, §4, above), who undoubtedly used the account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of James as taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded. Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning. But Hegesippus’ account, which is the fullest that we have gives us the means of reconciling the briefer accounts of Cement and of Josephus, and we have no reason to think either account incorrect.

²⁸¹Valesius remarks that the monument (sthlh) could not have stood through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Hegesippus, nor could James have been buried near the temple, as the Jews always buried their dead without the city walls. Tillemont attempted to meet the difficulty by supposing that James was thrown from a pinnacle of the temple overlooking the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore fell without the walls, where he was stoned and buried, and where his monument could remain undisturbed. Tillemont however, afterward withdrew his explanation, which was beset with difficulties. Others have supposed that the monument mentioned by Hegesippus was erected after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. Jerome, de vir. ill. 2), while his body was buried in another place. This is quite possible, as Hegesippus must have seen some monument of James which was reported to have been the original one but which must certainly have been of later date. A monument, which is now commonly known as the tomb of St. James, is shown upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore at a considerable distance from the temple. See Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 246 sqq.

²⁸³See above, chap. I. §4. His agreement with Clement is not very surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge from the account of the former.

²⁸⁴This passage is not found in our existing mss. of Josephus, but is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which shows at any rate that Eusebius did not invent the words. It is probable therefore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this interpolation, while the copies from which our existing mss. drew were without it. It is of course possible, especially since he dues not mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words from Origen. But this does not help matters any, as it still remains as difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen, and even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen instead of from Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jachmann (ib. p. 40) to accuse him of wilful deception. For with his great confidence in Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and with his naturally uncritical spirit, he would readily accept as true in all good faith a quotation given by Origen and purporting to be taken from Josephus, even though he could not find it in his own copy of the latter’s works.

²⁸⁶Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 a.d. He was a very corrupt governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius Florus in 64 a.d. See Wieseler, Chron. d. Ap. Zeitalters, p. 89.

²⁸⁷Ananus was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned in the N.T. His father and his four brothers had been high priests before him, as Josephus tells us in this same paragraph. He was appointed high priest by Agrippa II. in 61 or 62 a.d., and held the office but three months.

²⁸⁸Ananus’ accession is recorded by Josephus in a sentence immediately preceding, which Eusebius, who abridges Josephus’ account somewhat, has omitted in this quotation.

²⁸⁹I can find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of the Sadducees; but see Reland’s note upon this passage in Josephus. It may be that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees and Pharisees.

²⁹⁰kai paragagwn eij auto !ton adelfon =Ihsou tou xristou legomenou, =Iakwboj onoma autw, kai@ tinaj !eterouj@, k.t.l. Some critics regard the bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch. der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, 5th ed., p. 445, note, contends for their genuineness, and this is now the common opinion of critics. It is in fact very difficult to suppose that a Christian in interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother of the ”so-called Christ.” On the other hand, as the words stand there is no good reason to doubt their genuineness.

²⁹¹The date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus, is 61 or 62 a.d. (at the time of the Passover, according to Hegesippus, §10, above). There is no reason for doubting this date which is given with such exactness by Josephus, and it is further confirmed by Eusebius in his Chron., who puts James’s martyrdom in the seventh year of Nero, i.e. 61 a.d., while Jerome puts it in the eighth year of Nero. The Clementines and the Chronicon Paschale, which state that James survived Peter, and are therefore cited in support of a later date, are too late to be of any weight over against such an exact statement as that of Josephus, especially since Peter and James died at such a distance from one another. Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 a.d., and as thus being in direct conflict with Josephus; as a consequence some follow his supposed date, others that of Josephus. But I can find no reason for asserting that Hegesippus assigns the martyrdom to 69. Certainly his words in this chapter, which are referred to, by no means necessitate such an assumption. He concludes his account with the words kai euquj Ouespasianoj poliorkei autouj. The poliorkei autouj is certainly to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by Vespasian), i.e. to the year 67 a.d., and in such an account as this, in which the overthrow of the Jews is designedly presented in connection with the death of James, it is hyper-criticism to insist that the word euquj must indicate a space of time of only a few months’ duration. It is a very indefinite word, and the most we can draw from Hegesippus’ account is that not long before Vespasian’s invasion of Judea, James was slain. The same may be said in regard to Eusebius’ report in Bk. III. chap. 11, §1, which certainly is not definite enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express statement in his Chronicle. But however it may be with this report and that of Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly to be accepted as correct.

²⁹³wj ouk econ hn =Ananw xwrij thj autou gnwmhj kaqisai sunedrion. Jost reads ekeinou (referring to Agrippa) instead of autou (referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and that therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa, but not contrary to the rights of Albinus. But the reading autou is supported by overwhelming ms. authority and must be regarded as undoubtedty correct. Jost’s conclusion, therefore, which his acceptance of the ekeinou forced upon him, is quite incorrect. The passage appears to imply that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of the procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as Schürer points out (Gesch. der Fuden im Zeitalter Fesu Christi, p. 169 sq.) this conclusion is incorrect and all that the passage implies is that the Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that is, could not meet for the purpose of passing sentence of death and executing the sentence, during the absence or without the consent of the procurator. For the transaction of ordinary business the consent of the procurator was not necessary. Compare the Commentaries on John xviii. 31, and the remarks of Schürer in the passage referred to above.

²⁹⁴Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 19, note 4 exercised government over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and removing the high priests.

²⁹⁵Of Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, nothing further is known. He was succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son of Gamaliel (Ant. XX. 9. 4).

²⁹⁶This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles by the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the time of Eusebius has been the common designation. The word is used in the sense of “general,” to denote that the epistles are encyclical letters addressed to no particular persons or congregations, though this is not true of II. and III. John, which, however, are classed with the others on account of their supposed Johannine authorship, and consequent close connection with his first epistle. The word was not first used, as some have held, in the sense of “canonical,” to denote the catholic or general acceptance of the epistle,-a meaning which Eusebius contradicts in this very passage, and which the history of the epistles themselves (five of the seven being among the antilegomena) sufficiently refutes. See Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 472 sqq., and Weiss, ibid. p. 89 sqq.

²⁹⁷noqeuetai. It is common to translate the word noqoj, “spurious” (and the kindred verb, “to be spurious"); but it is plain enough from this passage, as also from others that Eusebius did not employ the word in that sense. He commonly used it in fact, in a loose way, to mean “disputed,” in the same sense in which he often employed the word antilegomenoj. Lücke, indeed, maintained that Eusebius always used the words noqoj and antilegomenoj as synonymous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25, as pointed out in note 1 on that chapter, he employed the words as respective designations of two distinct classes of books.

The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena. The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few: It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century. Irenæus seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon “Jude and the other catholic epistles.” It is quoted frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the “Brother of the Lord,” but does not express himself with decision as to its authenticity. From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of “James, the Lord’s brother.” Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena; not necessarily because he considered it unauthentic, but because the early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1). Luther rejected the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds. The advanced critical school are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work, and many conservative scholars agree with them. See Holtzmann’s Einleitung, p. 475 sqq. and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 396 sqq. The latter defends its authenticity (i.e. the authorship of James, the brother of the Lord), and, in agreement with many other scholars of conservative tendencies, throws its origin back into the early part of the fifties.

²⁹⁸The authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among the antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is about as well supported as that of the Epistle of James. The Peshito does not contain it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for a number of centuries. The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and Tertullian evidently considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see De Cultu Fem. I. 3). The first to quote from it is Clement of Alexandria who wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other catholic epistles according to Eusebius, VI. 14. 1. Origen looked upon it much as he looked upon the Epistle of James, but did not make the “Jude, the brother of James,” one of the twelve apostles. Eusebius treats it as he does James, and Luther, followed by many modern conservative scholars (among them Neander), rejects it. Its defenders commonly ascribe it to Jude, the brother of the Lord, in distinction from Jude the apostle, and put its composition before the destruction of Jerusalem. The advanced critical school unanimously deny its authenticity, and most of them throw its composition into the second century, although some put it back into the latter part of the first. See Holtzmann, p. 501.

²⁹⁹On the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes 1 and 2. On the Epistles of John, see ibid. chap. 44, notes 18 and 19.

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

³⁰²Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office twenty-two years. In Apost. Const. VII. 46 he is said to have been ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria. The Chron. Orient. 89 (according to Westcott in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) reports that he was appointed by Mark after he had performed a miracle upon him. He is commemorated in the Roman martyrology with St. Mark, on April 25.

³⁰⁴Tacitus (Ann. XIII.-XVI.), Suetonius (Nero), and Dion Cassius (LXI.-LXIII.).

³⁰⁵Nero’s mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germanicus and of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero’s command in 60 a.d. in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an unsuccessful attempt to drown her in a boat so constructed as to break to pieces while she was sailing in it on the lake. His younger brother Britannicus was poisoned by his order at a banquet in 55 a.d. His first wife Octavia was divorced in order that he might marry Poppaea, the wife of his friend Otho, and was afterward put to death. Poppaea herself died from the effects of a kick given her by Nero while she was with child.

³⁰⁷We learn from Tacitus, Ann. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place in 64 a.d. (Pliny, H. N. XVII. I, Suetonius, 38, and Dion Cassius LXII. 18, state directly that he was the author of it), and that to avert this suspicion from himself he accused the Christians of the deed, and the terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes so fully was the result. Gibbon, and in recent times especially Schiller (Geschichte der Römischen Kaiserzeit unter der Regierung des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have maintained that Tacitus was mistaken in calling this a persecution of Christians, which was rather a persecution of the Jews as a whole. But we have no reason for impeaching Tacitus’ accuracy in this case, especially since we remember that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero through his wife Poppaea. What is very significant, Josephus is entirely silent in regard to a persecution of his countrymen under Nero. We may assume as probable (with Ewald and Renan) that it was through the suggestion of the Jews that Nero’s attention was drawn to the Christians, and he was led to throw the guilt upon them, as a people whose habits would best give countenance to such a suspicion, and most easily excite the rage of the populace against them. This was not a persecution of the Christians in the strict sense, that is, it was not aimed against their religion as such; and yet it assumed such proportions and was attended with such horrors that it always lived in the memory of the Church as the first and one of the most awful of a long line of persecutions instituted against them by imperial Rome, and it revealed to them the essential conflict which existed between Rome as it then was and Christianity.

³⁰⁸The Greek translator of Tertullian’s Apology, whoever he may have been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 9, above), being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, has made very bad work of this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense of the original, which runs as follows: iilic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Romoe orientem Coesariano gladio ferocisse ("There you will find that Nero was the first to assail with the imperial sword the Christian sect, which was then especially flourishing in Rome"). The Greek translation reads: ekei eurhsete prwton Nerwna touto to dogma, hnika magista en =Pwmh thn anatoghn pasan upotacaj wmoj hn eij pantaj, diwconta, in the rendering of which I have followed Crusè, who has reproduced the idea of the Greek translator with as much fidelity as the sentence will allow. The German translators, Stroth and Closs, render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus preserve the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek translator intended to reproduce. I have not, however, felt at liberty in the present case to follow their example.

³⁰⁹This tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early and universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition and may be accepted as the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside of the New Testament accounts. Clement (Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the first to mention the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he does not directly state, that his death took place in Rome during the persecution of Nero. Caius (quoted below, §7), a writer of the first quarter of the third century, is another witness to his death in Rome, as is also Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, §8) of the second century. Origen (quoted by Euseb. III. 1) states that he was martyred in Rome under Nero. Tertullian (at the end of the second century), in his De proescriptione Hoer. chap. 36, is still more distinct, recording that Paul was beheaded in Rome. Eusebius and Jerome accept this tradition unhesitatingly, and we may do likewise. As a Roman citizen, we should expect him to meet death by the sword.

³¹⁰The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome. (See especially Lipsius' Die Quellen der römischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq. In Lipsius’ latest work upon this subject, Die Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.) The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside, and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition. We may therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and suffered martyrdom there. His martyrdom is plainly referred to in John xxi. 10, though the place of it as not given. The first extra-biblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing tradition. Ignatius (Ad Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that Peter had been in Rome. Phlegon (supposed to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a favorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles. This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well known in Rome. Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter labored in Rome, and Caius is a witness for it. So Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to mention Peter’s death by crucifixion (unless John xxi. 18 be supposed to imply it) is Tertullian (De Proescrip. Hoer. chap. 36), but he mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since his time is so unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree probable. On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where Origen is quoted by Eusebius.

³¹¹The history of Caius is veiled in obscurity. All that we know of him is that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at the beginning of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in Rome (cf. Bk. VI. chap. 20, below). The accounts of him given by Jerome, Theodoret, and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius and furnish us no new data. Photius, however (Bibl. XLVIII.), reports that Caius was said to have been a presbyter of the Roman Church during the episcopates of Victor and Zephyrinus, and to have been elected “Bishop of the Gentiles,” and hence he is commonly spoken of as a presbyter of the Roman Church, though the tradition rests certainly upon a very slender foundation, as Photius lived some six hundred years after Caius, and is the first to mention the fact. Photius also, although with hesitation, ascribes to Caius a work On the Cause of the Universe, and one called The Labyrinth, and another Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1). The first of these (and by some the last also), is now commonly ascribed to Hippolytus. Though the second may have been written by Caius it is no longer extant, and hence all that we have of his writings are the fragments of the Dialogue with Proclus preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31. The absence of any notice of the personal activity of so distinguished a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. p. 386, who refers to Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, I. 98, as holding the same view) to assume the identity of Caius and Hippolytus, supposing that Hippolytus in the Dialogue with Proclus styled himself simply by his praenomen Caius and that thus as the book fell into the hands of strangers the tradition arose of a writer Caius who in reality never had a separate existence. This theory is ingenious, and in many respects plausible, and certainly cannot be disproved (owing chiefly to our lack of knowledge about Caius), and yet in the absence of any proof that Hippolytus actually bore the praenomen Caius it can be regarded as no more than a bare hypothesis. The two are distinguished by Eusebius and by all the writers who mention them. On Caius’ attitude toward the Apocalypse, see Bk. III. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI. chap. 20, and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17. The fragments of Caius (including fragments from the Little Labyrinth, mentioned above) are given with annotations in Routh’s Rel. Sacroe, II. 125-158 and in translation (with the addition of the Muratorian Fragment, wrongly ascribed to Caius by its discoverer) in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, V. 599-604. See also the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace, of Harnack, in Herzog (2d ed.), and Schaff’s Ch. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq.

³¹³gegonwj. Crusè translates “born"; but Eusebius cannot have meant that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius’ disputation with Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus. He used gegonwj, therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came into public notice, as we use the word “arose.”

³¹⁵This Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at the beginning of the third century. According to Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Hoer. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the Montanists, the other division being composed of followers of Aeschines. He is probably to be identified with the Proculus noster, classed by Tertullian, in Adv. Val. chap. 5, with Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus as a successful opponent of heresy.

³¹⁶The sect of the Montanists. Called the “Phrygian heresy,” from the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia. Upon Montanism, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.

³¹⁷The de here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the apostles. And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be gathered from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 31, §4, in which Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried in Hierapolis. That these two sentences were closely connected in the original is quite possible.

³¹⁸According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro in Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is still shown to the trustful visitor. A more probable tradition makes the scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero’s circus was, and where the persecution took place. Baronius makes the whole ridge on the right bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles the two traditions. In the fourth century the remains of Peter were transferred from the Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are said to have been interred in 258 a.d.) to the Basilica of St. Peter, which occupied the sight of the present basilica on the Vatican.

³¹⁹Paul was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way, at the spot now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains. The fountains, which are said to have sprung up at the spots where Paul’s head struck the ground three times after the decapitation, are still shown, as also the pillar to which he is supposed to have been bound! In the fourth century, at the same time that Peter’s remains were transferred to the Vatican, Paul’s remains are said to have been buried in the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked by the church of San Paolo fuori le mura. There is nothing improbable in the traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met their death. They are as old as the second century; and while they cannot be accepted as indisputably true (since there is always a tendency to fix the deathplace of a great man even if it is not known), yet on the other hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, it is hardly possible that the place of their death and burial could have been forgotten by the Roman church itself within a century and a half.

³²⁰Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the strict sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul. It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.

³²³Whatever may be the truth of Dionysius’ report as to Peter’s martyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in speaking as he does of Peter’s work in Corinth. It is difficult, to be sure, to dispose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is still more difficult to accept it. The statement that Paul and Peter together planted the Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we know that it was Paul’s own church, founded by him alone. The so-called Cephas party, mentioned in 1 Cor. i., is perhaps easiest explained by the previous presence and activity of Peter in Corinth, but this is by no means necessary, and the absence of any reference to the fact in the two epistles of Paul renders it almost absolutely impossible. It is barely possible, though by no means probable, that Peter visited Corinth on his way to Rome (assuming the Roman journey) and that thus, although the church had already been founded many years, he became connected in tradition with its early days, and finally with its origination. But it is more probable that the tradition is wholly in error and arose, as Neander suggests, partly from the mention of Peter in 1 Cor. i., partly from the natural desire to ascribe the origin of this great apostolic church to the two leading apostles, to whom in like manner the founding of the Roman church was ascribed. It is significant that this tradition is recorded only by a Corinthian, who of course had every inducement to accept such a report, and to repeat it in comparing his own church with the central church of Christendom. We find no mention of the tradition in later writers, so far as I am aware.

³²⁴kata ton auton kairon. The kata allows some margin in time and does not necessarily imply the same day. Dionysius is the first one to connect the deaths of Peter and Paul chronologically, but later it became quite the custom. One tradition put their deaths on the same day, one year apart (Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are said to support this tradition). Jerome (de vir. ill. I) is the first to state explicitly that they suffered on the same day. Eusebius in his Chron. (Armen.) puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68. The Roman Catholic Church celebrates the death of Peter on the 29th and that of Paul on the 30th of June, but has no fixed tradition as to the year of the death of either of them.

³²⁵Josephus, B.F. II. 14. 9. He relates that Florus, in order to shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his abominable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them. As a result many disturbances broke out, and many bitter things were said against Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures referred to here by Eusebius.

³²⁶muriouj osouj. Josephus gives the whole number of those that were destroyed, including women and children, as about thirty-six hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration, like most of his figures). He does not state the number of noble Jews whom Florus whipped and crucified. The “myriads” of Eusebius is an instance of the exaggerated use of language which was common to his age, and which almost invariably marks a period of decline. In many cases “myriads” meant to Eusebius and his contemporaries twenty, or thirty, or even less. Any number that seemed large under the circumstances was called a “myriad.”

³²⁷Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend of the Empress Poppaea, through whose influence he obtained his appointment (Jos. Ant. XX. 11. 1). He succeeded Albinus in 64 a.d. (see above, chap. 23, note 35), and was universally hated as the most corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea had ever endured. Josephus (B. F. II. 14. 2 sqq. and Ant. XX. II. I) paints him in very black colors.

³²⁸Josephus (B. F. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in the twelfth ear of the reign of Nero (i.e. a.d. 66) in the month of Artemision, corresponding to the month Iyar, the second month of the Jewish year. According to Josephus (Ant. XX. 11. 1) this was in the second year of Gessius Florus. The war began at this time by repeated rebellious outbreaks among the Jews, who had been driven to desperation by the unprincipled and tyrannical conduct of Florus,-though Vespasian himself did not appear in Palestine until the spring of 67, when he began his operations in Galilee.

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

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

Archbishop Gregory Dormition Skete P.O. Box 3177 Buena Vista, CO 81211-3177 USA	Contact: Archbishop Gregory In a New Window.
		Copyright 2005 All rights reserved.

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

Book II

Contents

Book II.