Writings of Eusebius - The Church History of Eusebius
Advanced Information
Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1890 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book III.
Chapter I.--The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached
Christ.
1. Such was the condition of the Jews. Meanwhile the holy apostles and
disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world. [563]
Parthia, [564] according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his
field of labor, Scythia [565] to Andrew, [566] and Asia [567] to John,
[568] who, after he had lived some time there, [569] died at Ephesus.
2. Peter appears to have preached [570] in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia,
Cappadocia, and Asia [571] to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last,
having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; [572] for he had
requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say
concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to
Illyricum, [573] and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?
[574] These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his
Commentary on Genesis. [575]
Footnotes
[563] According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the
apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that
of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second
century. But this separation was put at various dates by different
traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to
twenty-four years later. A lost book, referred to by the Decretum
Gelasii as Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very
likely contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of
the apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin. The
efforts to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy
particulars as to the apostles themselves is almost wholly vain. The
various traditions not only assign different fields of labor to the
different apostles, but also give different lists of the apostles
themselves. See Lipsius' article on the Apocryphal Acts of the
Apostles in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 17 sqq. The
extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, &c., are translated in
the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 361 sqq. Lipsius states that,
according to the oldest form of the tradition, the apostles were
divided into three groups: first, Peter and Andrew, Matthew and
Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in the region of the Black
Sea; second, Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the Canaanite, in Parthia;
third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor.
[564] Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent
kingdom, extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian
Sea to the Persian Gulf. This is the oldest form of the tradition in
regard to Thomas (see preceding note). It is found also in the
Clementine Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. E. I. 19. Rufinus
(H. E. II. 5) and Socrates (H. E. IV. 18) speak of Edessa as his
burial place. Later traditions extended his labors eastward as far as
India, and made him suffer martyrdom in that land; and there his
remains were exhibited down to the sixteenth century. According to the
Martyrium Romanum, however, his remains were brought from India to
Edessa, and from thence to Ortona, in Italy, during the Crusades. The
Syrian Christians in India called themselves Thomas-Christians; but
the name cannot be traced beyond the eighth century, and is derived,
probably, from a Nestorian missionary.
[565] The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very
loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and
Black Seas. But two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate
usage: a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the
Danube and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from
the Ural. The former is here meant.
[566] The traditions respecting Andrew are very uncertain and
contradictory, though, as remarked above (note 1), the original form,
represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood
of the Black Sea. His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the
patron saint of Russia. He is also called the patron saint of Greece,
where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity there
rests upon a late tradition. His body is said to have been carried to
Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. III. 2), and
during the Crusades transferred to Amalpæ in Italy, in whose cathedral
the remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of
Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to
the eighth century (cf. Skene's Celtic Scotland, II. 221 sq.).
Numerous other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to have
been the scene of his labors.
[567] Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor,
lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean and comprising Mysia, Lydia,
and Caria.
[568] The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John's later life
to Ephesus: e.g. Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 1. 1 and 3. 4, etc.; Clement
of Alex., Quis Dives Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23,
below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by Eusebius in
chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many others. The
testimony of Irenæus is especially weighty, for the series: Irenæus,
the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, forms a complete chain such
as we have in no other case. Such testimony, when its force is broken
by no adverse tradition, ought to be sufficient to establish John's
residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has been
denied by many of the critics who reject the Johannine authorship of
the fourth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the author of Supernat.
Religion, and others), though the denial is much less positive now
than it was a few years ago. The chief arguments urged against the
residence of John in Ephesus are two, both a silentio: first, Clement
in his first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the apostles in such
a way as to seem to imply that they were all dead; secondly, in the
Ignatian Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but not John, which is certainly
very remarkable, as one is addressed to Ephesus itself. In reply it
may be said that such an interpretation of Clement's words is not
necessary, and that the omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius
becomes perfectly natural if the Epistles are thrown into the time of
Hadrian or into the latter part of Trajan's reign, as they ought to be
(cf. chap. 36, note 4). In the face of the strong testimony for John's
Ephesian residence these two objections must be overruled. The
traditional view is defended by all conservative critics as well as by
the majority even of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the
fourth Gospel (cf. especially Hilgenfeld in his Einleitung, and
Weizsäcker in his Apostaliches Zeitalter). The silence of Paul's
epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus
until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should
naturally expect to be the case. Upon the time of John's banishment to
Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note 1. Tradition reports that he lived
until the reign of Trajan (98-117). Cf. Irenæus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3.
4.
[569] Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John
remained in Ephesus and when he died.
[570] The language of Origen (kekeruchenai zoiken, instead of logos
zchei or parEURdosis periechei) seems to imply that he is recording
not a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of
Peter, which was known to him, and in which these places are
mentioned. Such a tradition did, however, exist quite early. Cf. e.g.
the Syriac Doctrina Apostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of
Peter and Andrew. The former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and
Cilicia, in addition to Galatia and Pontus, and cannot therefore, rest
solely upon the first Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the
first three places. All the places assigned to Peter are portions of
the field of Paul, who in all the traditions of this class is
completely crowded out and his field given to other apostles, showing
the Jewish origin of the traditions. Upon Peter's activity in Rome and
his death there, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 7.
[571] Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 1.
[572] Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his
head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common. It is
of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by
earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucifixion),
and its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly doubtful.
[573] Cf. Rom. xv. 19. Illyricum was a Roman province lying along the
eastern coast of the Adriatic.
[574] See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.
[575] This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else. It is
impossible to tell where the quotation begins--whether with the words
"Thomas according to tradition received Parthia," as I have given it,
or with the words "Peter appears to have preached," etc., as Bright
gives it.
Chapter II.--The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.
1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus [576] was the first
to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him,
when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the
epistle. [577]
Footnotes
[576] The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is
a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by
Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according
to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a
different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in
addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of
the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the
difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists,
have been proposed. In the second Chapter of the so-called Epistle of
Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed
to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and
Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting
Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note
10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing
that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in
the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each
successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair. It is at
least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop,
and therefore the question as to the order of these first three
so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to
which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions. The Roman Church
gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus,
following Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single
Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of
Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta
Apost. Apocr. p. xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus
was bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen
years, while Jerome says eleven. These dates are about as reliable as
the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as
to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects
discussed in this note see especially Salmon's articles, Clemens
Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[577] 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenæus, Adv.
Hær. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians
(longer version), chap. 7.
Chapter III.--The Epistles of the Apostles.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as
genuine. [578] And this the ancient elders [579] used freely in their
own writings as an undisputed work. [580] But we have learned that his
extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; [581] yet, as it
has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other
Scriptures. [582]
2. The so-called Acts of Peter, [583] however, and the Gospel [584]
which bears his name, and the Preaching [585] and the Apocalypse,
[586] as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted,
[587] because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made
use of testimonies drawn from them. [588]
3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in
addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have
from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, [589] and
what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings,
[590] as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of
which I know to be genuine [591] and acknowledged by the ancient
elders. [592]
5. Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. [593] It is
not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the
Epistle to the Hebrews, [594] saying that it is disputed [595] by the
church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But
what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before
our time I shall quote in the proper place. [596] In regard to the
so-called Acts of Paul, [597] I have not found them among the
undisputed writings. [598]
6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the
Epistle to the Romans, [599] has made mention among others of Hermas,
to whom the book called The Shepherd [600] is ascribed, it should be
observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account
cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is
considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need
instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has
been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most
ancient writers used it.
7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as
well as those that are not universally acknowledged.
Footnotes
[578] The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of
the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp,
Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and
was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement
of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship
were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct
Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely
ungenuine. The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time the
genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account
of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who
confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the
Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle).
The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine
authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption
of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was
written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that
the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents
no fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to
find an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged
the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second
century, it is never connected with Peter's name until the time of
Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack's Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few
supporters.
[579] hoi pEURlai presbuteroi. On the use of the term "elders" among
the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.
[580] hos anamphilekto
[581] ouk endiEURthekon men einai pareilephamen. The authorship of the
second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external
testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to
have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been
offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still
remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of
the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian,
Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to
Cyprian, §6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian's Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by
Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed.
Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used
it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the
Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and
discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by
all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative
scholars. Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the
death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it
into the second century,--some as late as the time of Clement of
Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and
159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung,
p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question),
Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see
especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq.,
and Salmon's Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.
[582] Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently
not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth
century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from
the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus,
Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which
the Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.
[583] These prEURxeis (or periodoi, as they are often called) Petrou
were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the
heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the
collection of periodoi ton apostolon, which were ascribed to Lucius
Charinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth
century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work,
as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is preserved,
according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the title
Passio Petri. Upon these Acts of Peter, their original form, and their
relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen
Apostelgeschichten, II. I, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli
already referred to, this work, too, was used in the composition of
the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still extant, and which
assumed their present form in the fifth century, according to Lipsius.
These Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul have been published by Thilo
(Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta
Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.
[584] This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of
Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was
rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained.
It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as
heretical; also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir.
ill. 1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work
employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards
it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From
Serapion's account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we
see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their
truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ's life, but
rather in adding to the account given by them. This, of course, favors
Lipsius' hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in
denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin
Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel
of Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the same Chapter) was used by
the Docetæ, but that does not imply that it contained what we call
Docetic ideas of Christ's body (cf. note 8 on that Chapter). The
Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of
Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.
[585] This Preaching of Peter (Kerugma Petrou, Prædicatio Petri),
which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost Preaching
of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and
Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early
Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by
Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of
Peter's teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic.
Patr. I. 55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d
ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan. XIII.
17, and De Princ. Præf. 8), and in the latter place is expressly
classed among spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius,
closely connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6,
above. Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation
of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the
Preaching is not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline
production, and is to be distinguished from the Ebionitic kerugmata.
It would seem therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the
original of the Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the
latter had been done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the
Preaching is as old as the middle of the second century and the most
ancient of the works recording Peter's preaching, and hence (if this
view be accepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to
the Acts did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of
the record of Peter's preaching embodied in the Acts and in the
Preaching. The latter (if it included also the Preaching of Paul, as
seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account of some of
the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin.
Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 28
(Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon's article on the
Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV. 329.
[586] The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early
Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the
apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with
the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted
by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at
that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes
(according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus
showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the
third century it was still received in the North African Church (so
Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus).
The Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it
as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter's ed.),
and so Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to
Lipsius). After Eusebius' time the work seems to have been universally
regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its
apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the
Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the
semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to
Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was
treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it
among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of
John. As Lipsius remarks, its "lay-recognition in orthodox circles
proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have
contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians" (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the
work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test.
extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.
[587] oud' holos en katholikais ismen paradedomena
[588] Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of Peter
was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the
Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14)
wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.
[589] ton antilegomenon
[590] peri ton endiathekon kai homologoumenon
[591] hon monen mian gnesian zgnon.
[592] As above; see note 2.
[593] The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the
Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely
undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of
them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted
until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is
ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part
of the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and
there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the
Tübingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other
epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was
first questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the
Tübingen School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided;
the majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all
conservative scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by
Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tübingen School. It fares
to-day somewhat better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected
by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense
(e.g. Weizsäcker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the
theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our
present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians,
of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tübingen
School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is
still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely
accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsäcker and even
Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians was first
attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until
Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also. Second
Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative
critics, and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has
regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld,
Weizsäcker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by
comparatively few critics. Philemon--which was first attacked by
Baur--is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are
almost as generally rejected, except by the regular conservative
school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk. II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For
a concise account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see
Holtzmann's Einleitung. For a defense of them all, see the Einleitung
of Weiss.
[594] tines ethetekasi. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not
written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as
absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline
authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally,
external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with
Paul. The first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantænus and
Clement of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they
evidently find it necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the
face of the objections of others. Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew
original, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below,
Bk. VI. chap. 25) leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it
probable that the thoughts are Paul's, but the diction that of some
one else, who has recorded what he heard from the apostle. He then
remarks that one tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to
Luke. Eusebius himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with
the exception of Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship),
looks upon it as a work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria's
theory that it was written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that
Clement of Rome was its translator (see chap. 38, below). In the
Western Church, where the epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement
of Rome uses it freely), it is not connected with Paul until the
fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian (de pudicit. 20) states that it
bore the name of Barnabas, and evidently had never heard that it had
been ascribed to any one else. The influence of the Alexandrians,
however, finally prevailed, and from the fifth century on we find it
universally accepted, both East and West, as an epistle of Paul, and
not until the Reformation was its origin again questioned. Since that
time its authorship has been commonly regarded as an insoluble
mystery. Numerous guesses have been made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos,
and he has been followed by many), but it is impossible to prove that
any of them are correct. For Barnabas, however, more can be said than
for any of the others. Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with
him; and its contents are just what we should expect from the pen of a
Levite who had been for a time under Paul's influence, and yet had not
received his Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is
Levitic, and decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the
influence of Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in
the place where the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul,
there first appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see
below, chap. 25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been
suggested by Weiss and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the
Hebrews was originally accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas,
but that later it was ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that
Barnabas had written an epistle, which must still have remained in the
Church, led to the ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We
seem thus most easily to explain the false ascription of the one
epistle to Paul, and the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It
may be said that the claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many
supporters, while still more attempt no decision. In regard to the
canonicity of the epistle there seems never to have been any serious
dispute, and it is this fact doubtless which did most to foster the
belief in its Pauline authorship from the third century on. For the
criterion of canonicity more and more came to be looked upon as
apostolicity, direct or indirect. The early Church had cared little
for such a criterion. In only one place does Eusebius seem to imply
that doubts existed as to its canonicity,--in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where
he classes it with the Book of Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas,
Clement, and Jude, among the antilegomena. But in view of his
treatment of it elsewhere it must be concluded that he is thinking in
that passage not at all of its canonicity, but of its Pauline
authorship, which he knows is disputed by some, and in reference to
which he uses the same word, antilegesthai, in the present sentence.
Upon the canonicity of the epistle, see still further chap. 25, note
1. For a discussion of the epistle, see especially the N. T.
Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.
[595] antilegesthai
[596] See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.
[597] These prEURxeis are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where
they are classed among the nothoi, implying that they had been
originally accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius
wrote widely accepted as such. This implies that they were not, like
the works which he mentions later in the Chapter, of an heretical
character. They were already known to Origen, who (De Prin. I. 2, 3)
refers to them in such a way as to show that they were in good repute
in the Catholic Church. They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic
periodoi or prEURxeis Paulou, which from the end of the fourth century
formed a part of the Manichean canon of the New Testament, and of
which some fragments are still extant under various forms. The failure
to keep these Catholic and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has
caused considerable confusion. Both of these Acts, the Catholic and
the heretical, formed, according to Lipsius (Apokr.
Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one of the sources of the
Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their extant form belong to
the fifth century. For a discussion of these Catholic Acts of Paul
referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p. 70 sq.
[598] oude men tas legomenas autou prEURxeis en anamphilektois
pareilepha
[599] See Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last Chapter of
Romans is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus.
This has been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it was first
broached by David Schulz (Studien und Kritiken, p. 629 sq.), and is
accepted even by many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss), while on the
other hand it is opposed by many of the opposite school. While Aquila
and Priscilla, of verse 3, and Epænetus, of verse 5, seem to point to
Ephesus, and the fact that so many personal friends are greeted, leads
us to look naturally to the East as Paul's field of labor, where he
had formed so many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had
not been; yet on the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus,
Rufus, Hermas, Nereus, Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to
Rome. We must, however, be content to leave the matter undecided, but
may be confident that the evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is
certainly, in the face of the Roman names mentioned, and of universal
tradition (for which as for Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not
strong enough to establish it.
[600] The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of
the second century, and is quoted by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2) as
Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture
testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered
it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria
and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter
expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it
is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places
it among the nothoi or spurious writings in connection with the Acts
of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian
Fragment it was "written very recently in our times in the city of
Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of
the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it
cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among
the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to
the end of time." This shows the very high esteem in which the work
was held in that age. It was very widely employed in private and in
public, both in the East and the West, until about the fourth century,
when it gradually passed out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says
that it was almost unknown among the Latins of his time. As to the
date and authorship of the Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only
direct testimony of antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment,
which says that it was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during
the episcopacy of the latter (139-154 a.d.). This testimony is
accepted by the majority of scholars, most of whom date the book near
the middle of the second century, or at least as late as the reign of
Hadrian. This opinion received not long ago what was supposed to be a
strong confirmation from the discovery of the fact that Hermas in all
probability quoted from Theodotion's version of Daniel (see Hort's
article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884),
which has been commonly ascribed to the second century. But it must
now be admitted that no one knows the terminus a quo for the
composition of Theodotian's version, and therefore the discovery
leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined (see Schürer, Gesch.
des jüdischen Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile Eusebius in this
connection records the tradition, which he had read, that the book was
written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This tradition,
however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is no more
than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge as to this
Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove
decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for
accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name. In
Vis. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his book to Clement.
From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been
contemporary with the well-known Roman Clement, the author of the
Epistle to the Corinthians. While this appears very likely, it cannot
be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later
date. Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the
book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the
second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it.
Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas,
a contemporary of the Roman Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon
in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Critics
are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists
of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the
nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life
of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.
The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and
has been compared to the Pilgrim's Progress. Opinions are divided as
to whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the
author, or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to be the
more probable. Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas
was known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and
Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos ms. discovered shortly before by
Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the ms. the last was lost; three were
sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were
transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has
enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately
it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All
recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of
Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos
Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only
through Simonides' transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt.
Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of
Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A.
Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek
text of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last
edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a
Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended
transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos ms. But this has been
conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we
are therefore still without any ms. authority for the Greek text of
the close of the work. Cf. Robinson's introduction to the Collation of
Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack's articles in the Theol.
Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is
that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips.
1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The
literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should
examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf.
Zahn's Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard
to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.
Chapter IV.--The First Successors of the Apostles.
1. That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the
churches "from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is evident
both from his own words, [601] and from the account which Luke has
given in the Acts. [602]
2. And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the
doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear
from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed,
[603] in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. [604]
3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true
and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend
the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those
mentioned in the writings of Paul.
4. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as he
called them, [605] and most of them were honored by him with an
imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them
in his own epistles.
5. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by
name. [606]
6. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate
of the parish in Ephesus, [607] Titus of the churches in Crete. [608]
7. But Luke, [609] who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by
profession, [610] and who was especially intimate with Paul and well
acquainted with the rest of the apostles, [611] has left us, in two
inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned
from them. One of these books is the Gospel, [612] which he testifies
that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and
ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he
followed accurately from the first. [613] The other book is the Acts
of the Apostles [614] which he composed not from the accounts of
others, but from what he had seen himself.
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as
if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according
to my Gospel." [615]
9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was
sent to Gaul; [616] but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle
to Timothy [617] as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in
the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. [618]
10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at
Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. [619]
11. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first
to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as
recorded by Luke in the Acts) [620] is mentioned by another Dionysius,
an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, [621] as the
first bishop of the church at Athens.
12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall
relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our
history.
Footnotes
[601] Rom. xv. 19.
[602] From Acts ix. on.
[603] In chap. 3, §1.
[604] 1 Pet. i. 1.
[605] Philip. ii. 25; Philem. 2.
[606] Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (xii. 25; xiii. 13;
xv. 37, 39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. 1 sqq. and often); Aquila
and Priscilla (xviii.); Erastus (xix. 22); Gaius of Macedonia (xix.
29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater, Secundus, Gaius
of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus
(xx. 4); Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).
[607] That Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is stated also by
the Apost. Const. (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (H. E. III. 11), who
records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered
martyrdom under Domitian. Against the tradition that he labored during
his later years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged; though on the
other hand the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be no
more than a conclusion drawn from the Epistles to Timothy, though
hardly a conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word
historeitai, which seems to imply that he had some authority for his
statement. According to those epistles, he was at the time of their
composition in Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether he
was afterward there or not. From Heb. xiii. 23 (the date of which we
do not know) we learn that he had just been released from some
imprisonment, apparently in Italy, but whither he afterward went is
quite uncertain. Eusebius' report that he was bishop of Ephesus is the
customary but unwarranted carrying back into the first century of the
monarchical episcopate which was not known until the second. According
to the Apost. Const. VII. 46 both Timothy and John were bishops of
Ephesus, the former appointed by Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy
is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January
24.
[608] Cf. Tit. i. 5. Titus is commonly connected by tradition with
Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop,--the
later institution being again pushed back into the first century. In
the fragment de Vita et Actis Titi, by the lawyer Zenas (in Fabric.
Cod. Apoc. N.T. II. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith's Dict. of
the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of Crete
(where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name), and of
a royal Cretan family by birth. This tradition is late, and, of
course, of little authority, but at the same time, accords very well
with all that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no reason
for denying it in toto. According to 2 Tim. iv. 10, he went, or was
sent, into Dalmatia; but universal tradition ascribes his later life
and his death to Crete. Candia, the modern capital, claims the honor
of being his burial place (see Cave'sApostolici, ed. 1677, p. 63).
Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated
January 4.
[609] Of Luke personally we know very little. He is not mentioned in
the Acts, and only three times in Paul's epistles (Col. iv. 14;
Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), from which passages we learn that he was a
physician, was one of Paul's fellow-workers who was very dear to him,
and was with him during his last imprisonment. Irenæus, who is the
first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Acts to this Luke, seems to
know nothing more about him personally. Eusebius is the first to
record that he was born at Antioch; but the tradition must have been
universally accepted in his day, as he states it without any
misgivings and with no qualifying phrase. Jerome (de vir. ill. 7) and
many later writers follow Eusebius in this statement. There is no
intrinsic improbability in the tradition, which seems, in fact, to be
favored by certain minor notices in the Acts (see Schaff, Ch. Hist. I.
651). Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. 25) says that he labored in Achaia, and
in Orat. 4 he calls him a martyr. Jerome (ibid.) says that he was
buried in Constantinople. According to Nicephorus (H. E. II. 43) and
later writers, Luke was a painter of great skill; but this late
tradition, of which the earlier Fathers know nothing, is quite
worthless. Epiphanius (Hær. II. 11) makes him one of the Seventy,
which does not accord with Luke's own words at the beginning of his
Gospel, where he certainly implies that he himself was not an
eye-witness of the events which he records. In the same connection,
Epiphanius says that he labored in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and
Macedonia,--a tradition which has about as much worth as most such
traditions in regard to the fields of labor of the various apostles
and their followers. Theophylact (On Luke xxiv. 13-24) records that
some supposed that he was one of the disciples with whom Christ walked
to Emmaus, and this ingenious but unfounded guess has gained some
modern supporters (e.g. Lange). He is a saint in the Roman Catholic
sense, and is commemorated October 18.
[610] See Col. iv. 14
[611] Of Luke's acquaintance with the other apostles we know nothing,
although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the "We"
sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at the time he was
taken prisoner (Acts xxi.), when he met James at least, and possibly
others of the Twelve. It is not at all improbable that in the course
of his life he became acquainted with several of the apostles.
[612] The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although it
is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early. It
was used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and
is quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr. The Gospel is first
distinctly ascribed to Luke by Irenæus (III. 1. 1) and by the
Muratorian Fragment. From that time on tradition was unanimous both as
to its authorship and its authority. The common opinion--still
defended by the great majority of conservative critics--has always
been that the third Gospel was written before the destruction of
Jerusalem. The radical critics of the present century, however, bring
its composition down to a latter date--ranging all the way from 70 to
140 (the latter is Baur's date, which is now universally recognized as
very wild). Many conservative critics put its composition after the
destruction of Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its
eschatological discourses--e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80
(while putting Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem).
The traditional and still prevalent opinion is that Luke's Gospel was
written later than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various
commentaries and New Testament Introductions, and for a clear
exhibition of the synoptical problem in general, see Schaff's Ch.
Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in particular, p. 648 sqq.
[613] Luke i. 2, 3.
[614] Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic
Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second
century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by
heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian
Fragment and Irenæus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as the
author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been unanimous
in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case of
Photius (ad Amphil. Quæst. 123, ed. Migne), who states that the work
was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others
to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that Photius, in this
case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the
date of its composition. Irenæus (III. 1. 1) seems (one cannot speak
with certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter
and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts still later. The
Muratorian Fragment implies that the work was written at least after
the death of Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose that the work
was written during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 7),
and this has been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars
ever since, although many put the composition between the death of
Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it
after the destruction of Jerusalem, though still assigning it to Luke.
The opposite school of critics deny Luke's authorship, throwing the
book into the latter part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld,
&c.), or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim,
Hausrath, &c.). The Tübingen School saw in the Acts a
"tendency-writing," in which the history was intentionally perverted.
This theory finds few supporters at present, even among the most
extreme critics, all of whom, however, consider the book a source of
the second rank, containing much that is legendary and distorted and
irreconcilable with Paul's Epistles, which are looked upon as the only
reliable source. The question turns upon the relation of the author of
the "we" sections to the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars
agree with universal tradition in identifying them (though this is not
necessary in order to maintain the historical accuracy of the work),
while the opposite school denies the identity, considering the "we"
sections authentic historical accounts from the pen of a companion of
Paul, which were afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who
was not a pupil of Paul. The identity of the author of the third
Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all parties. See the various
Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of
the Acts, compare especially Weizsäcker's Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182
sqq., and Weiss' Einleitung, p. 569 sq.
[615] Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression
phasi, "they say," which seems to imply that the interpretation was a
common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen
also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to,
but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in
Origen's works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in
commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the
words "my Gospel" to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the
Gospel written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from
his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen
does suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18.
The interpretation of the words "according to my Gospel," which
Eusebius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome
(de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never
uses the word euangelion in such a sense, nor is it used by any New
Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the
written Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of "glad
tidings," or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of
the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Luke's
Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke's connection
with Paul, and Irenæus (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. §2) says
directly that Luke recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian
(Adv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Luke's form of the Gospel is
usually ascribed to Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down
the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles
needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord
with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church
upon the connection of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap.
24 Eusebius refers again to Luke's relation to Paul in connection with
his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap.
25. The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and
still is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far,
however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul
himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his
preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from
which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen in Luke's
standpoint, and in his general spirit--his Gospel is the Gospel of
universal salvation.
[616] 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is eporeuthe, which
means simply "went" or "is gone." That Paul had sent him as Eusebius
states (using the word steilEURmenos) is not implied in the epistle.
Instead of eis tas Gallias (or ten Gallian) most of the ancient mss.
of the New Testament have eis Galatian, which is the reading of the
Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others. Some
mss., however (including the Sinaitic), have Gallian, which
Tischendorf adopts; and some of the mss. of Eusebius also have this
form, though the majority read tas Gallias. Christophorsonus in his
edition of Eusebius reads epi ten Galatian, but entirely without ms.
authority. Epiphanius (Hær. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10
should be read Gallia and not Galatia: ou gar en te Galati‹ hos
tines planethentes nomizousin, alla en te Galli‹. Theodoret (in 2
Tim. iv. 10) reads Galatian, but interprets it as meaning tas Gallias:
houto gar ekalounto pEURlai.
[617] 2 Tim. iv. 21.
[618] See chap. 2, note 1, above.
[619] Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a
"fellow-soldier." Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul's references
to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom he
calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers
was a very important personage in the early Roman church, being known
to tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has played a
prominent part in Church history on account of the numerous writings
which have passed under his name. We know nothing certain about his
life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by
Paul,--an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after
him repeated by a great many writers. But the identification is, to
say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement
in a very common name deserves little consideration. It was quite
customary in the early Church to find Paul's companions, whenever
possible, in responsible and influential positions during the latter
part of the first century. A more plausible theory, which, if true,
would throw an interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of
his day, is that which identifies him with the consul Flavius Clement,
a relative of the emperor Domitian (see below, chap. 18, note 6). Some
good reasons for the identification might be urged, and his rank would
then explain well Clement's influential position in the Church. But as
pointed out in chap. 18, note 6, it is extremely improbable that the
consul Flavius Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal
objection to the identification (which is nevertheless adopted by
Hilgenfeld and others) is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of
as a martyr until the time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient writer
identifies him or connects him in any way with the consul, although
Eusebius' mention of the latter in chap. 23 shows that he was a
well-known person. When we remember the tendency of the early Church
to make all its heroes martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the
omission in this case renders the identification, we may say,
virtually impossible. More probable is the conjecture of Lightfoot,
that he was a freedman belonging to the family of the consul Clement,
whose name he bore. This is simply conjecture, however, and is
supported by no testimony. Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very
prominent position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to
the Corinthians which is still extant (see below, chap. 16; and upon
the works falsely ascribed to him, see chap. 38). In regard to his
place in the succession of Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note 1, above.
For a full account of Clement, see especially Harnack's Prolegomena to
his edition of Clement's Epistle (Patrum Apost. Opera, Vol. 1.),
Salmon's article, Clemens Romanus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.,
Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 636 sq., and Donaldson's Hist. of Christ. Lit.
and Doctrine, I. p. 90 sq.
[620] Acts xvii. 34. This Dionysius has played an important part in
Church history, as the pretended author of a series of very remarkable
writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the Areopagite, but
which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century and probably owe
their origin to the influence of Neo-Platonism. The first mention of
these writings is in the records of the Council of Constantinople (532
a.d.); but from that time on they were constantly used and unanimously
ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, until, in the seventeenth
century, their claims to so great antiquity were disputed. They are
still defended, however, in the face of the most positive evidence, by
many Roman Catholic writers. The influence of these works upon the
theology of the Middle Ages was prodigious. Scholasticism may be said
to be based upon them, for Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more
than any other source; so much so, that he has been said "to have
drawn his whole theological system from Dionysius." Our Dionysius has
had the further honor of being identified by tradition with Dionysius
(St. Denis), the patron saint of France,--an identification which we
may follow the most loyal of the French in accepting, if we will,
though we shall be obliged to suppose that our Dionysius lived to the
good old age of two to three hundred years. The statement of Dionysius
of Corinth that the Areopagite was bishop of Athens (repeated by
Eusebius again in Bk. IV. chap. 23) is the usual unwarranted throwing
back of a second century conception into the first century. That
Dionysius held a position of influence among the few Christians whom
Paul left in Athens is highly probable, and the tradition that later
he was made the first bishop there is quite natural. The church of
Athens plays no part in the history of the apostolic age, and it is
improbable that there was any organization there until many years
after Paul's visit; for even in the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the
church there seems to have been extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV.
chap. 23, §2). Upon Dionysius and the writings ascribed to him, see
especially the article of Lupton in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p.
841-848.
[621] Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.
Chapter V.--The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.
1. After Nero had held the power thirteen years, [622] and Galba and
Otho had ruled a year and six months, [623] Vespasian, who had become
distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed
sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies
there. [624] Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he
entrusted the conduct of the war against the Jews to his son Titus.
[625]
2. For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to
their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could
against his apostles. First Stephen was stoned to death by them, [626]
and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was
beheaded, [627] and finally James, the first that had obtained the
episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died
in the manner already described. [628] But the rest of the apostles,
who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their
destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto
all nations to preach the Gospel, [629] relying upon the power of
Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the
nations in my name." [630]
3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a
revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave
the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. [631]
And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from
Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land
of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at
length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ
and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious
men.
4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation
at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of
Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as
women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by
other forms of death innumerable,--all these things, as well as the
many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea,
and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem
itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course
of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and
how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets,
[632] stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the
temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by
fire,--all these things any one that wishes may find accurately
described in the history written by Josephus. [633]
5. But it is necessary to state that this writer records that the
multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of
the Passover, to the number of three million souls, [634] were shut up
in Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words.
6. For it was right that in the very days in which they had inflicted
suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of
God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet
with destruction at the hands of divine justice.
7. But passing by the particular calamities which they suffered from
the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think
it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused,
that those who read this work may have some means of knowing that God
was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness
against the Christ of God.
Footnotes
[622] Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June 9, 68 a.d.
[623] Eusebius figures are incorrect. He omits Vitellius entirely,
while he stretches Galba's and Otho's reigns to make them cover a
period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from June 9,
68, to Jan. 15, 69; and Otho from Jan. 15 to April 20, 69). The total
of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about eighteen
months.
[624] Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at
Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor
in Italy. His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea,
and then by all the legions in the East. Vitellius was conquered by
Vespasian's generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while Vespasian
himself went to Alexandria. The latter was immediately recognized by
the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 70. Eusebius is thus
approximately correct, though he is not exact as to details.
[625] Titus undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews
after his father's departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to an
end, Sept. 8, 70 a.d.
[626] See Acts vii. 8 sqq.
[627] See Acts xii. 2
[628] See Bk. II. chap. 23.
[629] See chap. 1, note 1.
[630] See Matt. xxviii. 19.
[631] Pella was a town situated beyond the Jordan, in the north of
Perea, within the dominions of Herod Agrippa II. The surrounding
population was chiefly Gentile. See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus, B. J.
III. 3. 3, and I. 4. 8. Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) also records
this flight of the Christians to Pella.
[632] Dan. ix. 27.
[633] Josephus, B. J. Bks. V. and VI.
[634] B. J.VI. 9, §§3 and 4. Eusebius simply gives round numbers.
Josephus in §3 puts the number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the "unclean
and the strangers" who were not allowed to eat the Passover. In the
same work, Bk. II. chap. 14, §3, Josephus states that when Cestius
Gallus, governor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the
Passover in 65 a.d., no less than 3,000,000 persons came about him to
enter complaint against the procurator Florus. These numbers are
grossly exaggerated. Tacitus estimates the number in the city at the
time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above the truth.
The writer of the article Jerusalem, in Smith's Bible Dict., estimates
that the city can never have had a population of more than 50,000
souls, and he concludes that at the time of the siege there cannot
have been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected within the walls. This
is probably too low an estimate, but shows how far out of the way the
figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be.
Chapter VI.--The Famine which oppressed them.
1. Taking the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our
hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then occurred.
[635]
2. "For the wealthy," he says, "it was equally dangerous to remain.
For under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to
death for their wealth. The madness of the seditions increased with
the famine and both the miseries were inflamed more and more day by
day.
3. Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses men
searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they
tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had
anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground
that they had more carefully concealed it.
4. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the
bodies of the poor wretches. Those of them who were still in good
condition they assumed were well supplied with food, while those who
were already wasted away they passed by, for it seemed absurd to slay
those who were on the point of perishing for want.
5. Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of
wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were
poorer. Then shutting themselves up in the innermost parts of their
houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want,
while others baked it according as necessity and fear dictated.
6. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from
the fire, they tore it in pieces. Wretched was the fare, and a
lamentable spectacle it was to see the more powerful secure an
abundance while the weaker mourned.
7. Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing
so effectively as shame. For that which under other circumstances is
worthy of respect, in the midst of famine is despised. Thus women
snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children,
from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from
their babes. And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their
arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last drops that
supported life.
8. And even while they were eating thus they did not remain
undiscovered. But everywhere the rioters appeared, to rob them even of
these portions of food. For whenever they saw a house shut up, they
regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food. And
immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what
they were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.
9. Old men who clung to their food were beaten, and if the women
concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing. There
was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the
babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the
ground. But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed
what they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if
they had been wronged by them.
10. And they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover
food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter
herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods. And men suffered
things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to
confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they
might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had
concealed. But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.
11. Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had
been driven to it by necessity; but they did it for the sake of
exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves
for days to come.
12. And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the
outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to
meet him; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they
seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the
man would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God,
adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk
of his life, they would give him nothing back. Indeed, it was
fortunate if the one that was plundered was not also slain."
13. To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the
following: [636] "The possibility of going out of the city being
brought to an end, [637] all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off.
And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and
families. And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the
lanes of the city with the corpses of old men.
14. Children and youths, swollen with the famine, wandered about the
market-places like shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony
overtook them. The sick were not strong enough to bury even their own
relatives, and those who had the strength hesitated because of the
multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many,
indeed, died while they were burying others, and many betook
themselves to their graves before death came upon them.
15. There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes;
but the famine stifled the natural affections. Those that were dying a
lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their
rest before them. Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the
city.
16. But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they
broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead
and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a
laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and
some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in
order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use
their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left
to be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed
upon the temple; and they left the seditious alive.
17. These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of
the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench. But
afterward, when they were not able to do this, they threw the bodies
from the walls into the trenches.
18. And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the
dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned
aloud, and, raising his hands, called God to witness that this was not
his doing."
19. After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows:
[638] "I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to. I
suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these
guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or
overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as
destroyed Sodom. For it had brought forth a generation of men much
more godless than were those that suffered such punishment. By their
madness indeed was the whole people brought to destruction."
20. And in the sixth book he writes as follows: [639] "Of those that
perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the
miseries they underwent unspeakable. For if so much as the shadow of
food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends
engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from
each other the most wretched supports of life.
21. Nor would they believe that even the dying were without food; but
the robbers would search them while they were expiring, lest any one
should feign death while concealing food in his bosom. With mouths
gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad
dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence
they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.
22. Necessity compelled them to eat anything they could find, and they
gathered and devoured things that were not fit even for the filthiest
of irrational beasts. Finally they did not abstain even from their
girdles and shoes, and they stripped the hides off their shields and
devoured them. Some used even wisps of old hay for food, and others
gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic
drachmæ. [640]
23. "But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed
during the famine toward inanimate things? For I am going to relate a
fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to
relate, incredible to hear. And indeed I should gladly have omitted
this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of
fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own
age. And besides, I should render my country poor service if I
suppressed the account of the sufferings which she endured.
24. "There was a certain woman named Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan,
whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor [641] (which
signifies the house of hyssop). She was distinguished for her family
and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to
Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege.
25. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she
had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her
possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed in
daily and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry,
and by her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger
of the rapacious villains against herself.
26. But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she
grew weary of finding food for others to eat. The search, too, was
already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her
bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than
famine. Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she
proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.
27. Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking at her breast, she
said, Oh, wretched child, in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do
I preserve thee? Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are
allowed to live by them. But even slavery is anticipated by the
famine, and the rioters are more cruel than both. Come, be food for
me, a fury for these rioters, [642] and a bye-word to the world, for
this is all that is wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews.
28. And when she had said this she slew her son; and having roasted
him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept
it. Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the
nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she
should show them what she had prepared. She replied that she had saved
an excellent portion for them, and with that she uncovered the remains
of the child.
29. They were immediately seized with horror and amazement and stood
transfixed at the sight. But she said This is my own son, and the deed
is mine. Eat for I too have eaten. Be not more merciful than a woman,
nor more compassionate than a mother. But if you are too pious and
shrink from my sacrifice, I have already [643] eaten of it; let the
rest also remain for me.
30. At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being
affrighted; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the
mother. Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and
as all pictured the terrible deed before their own eyes, they trembled
as if they had done it themselves.
31. Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death;
and blessed were they that had died before hearing and seeing miseries
like these."
32. Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness
and impiety, against the Christ of God.
Footnotes
[635] Josephus, B. J. Bk. V. chap. 10, §§2 and 3.
[636] Ibid.chap. 12, §§3 and 4.
[637] Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city
by which all egress from the town was shut off. Josephus gives an
account of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.
[638] Ibid.chap. 13, §6.
[639] Ibid.Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§3 and 4.
[640] 'Attikon tessEURron; the word drachmon is to be supplied. An
Attic drachm, according to some authorities, was equal to about
fifteen cents, according to others (among them Liddell and Scott), to
about nineteen cents.
[641] bathezor. Some mss. have bathechor, and the mss. of Josephus
have bethezob, which Whiston translates Bethezub.
[642] "In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered
tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death"
(Stroth).
[643] ede. All the mss. of Eusebius read humon. Some of the mss. of
Josephus read ede, and Rufinus translates nam et ego prior comedi.
Valesius, without ms. authority (but apparently with the support of
some mss. of Josephus, for Whiston translates "one-half") reads
hemisu, a half, and he is followed by the English and German
translators. Some change from the reading of the mss. of Eusebius is
certainly necessary; and though the alteration made by Valesius
produces very good sense and seems quite natural, I have preferred to
accept the reading which is given by many of the mss. of Josephus, and
which has the support of Rufinus.
Chapter VII.--The Predictions of Christ.
1. It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our
Saviour in which he foretold these very events.
2. His words are as follows: [644] "Woe unto them that are with child,
and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight
be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day. For there shall be
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to
this time, no, nor ever shall be."
3. The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that
eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, [645]
and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each
other after the taking of the city, were slain. [646] But the tallest
of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were
preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that
were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in
the works of Egypt, [647] while still more were scattered through the
provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by
beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be
sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand.
[648]
4. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the
reign of Vespasian, [649] in accordance with the prophecies of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand
as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the
statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he
uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: [650]
5. "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which
belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the
days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground."
6. And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, [651] "For
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away
captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the
Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again:
[652] "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know
that the desolation thereof is nigh."
7. If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other
accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail
to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our
Saviour were truly divine and marvellously strange. [653]
8. Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish
nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the
multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the
robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be
taken from their midst, [654] it is not necessary to add anything to
the account of the historian.
9. But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited
the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their
destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ,--during
which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the
first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord,
[655] were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the
surest bulwark of the place. Divine Providence thus still proved
itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by
repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and
salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also
furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to
them if they did not repent.
10. Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the
historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for
the benefit of the readers of this work.
Footnotes
[644] Matt. xxiv. 19-21
[645] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 9, §3. Josephus simply says that
the whole number of those that perished during the siege was
1,100,000; he does not specify the manner of their death. On the
accuracy of the numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note 13.
[646] Ibid.§2.
[647] eis ta kat' ,'Aigupton zrga. The works meant are the great stone
quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt), which
furnished a considerable part of the finest marble used for building
purposes in Rome and elsewhere. The quarries were chiefly in the hands
of the Roman government, and the work of quarrying was done largely by
captives taken in war, as in the present case.
[648] Josephus does not say that the number of those sold as slaves
was upward of 90,000, as Eusebius asserts, but simply (ibid. §3) that
the number of captives taken during the whole war was 97,000, a number
which Eusebius, through an error, applies to the one class of
prisoners that were sold as slaves.
[649] In B. J. Bk. VI. 8. 5 and 10. 1 Josephus puts the completion of
the siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the
second passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian. Vespasian
was proclaimed emperor in Egypt July 1, 69, so that Sept. 8 of his
second year would be Sept. 8, a.d. 70. (Cf. Schürer, N. T. Zeitgesch.
p. 347.)
[650] Luke xix. 42-44
[651] Ibid. xxi. 23, 24.
[652] Ibid. verse 20.
[653] It is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of
critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the
composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year 70, because its
eschatological discourses seem to bear the mark of having been
recorded after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do
in many minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in
Matthew and Mark. To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted
just above from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are
mentioned, while in parallel passages in the other Gospels (Matt.
xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14) not armies, but "the abomination of
desolation standing in the holy place" is spoken of as the sign.
Compare the various commentaries upon these passages.
[654] Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii. 20, Mark xv. 11, Luke
xxii. 18.
[655] See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
Chapter VIII.--The Signs which preceded the War.
1. Taking, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the
sixth book of his History. His words are as follows: [656] "Thus were
the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false
prophets; [657] but they did not heed nor give credit to the visions
and signs that foretold the approaching desolation. On the contrary,
as if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor
understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God.
2. At one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and
a comet, which lasted for a whole year; and again before the revolt
and before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were
gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month
Xanthicus, [658] at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light
shone about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day;
and this continued for half an hour. This seemed to the unskillful a
good sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending
those events which very soon took place.
3. And at the same feast a cow, led by the high priest to be
sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.
4. And the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of bronze and
very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by
twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep
in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of
itself.
5. And not many days after the feast, on the twenty-first of the month
Artemisium, [659] a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes
belief. The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those
who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of
such signs. For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed
troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling
through the clouds and encircling the cities.
6. And at the feast which is called Pentecost, when the priests
entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the
services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a
noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, `Let us
go hence.' [660]
7. But what follows is still more terrible; for a certain Jesus, the
son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war, [661]
when the city was particularly prosperous and peaceful, came to the
feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple
to the honor of God, [662] and suddenly began to cry out: `A voice
from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a
voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms
and brides, a voice against all the people.' Day and night he went
through all the alleys crying thus.
8. But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the
ominous cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes. But
without uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in
particular to those that were present, he continued to cry out in the
same words as before.
9. And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a
higher power, brought him before the Roman governor. [663] And then,
though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor
shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone
possible, he answered each stroke with the words, `Woe, woe unto
Jerusalem.'"
10. The same historian records another fact still more wonderful than
this. He says [664] that a certain oracle was found in their sacred
writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go
forth from their country to rule the world. He himself understood that
this was fulfilled in Vespasian.
11. But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of
it which was subject to the Romans. With better right could it be
applied to Christ; to whom it was said by the Father, "Ask of me, and
I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ends of
the earth for thy possession." [665] At that very time, indeed, the
voice of his holy apostles "went throughout all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world." [666]
Footnotes
[656] Josephus, B. J. Bk. VI. chap. 5, §3.
[657] katapseudomenoi tou theou. In the previous paragraph Josephus
says that a great many false prophets were suborned by the tyrants to
impose on the people. It is to these false prophets therefore that he
refers here, and I have consequently felt at liberty thus to translate
the Greek word given above, instead of rendering merely "liars against
God" (as Crusè does), which is indefinite, and might have various
meanings.
[658] The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover. The Greek
name of the month used here is xanthikos, which was the name of a
Macedonian month corresponding to our April. According to Whiston,
Josephus regularly used this name for the Jewish month Nisan (the
first month of the Jewish year), in which case this event took place
six days before the Passover, which began on the 14th of Nisan.
[659] 'Artemisios. According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan
and Macedonian month corresponding to a part of the ninth Attic month
(elaphebolion), which in turn corresponded to the latter part of our
March and the early part of April. According to Wieseler, Josephus
used the word to denote the second month of the Jewish year, the month
Iyar.
[660] The majority of the mss. of Eusebius read metabainomen, "we go
hence." But at least one of the best mss. and a majority of the mss.
of Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who render migremus),
read metabainomen, "let us go hence," and I have followed Stephanus,
Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting
that reading.
[661] That is, in 62 a.d. for, according to Josephus, the war began in
66 a.d. A little further on, Josephus says that he continued his cry
for seven years and five months, when he was slain during the siege of
Jerusalem. This shows that he is here, as well as elsewhere, reckoning
the date of the beginning of the war as 66 a.d.
[662] That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.
[663] This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event,
and as Josephus directly states in the context. He was procurator from
61 or 62 to 64 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23, note 35, and chap.
22, note 1.
[664] See Josephus, B. J. VI. 5.4, and cf. ibid. III. 8. 9.
[665] Ps. ii. 8.
[666] Ps. xix. 4.
Chapter IX.--Josephus and the Works which he has left.
1. After all this it is fitting that we should know something in
regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so
much to the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this
point in the following words: [667] "Josephus, the son of Mattathias,
a priest of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the
beginning and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward."
2. He was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among
his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by
the erection of a statue in Rome, [668] and his works were deemed
worthy of a place in the library. [669]
3. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews [670] in twenty
books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in
his time, in seven books. [671] He himself testifies that the latter
work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by
himself into his native tongue. [672] He is worthy of credit here
because of his truthfulness in other matters.
4. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth
reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews, [673] and in them he
replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a
treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to
vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.
5. In the first of these books he gives the number of the canonical
books of the so-called Old Testament. Apparently [674] drawing his
information from ancient tradition, he shows what books were accepted
without dispute among the Hebrews. His words are as follows.
Footnotes
[667] B. J.,Preface, §1. We have an original source for the life of
Josephus, not only in his various works, in which he makes frequent
reference to himself, but also in his autobiography, which was written
after the year 100. The work was occasioned by the Chronicle of Justus
of Tiberias, which had represented him as more patriotic and more
hostile to the Romans than he liked, and he therefore felt impelled to
paint himself in the blackest of colors, as a traitor and
renegade,--probably much blacker than he really was. It is devoted
chiefly to an account of the intrigues and plots formed against him
while he was governor of Galilee, and contains little of general
biographical interest, except in the introduction and the conclusion.
Josephus was of a priestly family,--his father Matthias belonging to
the first of the twenty-four courses--and he was born in the first
year of Caius Cæsar; i.e. in the year beginning March 16, 37 a.d. He
played a prominent part in the Jewish war, being entrusted with the
duty, as governor of Galilee and commander of the forces there, of
meeting and opposing Vespasian, who attacked that province first. He
was, however, defeated, and gave himself up to the victors, in the
summer of 67. He was treated with honor in the camp of the Romans,
whom he served until the end of the war, and became a favorite and
flatterer of the Vespasian house, incurring thereby the everlasting
contempt of his country men. He went to Rome at the close of the war,
and lived in prosperity there until early in the second century. His
works are our chief source for a knowledge of Jewish affairs from the
time of the Maccabees, and as such are, and will always remain,
indispensable, and their author immortal, whatever his character. He
was a man of learning and of talent, but of inordinate selfishness and
self-esteem. He was formerly accused of great inaccuracy, and his
works were considered a very poor historical source; but later
investigations have increased his credit, and he seems, upon the
whole, to have been a historian of unusual ability and
conscientiousness.
[668] Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this
statue in Rome, and what authority there is for his statement we
cannot tell.
[669] In §64 of his Life Josephus tells us that Titus was so much
pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his
name to them, and ordered them published (see the next Chapter, §8
sqq., where the passage is quoted). The first public library in Rome,
according to Pliny, was founded by Pollio (76 b.c.-4 a.d.). The one
referred to here is undoubtedly the imperial library, which, according
to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in the temple of
Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections,--one for Greek,
and the other for Latin works. It was greatly enlarged by Tiberius and
Domitian.
[670] 'Ioudaike 'Archaiologia, Antiquitates Judaicæ. This work, which
is still extant, is Josephus' most extensive work, and aims to give,
in twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time of
Abraham to the beginning of the great war with Rome. The object of the
work is mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place Judaism before
Gentile readers in as favorable a light as possible. It contains much
legendary matter, but is the main source for our knowledge of a long
period of Jewish history, and as such is invaluable. The work was
completed, according to his own statement (XX. 11. 2), in the
thirteenth year of Domitian (93-94 a.d.), and frequently corrects
erroneous statements made in his earlier work upon the Jewish war.
[671] ;;Istoria 'Ioudaikou polemou pros ;;Romaious, de Bello Judaico.
This work, in seven books, constitutes our most complete and
trustworthy source for a knowledge of that great war, so momentous in
its consequences both to Judaism and to Christianity. The author wrote
from personal knowledge of many of the events described, and had,
besides, access to extensive and reliable written sources: and the
general accuracy of the work may therefore be accepted. He says that
he undertook the work for the purpose of giving a true narrative of
the war, in consequence of the many false and distorted accounts which
had already appeared in various quarters. He presented the work, when
finished, to Vespasian and Titus, and obtained their approval and
testimony to its trustworthiness: and hence it must have been written
during the reign of Vespasian, probably toward the end of it, as other
works upon the war had preceded his (B. J., Preface, §1).
[672] The work, as Josephus informs us (B. J., Preface, §1; and contra
Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own tongue,--Aramaic,--and
afterwards translated by himself into Greek, with the help of others.
Eusebius inverts the fact, making the Greek the original.
[673] The full title of this work is the Apology of Flavius Josephus
on the Antiquities of the Jews against Apion (peri archaiotetos
'Ioudaion kata 'Apionos, De Antiquitate Judæorum contra Apionem). It
is ordinarily cited simply as contra Apionem (Against Apion). It
consists of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else than an apology
for Judaism in general, and to a less extent, a defense of himself and
his former work (the Antiquities) against hostile critics. The common
title, contra Apionem, is rather misleading, as he is not once
mentioned in the first book, although in the first part of the second
book he is attacked with considerable bitterness and through him a
large class of enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon Apion, the
famous Alexandrian and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see above, Bk.
II. chap. 5, note 5.) The work is Josephus' best effort from a
literary point of view, and shows both learning and ability, and in
spite of its brevity contains much of great value. It was written
after his Antiquities (i.e. after 93 a.d.), how long afterward we
cannot tell. These three works of Josephus, with his autobiography
already mentioned (note 1), are all that are extant, although he seems
to have written another work relating to the history of the Seleucidæ
(cf. Ant. XIII. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4. 6, 5. 11) of which not a trace remains,
and which is mentioned by no one else. The other works planned by
Josephus--On God and his Essence (Ant. XX. 11. 3), and On the Laws of
the Jews (ibid. and Ant. III. 5. 6, 8. 10)--seem never to have been
written. (They are mentioned also by Eusebius in the next Chapter.)
Other compositions attributed to him are not from his hand. The best
edition of the works of Josephus is that of Benedict Niese (Berlin,
1885 sq.), of which the first two volumes have been already issued,
comprising ten books of the Antiquities. A good complete edition is
that of Dindorf (Paris, 1845-47, 2 vols.). That of Bekker (Leipzig,
1855, 6 vols.) is very convenient. The only complete English
translation is by Whiston, unfortunately uncritical and inaccurate.
Traill's translation of the Jewish War (London, 1862) is a great
improvement, but does not cover the remainder of Josephus' works. Upon
Josephus and his writings, see the article of Edersheim in the Dict.
of Christ. Biog. III. 441-460, and compare the literature given there.
[674] hosEURn.
Chapter X.--The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books.
1. [675] "We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and
conflicting with one another; but we have only twenty-two, which
contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.
2. Of these, five are by Moses, and contain the laws and the tradition
respecting the origin of man, and continue the history [676] down to
his own death. This period embraces nearly three thousand years. [677]
3. From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded
Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed Moses wrote the
history of their own times in thirteen books. [678] The other four
books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation of the
life of men.
4. From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been
recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that
we repose in those which preceded them, because there has not been
during this time an exact succession of prophets. [679]
5. How much we are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by
our treatment of them. For although so great a period has already
passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them,
but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as
the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary,
cheerfully to die for them."
These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be
introduced in this connection.
6. Another work of no little merit has been produced by the same
writer, On the Supremacy of Reason, [680] which some have called
Maccabaicum, [681] because it contains an account of the struggles of
those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is
related in the books called Maccabees.
7. And at the end of the twentieth book of his Antiquities [682]
Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in
four books concerning God and his existence, according to the
traditional opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it
is that they permit some things while prohibiting others. [683] And
the same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by
himself. [684]
8. In addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words
that are found at the close of his Antiquities, [685] in confirmation
of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts. In that place
he attacks Justus of Tiberias, [686] who, like himself, had attempted
to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had
not written truthfully. Having brought many other accusations against
the man, he continues in these words: [687]
9. "I indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were,
[688] but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors
themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes. For I was
conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account, and hence was
not disappointed in my expectation of obtaining their attestation.
10. And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were
present at the war, as, for instance, King Agrippa [689] and some of
his relatives.
11. For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the
events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he
indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be
published. And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the
truthfulness of my account." Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two.
[690] But this will suffice in regard to him. Let us now proceed with
our history.
Footnotes
[675] Against Apion, I. 8. The common Christian tradition (since the
first century, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. 44
sq.) is that Ezra was the compiler of the Old Testament canon. This,
however, is a mistake, for the canon was certainly not completed
before the time of Judas Maccabæus. Josephus is the earliest writer to
give us a summary of the books of the Old Testament; and he evidently
gives not merely his own private opinion but the commonly accepted
canon of his day. He does not name the separate books, but he tells us
that they were twenty-two in number (the number of the letters of the
Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the three divisions, so that we are
able to ascertain his canon in detail. It was doubtless as follows:--
1-5. Books of Moses. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9.
Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11. Ezra and Nehemiah. 12. Esther. 13. Isaiah.
14. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 15. Ezekiel. 16. Daniel. 17. Twelve
Minor Prophets. 18. Job. 19. Psalms. 20. Proverbs. 21. Ecclesiastes.
22. Song of Songs. The earliest detailed list of Old Testament books
is that of Melito (given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows:--
Books of Moses Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy.
Joshua Nave. Judges. Ruth. Four of Kings. Chronicles. Psalms.
Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. Song of Songs. Job. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Twelve
Minor Prophets. Daniel. Ezekiel. Ezra. Melito says nothing of the
number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers
only twenty-one. His list really differs from Josephus' only in
omitting the Book of Esther. This omission may be accidental, though
it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen. He makes no mention
of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case
of Josephus' canon. His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and
hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which
makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only
accidental. Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were
twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat
from that of Josephus. It is as follows:-- 1-5. Books of Moses. 6.
Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. Samuel. 9. Kings. 10. Chronicles. 11.
Ezra I. and II. 12. Psalms. 13. Proverbs. 14. Ecclesiastes. 15. Song
of Songs. 16. [Twelve Minor Prophets (Rufinus).] 17. Isaiah. 18.
Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Epistle. 19. Daniel. 20. Ezekiel. 21. Job.
22. Esther. "Besides these also the Maccabees." The peculiar thing
about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the
insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah. The former were certainly looked
upon by Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them
(according to Eusebius, VI. 36). There is no conceivable reason for
their omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number
twenty-two. We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight
on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber. Rufinus gives them as
number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned
to them is not the ordinary one. We should expect to find them in
connection with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no
means uniform in the order of the books. On the other hand, the Greek
Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon,
and can have been included by Origen here only because he had been
used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX.
(for in ancient mss. of the LXX., which probably represent the
original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an
appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without
thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon. Origen adds the
Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two
books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the
Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was probably
the original Jewish division. The number twenty-two was gained by
adding Ruth to Judges and Lamentations to Jeremiah. The number thus
obtained agreed with the number of letters in the alphabet, and was
therefore accepted as the number sanctioned by divine authority, and
the division was commonly adopted by the early Fathers. This is
Strack's view, and seems better than the opposite opinion, which is
advocated by many, that the number twenty-two was the original. It is
easier to see how twenty-four might be changed to twenty-two than how
the reverse should happen. So, for instance, Jerome in his preface to
the translation of Samuel and Kings, makes the number twenty-two, and
gives a list which agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the
three general divisions, which are differently composed. It will be
seen that these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen,
which includes the Epistle of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees)
include only the books of our canon. But the LXX. prints with the Old
Testament a number of Books which we call Apocrypha and exclude from
the canon. It has been commonly supposed, therefore, that there was a
regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Palestinian. But this is
not likely. An examination of Philo's use of the Old Testament shows
us that his canon agreed with that of Josephus, comprising no
apocryphal books. It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in
their translation these other books which were held in high esteem,
without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the
canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of
it. But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider
than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and
thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a
part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers. Jerome was the only
one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them. Both
Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the
Epistle of Jeremiah; but opinion in the Orient was mostly against
making any books not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and
from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less.
They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by
numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger
Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most
authoritative standard of the Græco-Russian Church, expressly excluded
them. The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha
as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them
a part of the official canon. See Strack's article in Herzog,
translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman's Introduction to the Holy
Scripture, p. 33 sqq. The subject is discussed in all Old Testament
introductions.
[676] Literally, "the tradition respecting the origin of man
(anthropogonias) down to his own death." I have felt it necessary to
insert the words, "and continue the history," which are not found in
the Greek, but which are implied in the words, "down to his own
death."
[677] Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world's era was in use,
dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which
Josephus employs here and throughout his Antiquities. His figures are
often quite inconsistent,--probably owing, in large part, to the
corrupt state of the existing text,--and the confusion which results
is considerable. See Destinon's Chronologie des Josephus.
[678] These thirteen books were:-- 1. Joshua. 2. Judges and Ruth. 3.
Samuel. 4. Kings. 5. Chronicles. 6. Ezra and Nehemiah. 7. Esther. 8.
Isaiah. 9. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 10. Ezekiel. 11. Daniel. 12.
Twelve Minor Prophets. 13. Job. As will be seen, Josephus divided the
canon into three parts: first, the Law (five books of Moses); second,
the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned); third, the Hagiographa
(Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles). The division of the
canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time,
his division is quite different from any other division known.
Jerome's is as follows:-- 1. Law: five books of Moses. 2. Prophets:
Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah and
Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight books). 3.
Hagiographa (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books). The division
which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome's only
in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus
making twenty-four books. This is held by many to be a later form, as
remarked above, but as Strack shows, it is rather the original. In the
LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged,
without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their
subject-matter. The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his
looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to
include in the second division all the books which contained, as he
says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes.
[679] The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who
reigned b.c. 464 to 425. It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah
carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.
Malachi--the last of them--uttered his prophecies at the end of
Artaxerxes' or at the beginning of Darius' reign. It was commonly held
among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi the prophetical
spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as
here by Josephus, between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who
followed them.
[680] eis Makkabaious logos he peri autokrEURtoros logismou: De
Maccabæis, seu de rationis imperio liber. This book is often called
the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly ascribed to Josephus.
As a consequence it is printed with his works in many editions. But it
is now universally acknowledged to be spurious, although who the
author is we cannot tell.
[681] Makkabaikon
[682] Ant.XX. 11. 3. See the previous Chapter, note 7.
[683] See the same note.
[684] See the same note.
[685] The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is found in
his Life, §65, and not in the Antiquities. But we can see from the
last paragraph of the Antiquities that he wrote his Life really as an
appendix to that work, and undoubtedly as Ewald suggests, issued it
with a second edition of the Antiquities about twenty years after the
first. In the mss. it is always found with the Antiquities, and hence
the whole might with justice be viewed as one work. It will be noticed
that Eusebius mentions no separate Life of Josephus, which shows that
he regarded it simply as a part of the Antiquities.
[686] Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that
city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while
Josephus was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused him
considerable trouble. He is mentioned frequently in Josephus' Life,
and we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete idea of
him--though of course the account is that of an enemy. He wrote a work
upon the Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs of the Jewish
war and in which he attacked Josephus very severely. This work, which
is no longer extant, was read by Photius and is described by him in
his Bibl. Cod. 33, under the title, basileis 'Ioudaioi hoi en tois
stemmasi. It was in consequence of this work that Josephus felt
obliged to publish his Life, which is really little more than a
defense of himself over against the attacks of Justus. See above, note
1.
[687] Vita,§65.
[688] Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph that Justus
had had his History written for twenty years, and yet had not
published it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa,
and he accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was
afraid that they would contradict his statements. Josephus then goes
on to say in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus, afraid
to publish his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in the
war.
[689] Agrippa II. See above, Bk. II. chap. 19, note 3. Agrippa sided
with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and Titus in their
camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated efforts to induce
the people to give up their rebellion, that the war might be avoided.
[690] These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus
in his Vita, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius.
The first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston's
translation): "King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear friend, sendeth
greeting. I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it
appears to me that thou hast done it much more accurately and with
greater care than have the other writers. Send me the rest of these
books. Farewell, my dear friend."
Chapter XI.--Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after James.
1. After the martyrdom of James [691] and the conquest of Jerusalem
which immediately followed, [692] it is said that those of the
apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came
together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord
according to the flesh [693] (for the majority of them also were still
alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, [694] the son of
Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; [695] to be worthy of
the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of
the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of
Joseph. [696]
Footnotes
[691] 61 or 62 a.d. See above, Bk. II. chap. 23.
[692] See ibid. note 40. The date of Symeon's accession (assuming that
he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had done) cannot
be fixed. Eusebius himself, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 5,
although he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no information as
to the dates of their accession, or the length of their incumbency. He
puts Symeon's accession after the destruction of Jerusalem, but he
evidently does that only because he supposed that it followed
immediately upon the death of James. Some (e.g. Lightfoot) think it
probable that Symeon was appointed immediately after James' death,
therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem; others (e.g. Renan)
suppose that in Pella they had no bishop and appointed Symeon only
after the return of the church to Jerusalem.
[693] logos katechei. Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, below)
says that "Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed
as the cousin of our Lord." Upon what authority Eusebius' more
definite account rests we do not know. He introduces it with the
formula logos katechei, and we know of no other author who has put it
as he does. It may be that the simple statement of Hegesippus was the
sole ground of the more detailed tradition which Eusebius repeats in
this Chapter. The reason of Symeon's appointment as given by
Hegesippus is quite significant. It was the common Oriental custom to
accord the highest honors to all the members of a prophet's or
religious leader's family, and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his
close physical relationship to Christ that James enjoyed such
prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding
even that of the apostles themselves.
[694] This Symeon is to be distinguished from the apostle Simon, the
Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in
Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3). It is noticeable that Hegesippus
nowhere calls him the "brother of the Lord," though he does give James
that title in Bk. II. chap. 23. Clopas is mentioned in John xix. 25,
as the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the
mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Matt. xxvii.
56, Mark xv. 40, &c. If Hegesippus' account be accepted as trustworthy
(and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon was the son of Clopas
and Mary, and therefore brother of James the Little and Joses. If,
then, Alphæus and Clopas be the same, as many claim, James the Little
is to be identified with James the son of Alphæus, the apostle, and
hence the latter was the brother of Symeon. This identification,
however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically difficult, and we
shall do better therefore to keep the men separate, as Renan does (see
above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14). Upon the martyrdom of Symeon, see
below, chap. 32.
[695] In John xix. 25
[696] Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the
uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or
brother-in-law of Joseph. Eusebius evidently considered them own
brothers. Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or
whether Eusebius' opinion is simply an inference from the words of
Hegesippus already referred to, we do not know. There is no objection
to the conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers, although
it cannot be proved from Hegesippus' words that they were more than
brothers-in-law. From John xix. 25 it is at any rate plain that their
wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly maintained by so
many commentators. With the remaining possibilities of relationship we
do not need to concern ourselves.
Chapter XII.--Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be
sought.
He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave
orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought
out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the
Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again
hung over the Jews. [697]
Footnotes
[697] It is not certain that Eusebius intends to give Hegesippus as
his authority for the statements of this Chapter, inasmuch as he does
not mention his name. He gives the account, however, upon the
authority of some one else, and not as a direct historical statement,
for the verb is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to
supply ;;Egesippos historei, the last words of the preceding Chapter,
than to supply any other phrase, such as logos katechei, which occurs
two Chapters earlier. The translators are divided as to the words that
are to be supplied, but it seems to me beyond doubt that this account
rests upon the same authority as that of the previous Chapter. There
is in any case nothing at all unlikely in the report, as Vespasian and
his successors kept a very close watch upon the Jews, and this would
have been a very natural method of endeavoring to prevent future
revolutions. The same course was pursued also by Domitian; see below,
chaps. 19 and 20. We hear from no other source of a persecution raised
against the Jews by Vespasian, and we may therefore conclude that it
cannot have amounted to much, if indeed it deserves to be called a
persecution at all.
Chapter XIII.--Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome.
After Vespasian had reigned ten years Titus, his son, succeeded him.
[698] In the second year of his reign, Linus, who had been bishop of
the church of Rome for twelve years, [699] delivered his office to
Anencletus. [700] But Titus was succeeded by his brother Domitian
after he had reigned two years and the same number of months. [701]
Footnotes
[698] Vespasian reigned from July 1 (if his reign be dated from the
time he was proclaimed emperor in Egypt; if from the death of
Vitellius, Dec. 20), 69, to June 24, 79 a.d.
[699] In his Chron. (Armenian) Eusebius gives the length of Linus'
episcopate as fourteen years, while Jerome gives it as eleven years.
Both figures are about equally reliable; see above, chap. 2, note 1.
[700] Of Anencletus, or Cletus, as he is also called, we know nothing
more than that he was one of the traditional first three bishops of
Rome. Hippolytus makes two bishops, Anencletus and Cletus, out of the
one man, and he is followed by the Roman Catholic Church (see above,
chap. 2, note 1). According to chap. 15, Anencletus held office twelve
years.
[701] Titus died Dec. 13, a.d. 81. He therefore reigned two years and
six months, instead of two years and two months as Eusebius states.
Chapter XIV.--Abilius, the Second Bishop of Alexandria.
In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, [702] the first bishop of
the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years,
and was succeeded by Abilius, [703] the second bishop.
Foot