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 VI.
Chapter I.--The Persecution under Severus.
When Severus began to persecute the churches, [1765] glorious
testimonies were given everywhere by the athletes of religion. This
was especially the case in Alexandria, to which city, as to a most
prominent theater, athletes of God were brought from Egypt and all
Thebais according to their merit, and won crowns from God through
their great patience under many tortures and every mode of death.
Among these was Leonides, who was called the father of Origen, [1766]
and who was beheaded while his son was still young. How remarkable the
predilection of this son was for the Divine Word, in consequence of
his father's instruction, it will not be amiss to state briefly, as
his fame has been very greatly celebrated by many.
Footnotes
[1765] During the early years of the reign of Septimius Severus the
Christians enjoyed comparative peace, and Severus himself showed them
considerable favor. Early in the third century a change set in, and in
202 the emperor issued an edict forbidding conversions to Christianity
and to Judaism (Spartianus, in Severo, c. 16; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des
Emp. III. p. 58). The cause of this radical change of conduct we do
not know, but it is possible that the excesses of the Montanists
produced a reaction in the emperor's mind against the Christians, or
that the rapidity with which Christianity was spreading caused him to
fear that the old Roman institutions would be overturned, and hence
produced a reaction against it. Why the Jews, too, should have been
attacked, it is hard to say,--possibly because of a new attempt on
their part to throw off the Roman yoke (see Spartianus, in Severo, c.
16); or perhaps there underlay the whole movement a reaction in the
emperor's mind toward the old Roman paganism (he was always
superstitious), and Judaism and Christianity being looked upon as
alike opposed to it, were alike to be held in check. The edict was
aimed, not against those already Christians, but only against new
converts, the idea being to prevent the further spread of
Christianity. But the change in the emperor's attitude, thus published
abroad, at once intensified all the elements which were hostile to
Christianity; and the popular disfavor, which continued widespread and
was continually venting itself in local persecutions, now allowed
itself freer rein, and the result was that severe persecutions broke
out, which were confined, however, almost wholly to Egypt and North
Africa. Our principal authorities for these persecutions (which went
on intermittently, during the rest of Severus' reign) are the first
twelve Chapters of this book of Eusebius' History, and a number of
Tertullian's works, especially his De corona milites, Ad Scap., and De
fuga in persecutione.
[1766] We know very little about Origen's father. The fame of the son
overshadowed that of the father, even though the latter was a martyr.
The phrase used in this passage to describe him has caused some
trouble. Leonides ho legomenos 'Origenous pater. Taken in its usual
sense, the expression means "said to be the father of Origen," or the
"so-called father of Origen," both of which appear strange, for there
can have been no doubt as to his identity. It seems better, with
Westcott, to understand that Eusebius means that Origen's fame had so
eclipsed his father's that the latter was distinguished as "Leonides,
the father of Origen," and hence says here, "Leonides, who was known
as the father of Origen." The name Leonides is Greek, and that he was
of Greek nationality is further confirmed by the words of Porphyry
(quoted in chap. 19, below), who calls Origen "a Greek, and educated
in Greek literature." Porphyry may simply have concluded from his
knowledge of Greek letters that he was a Greek by birth, and hence his
statement taken alone has little weight; but taken in conjunction with
Leonides' name, it makes it probable that the latter was at least of
Greek descent; whether a native of Greece or not we do not know. A
late tradition makes him a bishop, but there is no foundation for such
a report. From the next Chapter we learn that Leonides' martyrdom took
place in the tenth year of Severus (201-202 a.d.), which is stated
also by the Chron.
Chapter II.--The Training of Origen from Childhood. [1767]
1. Many things might be said in attempting to describe the life of the
man while in school; but this subject alone would require a separate
treatise. Nevertheless, for the present, abridging most things, we
shall state a few facts concerning him as briefly as possible,
gathering them from certain letters, and from the statement of persons
still living who were acquainted with him.
2. What they report of Origen seems to me worthy of mention, even, so
to speak, from his swathing-bands.
It was the tenth year of the reign of Severus, while Lætus [1768] was
governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius [1769] had
lately received the episcopate of the parishes there, as successor of
Julian. [1770]
3. As the flame of persecution had been kindled greatly, [1771] and
multitudes had gained the crown of martyrdom, such desire for
martyrdom seized the soul of Origen, although yet a boy, that he went
close to danger, springing forward and rushing to the conflict in his
eagerness.
4. And truly the termination of his life had been very near had not
the divine and heavenly Providence, for the benefit of many, prevented
his desire through the agency of his mother.
5. For, at first, entreating him, she begged him to have compassion on
her motherly feelings toward him; but finding, that when he had
learned that his father had been seized and imprisoned, he was set the
more resolutely, and completely carried away with his zeal for
martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, and thus compelled him to remain
at home.
6. But, as there was nothing else that he could do, and his zeal
beyond his age would not suffer him to be quiet, he sent to his father
an encouraging letter on martyrdom, [1772] in which he exhorted him,
saying, "Take heed not to change your mind on our account." This may
be recorded as the first evidence of Origen's youthful wisdom and of
his genuine love for piety.
7. For even then he had stored up no small resources in the words of
the faith, having been trained in the Divine Scriptures from
childhood. And he had not studied them with indifference, for his
father, besides giving him the usual liberal education, [1773] had
made them a matter of no secondary importance.
8. First of all, before inducting him into the Greek sciences, he
drilled him in sacred studies, requiring him to learn and recite every
day.
9. Nor was this irksome to the boy, but he was eager and diligent in
these studies. And he was not satisfied with learning what was simple
and obvious in the sacred words, but sought for something more, and
even at that age busied himself with deeper speculations. So that he
puzzled his father with inquiries for the true meaning of the inspired
Scriptures.
10. And his father rebuked him seemingly to his face, telling him not
to search beyond his age, or further than the manifest meaning. But by
himself he rejoiced greatly and thanked God, the author of all good,
that he had deemed him worthy to be the father of such a child.
11. And they say that often, standing by the boy when asleep, he
uncovered his breast as if the Divine Spirit were enshrined within it,
and kissed it reverently; considering himself blessed in his goodly
offspring. These and other things like them are related of Origen when
a boy.
12. But when his father ended his life in martyrdom, he was left with
his mother and six younger brothers when he was not quite seventeen
years old. [1774]
13. And the property of his father being confiscated to the royal
treasury, he and his family were in want of the necessaries of life.
But he was deemed worthy of Divine care. And he found welcome and rest
with a woman of great wealth, and distinguished in her manner of life
and in other respects. She was treating with great honor a famous
heretic then in Alexandria; [1775] who, however, was born in Antioch.
He was with her as an adopted son, and she treated him with the
greatest kindness.
14. But although Origen was under the necessity of associating with
him, he nevertheless gave from this time on strong evidences of his
orthodoxy in the faith. For when on account of the apparent skill in
argument [1776] of Paul,--for this was the man's name,--a great
multitude came to him, not only of heretics but also of our people,
Origen could never be induced to join with him in prayer; [1777] for
he held, although a boy, the rule of the Church, [1778] and
abominated, as he somewhere expresses it, heretical teachings. [1779]
Having been instructed in the sciences of the Greeks by his father, he
devoted him after his death more assiduously and exclusively to the
study of literature, so that he obtained considerable preparation in
philology [1780] and was able not long after the death of his father,
by devoting himself to that subject, to earn a compensation amply
sufficient for his needs at his age. [1781]
Footnotes
[1767] This sixth book of Eusebius' History is our chief source for a
knowledge of Origen's life. His own writings give us little
information of a personal nature; but Eusebius was in a position to
learn a great deal about him. He had the advantage of personal
converse with surviving friends of Origen, as he tells us in this
connection; he had also a large collection of Origen's epistles (he
had himself made a collection of more than one hundred of them, as he
tells us in chap. 36); and he had access besides to official
documents, and to works of Origen's contemporaries which contained
references to him (see chap. 33). As a result, he was in a position to
write a full and accurate account of his life, and in fact, in
connection with Pamphilus, he did write a Defense of Origen in six
books, which contained both an exposition of his theology with a
refutation of charges brought against him, and a full account of his
life. Of this work only the first book is extant, and that in the
translation of Rufinus. It deals solely with theological matters. It
is greatly to be regretted that the remaining books are lost, for they
must have contained much of the greatest interest in connection with
Origen's life, especially that period of it about which we are most
poorly informed, his residence in Cæsarea after his retirement from
Alexandria (see chap. 23). In the present book Eusebius gives numerous
details of Origen's life, frequently referring to the Defense for
fuller particulars. His account is very desultory, being interspersed
with numerous notices of other men and events, introduced apparently
without any method, though undoubtedly the design was to preserve in
general the chronological order. There is no part of Eusebius' work
which reveals more clearly the viciousness of the purely chronological
method breaking up as it does the account of a single person or
movement into numerous detached pieces, and thus utterly destroying
all historical continuity. It may be well, therefore, to sum up in
brief outline the chief events of Origen's life, most of which are
scattered through the following pages. This summary will be found
below, on p. 391 sq. In addition to the notices contained in this
book, we have a few additional details from the Defense, which have
been preserved by Jerome, Rufinus, and Photius, none of whom seems to
have had much, if any, independent knowledge of Origen's life.
Epiphanius (Hær. LXIII, and LXIV.) relates some anecdotes of doubtful
credibility. The Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is valuable as a
description of Origen's method of teaching, and of the wonderful
influence which he possessed over his pupils. (For outline of Origen's
life, see below, p. 391 sq.)
[1768] This Lætus is to be distinguished from Q. Æmilius Lætus,
prætorian prefect under Commodus, who was put to death by the Emperor
Didius Julianus, in 193; and from Julius Lætus, minister of Severus,
who was executed in 199 (see Dion Cassius, Bk. LXXIII. chap. 16, and
LXXV. chap. 10; cf. Tillemont, Hist. des emp. III. p. 21, 55, and 58).
The dates of Lætus' rule in Egypt are unknown to us.
[1769] On the dates of Demetrius' episcopacy, see Bk. V. chap. 22,
note 4.
[1770] On Julian, see Bk. V. chap. 9, note 2.
[1771] On the persecution, see more particularly chap. 1, note 1.
[1772] This epistle which was apparently extant in the time of
Eusebius, and may have been contained in the collection made by him
(see chap. 36), is now lost, and we possess only this sentence from
it.
[1773] te ton enkuklion paidei. According to Liddell and Scott,
enk. paideia in later Greek meant "the circle of those arts and
sciences which every free-born youth in Greece was obliged to go
through before applying to any professional studies; school learning,
as opposed to the business of life." So Valesius says that the Greeks
understood by enk. mathemata the branches in which the youth were
instructed; i.e. mathematics, grammar, and rhetoric philosophy not
being included (see Valesius' note in loco).
[1774] On the date of Origen's birth, see note 1.
[1775] Of this Antiochene heretic Paul we know only what Eusebius
tells us here. His patroness seems to have been a Christian, and in
good standing in the Alexandrian church, or Origen would hardly have
made his home with her.
[1776] dia to dokoun hikanon en logo.
[1777] Redepenning (p. 189) refers to Origen's In Matt. Comment.
Series, sec. 89, where it is said, melius est cum nullo orare, quam
cum malis orare.
[1778] phulEURtton exeti paidos kanona [two mss. kanonas] ekklesias.
Compare the words of the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII. 34: "Let not
one of the faithful pray with a catechumen, no, not in the house; for
it is not reasonable that he who is admitted should be polluted with
one not admitted. Let not one of the godly pray with an heretic, no,
not in the house. For `what fellowship hath light with darkness?'"
Compare also the Apostolic Canons, 11, 12, and 45. The last reads:
"Let a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, who only prays with heretics,
be suspended; but if he also permit them to perform any part of the
office of a clergyman, let him be deprived." Hefele (Conciliengesch.
I. p. 815) considers this canon only a "consistent application of
apostolic principles to particular cases,--an application which was
made from the first century on, and therefore very old."
[1779] Redepenning (p. 190) refers to the remarks of Origen upon the
nature and destructiveness of heresy collected by Pamphilus (Fragm.
Apol. Pamph. Opp. Origen, IV. 694 [ed. Delarue]).
[1780] epi ta grammatikEUR
[1781] See below, p. 392.
Chapter III.--While still very Young, he taught diligently the Word of
Christ.
1. But while he was lecturing in the school, as he tells us himself,
and there was no one at Alexandria to give instruction in the faith,
as all were driven away by the threat of persecution, some of the
heathen came to him to hear the word of God.
2. The first of them, he says, was Plutarch, [1782] who after living
well, was honored with divine martyrdom. The second was Heraclas,
[1783] a brother of Plutarch; who after he too had given with him
abundant evidence of a philosophic and ascetic life, was esteemed
worthy to succeed Demetrius in the bishopric of Alexandria.
3. He was in his eighteenth year when he took charge of the
catechetical school. [1784] He was prominent also at this time, during
the persecution under Aquila, [1785] the governor of Alexandria, when
his name became celebrated among the leaders in the faith, through the
kindness and goodwill which he manifested toward all the holy martyrs,
whether known to him or strangers.
4. For not only was he with them while in bonds, and until their final
condemnation, but when the holy martyrs were led to death, he was very
bold and went with them into danger. So that as he acted bravely, and
with great boldness saluted the martyrs with a kiss, oftentimes the
heathen multitude round about them became infuriated, and were on the
point of rushing upon him.
5. But through the helping hand of God, he escaped absolutely and
marvelously. And this same divine and heavenly power, again and again,
it is impossible to say how often, on account of his great zeal and
boldness for the words of Christ, guarded him when thus endangered.
[1786] So great was the enmity of the unbelievers toward him, on
account of the multitude that were instructed by him in the sacred
faith, that they placed bands of soldiers around the house where he
abode.
6. Thus day by day the persecution burned against him, so that the
whole city could no longer contain him; but he removed from house to
house and was driven in every direction because of the multitude who
attended upon the divine instruction which he gave. For his life also
exhibited right and admirable conduct according to the practice of
genuine philosophy.
7. For they say that his manner of life was as his doctrine, and his
doctrine as his life. [1787] Therefore, by the divine Power working
with him he aroused a great many to his own zeal.
8. But when he saw yet more coming to him for instruction, and the
catechetical school had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, who
presided over the church, he considered the teaching of grammatical
science inconsistent with training in divine subjects, [1788] and
forthwith he gave up his grammatical school as unprofitable and a
hindrance to sacred learning.
9. Then, with becoming consideration, that he might not need aid from
others, he disposed of whatever valuable books of ancient literature
he possessed, being satisfied with receiving from the purchaser four
oboli a day. [1789] For many years he lived philosophically [1790] in
this manner, putting away all the incentives of youthful desires.
Through the entire day he endured no small amount of discipline; and
for the greater part of the night he gave himself to the study of the
Divine Scriptures. He restrained himself as much as possible by a most
philosophic life; sometimes by the discipline of fasting, again by
limited time for sleep. And in his zeal he never lay upon a bed, but
upon the ground.
10. Most of all, he thought that the words of the Saviour in the
Gospel should be observed, in which he exhorts not to have two coats
nor to use shoes [1791] nor to occupy oneself with cares for the
future. [1792]
11. With a zeal beyond his age he continued in cold and nakedness;
and, going to the very extreme of poverty, he greatly astonished those
about him. And indeed he grieved many of his friends who desired to
share their possessions with him, on account of the wearisome toil
which they saw him enduring in the teaching of divine things.
12. But he did not relax his perseverance. He is said to have walked
for a number of years never wearing a shoe, and, for a great many
years, to have abstained from the use of wine, and of all other things
beyond his necessary food; so that he was in danger of breaking down
and destroying his constitution. [1793]
13. By giving such evidences of a philosophic life to those who saw
him, he aroused many of his pupils to similar zeal; so that prominent
men even of the unbelieving heathen and men that followed learning and
philosophy were led to his instruction. Some of them having received
from him into the depth of their souls faith in the Divine Word,
became prominent in the persecution then prevailing; and some of them
were seized and suffered martyrdom.
Footnotes
[1782] Of this Plutarch we know only what Eusebius tells us here, and
in chap. 4, where he says that he was the first of Origen's pupils to
suffer martyrdom. (On the date of the persecution in which he
suffered, see note 4).
[1783] Heraclas, brother of Plutarch, proved himself so good a pupil
that, when Origen later found the work of teaching too great for him
to manage alone, he made him his assistant, and committed the
elementary instruction to him (chap. 15). From chap. 19 we learn that
he was for years a diligent student of Greek philosophy (chap. 15
implies his proficiency in it), and that he even went so far as to
wear the philosopher's cloak all the time, although he was a presbyter
in the Alexandrian church. His reputation for learning became so
great, as we learn from chap. 31, that Julius Africanus went to
Alexandria to see him. In 231, when Origen took his departure from
Alexandria, he left the catechetical school in the charge of Heraclas
(chap. 26), and in 231 or 232, upon the death of Demetrius (see Bk. V.
chap. 22, note 4), Heraclas became the latter's successor as bishop of
Alexandria (chaps. 26 and 29), and was succeeded in the presidency of
the catechetical school by Dionysius (chap. 29). According to chap. 35
he was bishop for sixteen years and with this both versions of the
Chron. agree, though Jerome puts his accession two years too
early--into the ninth year of Alexander Severus instead of the
eleventh--while giving at the same time, quite inconsistently, the
proper date for his death. Heraclas' later relations to Origen are not
quite clear. He was evidently, in earlier years, one of his best
friends, and there is no adequate ground for the assumption, which is
quite common, that he was one of those who united with Bishop
Demetrius in condemning him. It is true, no attempt seems to have been
made after he became bishop to reverse the sentence against Origen,
and to invite him back to Alexandria; but this does not prove that
Heraclas did not remain friendly to him; for even when Dionysius (who
kept up his relations with Origen, as we know from chap. 46) became
bishop (a.d. 248), no such attempt seems to have been made, although
Origen was still alive and at the height of his power. The fact that
the greater part of the clergy of Alexandria and Egypt were
unfavorable to Origen, as shown by their condemnation of him, does not
imply that Heraclas could not have been elected unless he too showed
hostility to Origen; for Dionysius, who we know was not hostile, was
appointed at that time head of the catechetical school, and sixteen
years later bishop. It is true that Heraclas may not have sympathized
with all of Origen's views, and may have thought some of them
heretical (his strict judgment of heretics is seen from Bk. VII. chap.
7), but many even of the best of Origen's friends and followers did
likewise, so that among his most devoted adherents were some of the
most orthodox Fathers of the Church (e.g. the two Gregories and
Basil). That Heraclas did not agree with Origen in all his opinions
(if he did not, he may not have cared to press his return to
Alexandria) does not prove therefore that he took part in the
condemnatory action of the synod, and that he was himself in later
life hostile to Origen.
[1784] See below, p. 392.
[1785] It is not clear from Eusebius' language whether Aquila was
successor of Lætus as viceroy of Egypt (as Redepenning assumes
apparently quite without misgiving), or simply governor of Alexandria.
He calls Lætus (in chap. 2) governor of Alexandria and of all Egypt,
while Aquila is called simply governor of Alexandria. If this
difference were insisted on as marking a real distinction, then Aquila
would have to be regarded as the chief officer of Alexandria only, and
hence subordinate in dignity to the viceroy of Egypt. The term used to
describe his position (hegoumenon) is not, however the technical one
for the chief officer of Alexandria (see Mommsen, Provinces of the
Roman Empire; Scribner's ed., II. p. 267 ff.), and hence his position
cannot be decided with certainty. In any case, whether he succeeded
Lætus, or was his subordinate, the dates of his accession to and
retirement from office are unknown, and hence the time at which the
persecutions mentioned took place cannot be determined with exactness.
We simply know that they occurred after 203 (for Origen had already
taken charge of the catechetical school, and some of his pupils
perished in the persecutions) and before 211, the date of Severus'
death.
[1786] How it happened that Origen escaped the persecution, when,
according to Eusebius, he exposed himself so continually, and was so
hated by the heathen populace, we cannot tell. Eusebius ascribes it
solely to the grace of God here, and in chap. 4.
[1787] hoios ho logos toios ho bios was a Greek proverb. Compare the
words of Seneca, in Ep. 114 ad Lucilium, "Apud Græcos in proverbium
cessit talis hominibus fuit oratio, qualis vita" (quoted by
Redepenning, p. 196).
[1788] This does not mean that he considered the study of grammar and
literature injurious to the Christian, or detrimental to his
theological studies. His opinion on that subject is clear enough from
all his writings and from his conduct as pictured in chaps. 18 and 19.
Nor does it on the other hand imply, as Crusè supposes, that up to
this time he had been teaching secular branches exclusively; but it
means simply that the demands upon him for instruction in the faith
were so great, now that the catechetical school had been officially
entrusted to him by Demetrius, that he felt that he could no longer
continue to teach secular literature as he had been doing, but must
give up that part of his work, and devote himself exclusively to
instruction in sacred things.
[1789] The obolus was a small Greek coin, equivalent to about three
and a half cents of our money. Four oboli a day could have been
sufficient, even in that age, only for the barest necessities of life.
But with his ascetic tendencies, these were all that Origen wished.
[1790] It was very common from the fourth century on (the writer knows
of no instances earlier than Eusebius) to call an ascetic mode of life
"philosophical," or "the life of a philosopher" (see §2 of this
Chapter, and compare Chrysostom's works, where the word occurs very
frequently in this sense). Origen, in his ascetic practices, was quite
in accord with the prevailing Christian sentiment of his own and
subsequent centuries, which looked upon bodily discipline of an
ascetic kind, not indeed as required, but as commended by Christ. The
growing sentiment had its roots partly in the prevailing ideas of
contemporary philosophy, which instinctively emphasized strongly the
dualism of spirit and matter, and the necessity of subduing the latter
to the former, and partly in the increasing moral corruptness of
society, which caused those who wished to lead holy lives to feel that
only by eschewing the things of sense could the soul attain purity.
Under pressure from without and within, it became very easy to
misinterpret various sayings of Christ, and thus to find in the
Gospels ringing exhortations to a life of the most rigid asceticism.
Clement of Alexandria was almost the only one of the great Christian
writers after the middle of the second century who distinguished
between the true and the false in this matter. Compare his admirable
tract, Quis dives salvetur, and contrast the position taken there with
the foolish extreme pursued by Origen, as recorded in this Chapter.
[1791] See Matt. x. 10
[1792] See Matt. vi. 34
[1793] Greek: thorax, properly "chest." Rufinus and Christophorsonus
translate stomachum, and Valesius approves; but there is no authority
for such a use of the term thorax, so far as I can ascertain. The
proper Greek term for stomach is stomachos, which is uniformly
employed by Galen and other medical writers.
Chapter IV.--The pupils of Origen that became Martyrs.
1. The first of these was Plutarch, who was mentioned just above.
[1794] As he was led to death, the man of whom we are speaking being
with him at the end of his life, came near being slain by his
fellow-citizens, as if he were the cause of his death. But the
providence of God preserved him at this time also.
2. After Plutarch, the second martyr among the pupils of Origen was
Serenus, [1795] who gave through fire a proof of the faith which he
had received.
3. The third martyr from the same school was Heraclides, [1796] and
after him the fourth was Hero. [1797] The former of these was as yet a
catechumen, and the latter had but recently been baptized. Both of
them were beheaded. After them, the fifth from the same school
proclaimed as an athlete of piety was another Serenus, who, it is
reported, was beheaded, after a long endurance of tortures. And of
women, Herais [1798] died while yet a catechumen, receiving baptism by
fire, as Origen himself somewhere says.
Footnotes
[1794] See the previous Chapter, §2. The martyrdom of these disciples
of Origen took place under Aquila, and hence the date depends on the
date of his rule, which cannot be fixed with exactness, as remarked in
note 4 on the previous Chapter.
[1795] These two persons named Serenus, the first of whom was burned,
the second beheaded, are known to us only from this Chapter.
[1796] Of this Heraclides, we know only what is told us in this
Chapter. He, with the other martyrs mentioned in this connection, is
commemorated in the mediæval martyrologies, but our authentic
information is limited to what Eusebius tells us here.
[1797] Our authentic information of Hero is likewise limited to this
account of Eusebius.
[1798] Herais likewise is known to us from this Chapter alone. It is
interesting to note that Origen's pupils were not confined to the male
sex. His association with female catechumens, which his office of
instructor entailed upon him, formed one reason for the act of
self-mutilation which he committed (see chap. 8, §2).
Chapter V.--Potamiæna. [1799]
1. Basilides [1800] may be counted the seventh of these. He led to
martyrdom the celebrated Potamiæna, who is still famous among the
people of the country for the many things which she endured for the
preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in
the perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered
much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and
terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella, [1801] was put to
death by fire.
2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe
tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to
the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being
asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as
impious.
3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of
the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people
attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back
her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the
man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for
she would supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he
would soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.
4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch
being poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from
the sole of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict
endured by this famous maiden.
5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers
to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him
to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly.
At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to
affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction
before him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him
and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he
is reported to have said that Potamiæna, for three days after her
martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head
and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what
she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.
6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal [1802] of the Lord; and on
the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was
beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted
speedily the word of Christ in those times.
7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them.
But let this suffice in regard to this matter.
Footnotes
[1799] Potamiæna, one of the most celebrated of the martyrs that
suffered under Severus, is made by Rufinus a disciple of Origen, but
Eusebius does not say that she was, and indeed, in making Basilides
the seventh of Origen's disciples to suffer, he evidently excludes
Potamiæna from the number. Quite a full account of her martyrdom is
given by Palladius in his Historia Lausiaca, chap. 3 (Migne's Patr.
Gr. XXXIV. 1014), which contains some characteristic details not
mentioned by Eusebius. It appears from that account that she was a
slave, and that her master, not being able to induce her to yield to
his passion, accused her before the judge as a Christian, bribing him,
if possible, to break her resolution by tortures and then return her
to him, or, if that was not possible, to put her to death as a
Christian. We cannot judge as to the exact truth of this and other
details related by Palladius, but his history (which was written early
in the fifth century) is, in the main at least, reliable, except where
it deals with miracles and prodigies (cf. the article on Palladius of
Helenopolis, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.).
[1800] Basilides is clearly reckoned here among the disciples of
Origen. The correctness of Eusebius' statement has been doubted, but
there is no ground for such doubt, for there is no reason to suppose
that all of Origen's pupils became converted under his instruction.
[1801] Of Marcella, we know only that she was the mother of the more
celebrated Potamiæna, and suffered martyrdom by fire.
[1802] The word sphragis, "seal," was very commonly used by the
Fathers to signify baptism (see Suicer's Thesaurus).
Chapter VI.--Clement of Alexandria.
Clement [1803] having succeeded Pantænus, [1804] had charge at that
time of the catechetical instruction in Alexandria, so that Origen
also, while still a boy, [1805] was one of his pupils. In the first
book of the work called Stromata, which Clement wrote, he gives a
chronological table, [1806] bringing events down to the death of
Commodus. So it is evident that that work was written during the reign
of Severus, whose times we are now recording.
Footnotes
[1803] This Chapter has no connection with the preceding, and its
insertion at this point has no good ground, for Clement has been
already handled in the fifth book; and if Eusebius wished to refer to
him again in connection with Origen, he should have done so in chap.
3, where Origen's appointment as head of the catechetical school is
mentioned. (Redepenning, however, approves the present order; vol. I.
p. 431 sqq.) Rufinus felt the inconsistency, and hence inserted chaps.
6 and 7 in the middle of chap. 3, where the account of Origen's
appointment by Demetrius is given. Valesius considers the occurrence
of this mention of Clement at this point a sign that Eusebius did not
give his work a final revision. Chap. 13 is inserted in the same
abrupt way, quite out of harmony with the context. Upon the life of
Clement of Alexandria, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. The catechetical
school was vacant, as we learn from chap. 2, in the year 203, and was
then taken in charge by Origen, so that the "that time" referred to by
Eusebius in this sentence must be carried back of the events related
in the previous Chapters. The cause of Clement's leaving the school
was probably the persecution begun by Severus in 202 ("all were driven
away by the threatening aspect of persecution," according to chap. 3,
§1); for since Origen was one of his pupils he can hardly have left
long before that time. That it was not unworthy cowardice which led
Clement to take his departure is clear enough from the words of
Alexander in chaps. 11 and 14, from the high reputation which he
continued to enjoy throughout the Church, and from his own utterances
on the subject of martyrdom scattered through his works.
[1804] On Pantænus, see Bk. V. chap. 10, note 2.
[1805] Stephanus, Stroth, Burton, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Heinichen,
following two important mss. and the translation of Rufinus, omit the
words paida onta "while a boy." But the words are found in all the
other codices (the chief witnesses of two of the three great families
of mss. being for them) and in Nicephorus. The manuscript authority is
therefore overwhelmingly in favor of the words, and they are adopted
by Valesius, Zimmermann, and Crusè. Rufinus is a strong witness
against the words but, as Redepenning justly remarks, having inserted
this Chapter, as he did, in the midst of the description of Origen's
early years (see note 1), the words paida onta would be quite
superfluous and even out of place, and hence he would naturally omit
them. So far as the probabilities of the insertion or omission of the
words in the present passage are concerned, it seems to me more
natural to suppose that a copyist, finding the words at this late
stage in the account of Origen's life, would be inclined to omit them,
than that not finding them there he should, upon historical grounds
(which he could have reached only after some reflection), think that
they ought to be inserted. The latter would be not only a more
difficult but also a much graver step than the former. There seems,
then, to be no good warrant for omitting these words. We learn from
chap. 3 that he took charge of the catechetical school when he was in
his eighteenth year, within a year therefore after the death of his
father. And we learn that before he took charge of the school, all who
had given instruction there had been driven away by the persecution.
Clement, therefore, must have left before Origen's eighteenth year,
and hence the latter must have studied with him before the persecution
had broken up the school, and in all probability before the death of
Leonides. In any case, therefore, he was still a boy when under
Clement, and even if we omit the words--"while a boy"--here, we shall
not be warranted in putting his student days into the period of his
maturity, as some would do. Upon this subject, see Redepenning, I. p.
431 sqq., who adduces still other arguments for the position taken in
this note which it is not necessary to repeat here.
[1806] In Stromata, Bk. I. chap. 21. On this and the other works of
Clement, see chap. 13.
Chapter VII.--The Writer, Judas. [1807]
At this time another writer, Judas, discoursing about the seventy
weeks in Daniel, brings down the chronology to the tenth year of the
reign of Severus. He thought that the coming of Antichrist, which was
much talked about, was then near. [1808] So greatly did the agitation
caused by the persecution of our people at this time disturb the minds
of many.
Footnotes
[1807] The mention of the writer Judas at this point seems, at first
sight, as illogical as the reference to Clement in the preceding
Chapter. But it does not violate chronology as that did; and hence, if
the account of Origen's life was to be broken anywhere for such an
insertion, there was perhaps no better place. We cannot conclude,
therefore, that Eusebius, had he revised his work, would have changed
the position of this Chapter, as Valesius suggests (see the previous
Chapter, note 1). Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 52) repeats Eusebius' notice
of Judas, but adds nothing to it, and we know no more about him. Since
he believed that the appearance of Antichrist was at hand, he must
have written before the persecutions had given place again to peace,
and hence not long after 202, the date to which he extended his
chronology. Whether the work mentioned by Eusebius was a commentary or
a work on chronology is not clear. It was possibly an historical
demonstration of the truth of Daniel's prophecies, and an
interpretation of those yet unfulfilled, in which case it combined
history and exegesis.
[1808] It was the common belief in the Church, from the time of the
apostles until the time of Constantine, that the second coming of
Christ would very speedily take place. This belief was especially
pronounced among the Montanists, Montanus having proclaimed that the
parousia would occur before his death, and even having gone so far as
to attempt to collect all the faithful (Montanists) in one place in
Phrygia, where they were to await that event and where the new
Jerusalem was to be set up (see above, Bk. V. chap. 18, note 6). There
is nothing surprising in Judas' idea that this severe persecution must
be the beginning of the end, for all through the earlier centuries of
the Church (and even to some extent in later centuries) there were
never wanting those who interpreted similar catastrophes in the same
way; although after the third century the belief that the end was at
hand grew constantly weaker.
Chapter VIII.--Origen's Daring Deed.
1. At this time while Origen was conducting catechetical instruction
at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and
youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith
and continence. [1809] For he took the words, "There are eunuchs who
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," [1810]
in too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the
Saviour's word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers
all opportunity for scandal,--for, although young, he met for the
study of divine things with women as well as men,--he carried out in
action the word of the Saviour.
2. He thought that this would not be known by many of his
acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do
so, to keep such an action secret.
3. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of
this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he
perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately
exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work
of catechetical instruction.
4. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was
prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the
same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most
foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of
Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished
among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the
highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. [1811]
5. Thereupon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned
everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom.
But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save
this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, [1812] and dared to
include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the
presbyterate.
6. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time
Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at
Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his
entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.
7. Severus, having held the government for eighteen years, was
succeeded by his son, Antoninus. [1813] Among those who had endured
courageously the persecution of that time, and had been preserved by
the Providence of God through the conflicts of confession, was
Alexander, of whom we have spoken already [1814] as bishop of the
church in Jerusalem. On account of his pre-eminence in the confession
of Christ he was thought worthy of that bishopric, while Narcissus,
[1815] his predecessor, was still living.
Footnotes
[1809] This act of Origen's has been greatly discussed, and some have
even gone so far as to believe that he never committed the act, but
that the report of it arose from a misunderstanding of certain
figurative expressions used by him (so, e.g., Boehringer, Schnitzer,
and Baur). There is no reason, however, to doubt the report, for which
we have unimpeachable testimony, and which is in itself not at all
surprising (see the arguments of Redepenning, I. p. 444 sqq.). The act
was contrary to the civil law (see Suetonius, Domitian, c. 7; and cf.
Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 29), and yet was a very common one; the
existence of the law itself would alone prove what we know from many
sources to have been the fact. Nor was Origen alone among the
Christians (cf. e.g. Origen, In Matt., XV. 1, the passage of Justin
Martyr referred to above, and also the first canon of the Council of
Nicæa, the very existence of which proves the necessity of it). It was
natural that Christians, seeking purity of life, and strongly ascetic
in their tendencies, should be influenced by the actions of those
about them, who sought thus to be freed from the domination of the
passions, and should interpret certain passages of the Bible as
commending the act. Knowing it to be so common, and knowing Origen's
character, as revealed to us in chap. 3, above (to say nothing of his
own writings), we can hardly be surprised that he performed the act.
His chief motive was undoubtedly the same as that which actuated him
in all his ascetic practices, the attainment of higher holiness
through the subjugation of his passions, and the desire to sacrifice
everything fleshly for the sake of Christ. Of course this could not
have led him to perform the act he did, unless he had entirely
misunderstood, as Eusebius says he did, the words of Christ quoted
below. But he was by no means the only one to misunderstand them (see
Suicer's Thesaurus, I. 1255 sq.). Eusebius says that the requirements
of his position also had something to do with his resolve. He was
obliged to teach both men and women, and both day and night (as we
learn from §7), and Eusebius thinks he would naturally desire to avoid
scandal. At the same time, this motive can hardly have weighed very
heavily, if at all, with him; for had his giving instruction in this
way been in danger of causing serious scandal, other easier methods of
avoiding such scandal might have been devised, and undoubtedly would
have been, by the bishop. And the fact is, he seems to have wished to
conceal the act, which is inconsistent with the idea that he performed
it for the sake of avoiding scandal. It is quite likely that his
intimate association with women may have had considerable to do with
his resolve, because he may have found that such association aroused
his unsubdued passions, and therefore felt that they must be
eradicated, if he was to go about his duties with a pure and single
heart. That he afterward repented his youthful act, and judged the
words of Christ more wisely, is clear from what he says in his
Comment. in Matt. XV. 1. And yet he never outgrew his false notions of
the superior virtue of an ascetic life. His act seems to have caused a
reaction in his mind which led him into doubt and despondency for a
time; for Demetrius found it necessary to exhort him to cherish
confidence, and to urge him to continue his work of instruction.
Eusebius, while not approving Origen's act, yet evidently admired him
the more for the boldness and for the spirit of self-sacrifice shown
in its performance.
[1810] Matt. xix. 12.
[1811] See chap. 23.
[1812] On the relations existing between Demetrius and Origen, see
below, p. 394.
[1813] Septimius Severus died on February 4, 211, after a reign of a
little more than seventeen years and eight months, and was succeeded
by his two sons, Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus (commonly
known by his nickname Caracalla, which, however, was never used in
official documents or inscriptions), and Lucius, or Publius, Septimius
Geta. Eusebius mentions here only the former, giving him his official
name, Antoninus.
[1814] Eusebius makes a slip here, as this is the first time he has
mentioned Alexander in his Church History. He was very likely under
the impression that he had mentioned him just above, where he referred
to the bishops of Cæsarea and Jerusalem. He does refer to him in his
Chron., putting his appointment as assistant bishop into the second
year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth year), and calling him the
thirty-fifth bishop of Jerusalem (Armen. thirty-sixth). In Bk. V.
chap. 12 of the History (also in the Chron.) we are told that
Narcissus was the thirtieth bishop of Jerusalem. The number
thirty-five for Alexander (the number thirty-six of the Armen. is a
mistake, and is set right in connection with Alexander's successor,
who is also called the thirty-sixth) is made out by counting the three
bishops mentioned in chap. 10, and then reckoning the second
episcopate of Narcissus (see the same Chapter) as the thirty-fourth.
We learn from chap. 14 that Alexander was an early friend of Origen's,
and a fellow-pupil in the school of Clement. We know him next as
bishop of some church in Cappadocia (chap. 11; see note 2 on that
Chapter), whence he was called to be assistant bishop of Jerusalem
(see the same Chapter). From this passage, compared with chap. 11, we
learn that Alexander was imprisoned during the persecutions, and the
Chron. gives the year of his "confession" as 203 a.d. But from chap.
11 we learn that he wrote while still in prison to the church of
Antioch on occasion of the appointment of Asclepiades to the
episcopate there. According to the Chron. Asclepiades did not become
bishop until 211; and though this may not be the exact date, yet it
cannot be far out of the way (see chap. 11, note 6); and hence, if
Alexander was a confessor in 203, he must have remained in prison a
number of years, or else have undergone a second persecution. It is
probable either that the date 203 is quite wrong, or else that he
suffered a second time toward the close of Severus' reign; for the
persecution, so far as we know, was not so continuous during that
reign as to keep one man confined for eight years. Our knowledge of
the persecutions in Asia Minor at this time is very limited, but they
do not seem to have been of great severity or of long duration. The
date of Alexander's episcopate in Cappadocia it is impossible to
determine, though as he was a fellow-pupil of Origen's in Alexandria,
it cannot have begun much, if any, before 202. The date of his
translation to the see of Jerusalem is likewise uncertain. The Chron.
gives the second year of Caracalla (Armen. fourth). The connection in
which Eusebius mentions it in chap. 11 makes it look as if it took
place before Asclepiades' accession to the see of Antioch; but this is
hardly possible, for it was his firmness under persecution which
elevated him to the see of Jerusalem (according to this passage), and
it is apparently that persecution which he is enduring when
Asclepiades becomes bishop. We find no reason, then, for correcting
the date of his translation to Jerusalem given by the Chron. At any
rate, he was bishop of Jerusalem when Origen visited Palestine in 216
(see chap. 19, §17). In 231 he assisted at the ordination of Origen
(see chap. 23, note 6), and finally perished in prison during the
Decian persecution (see chaps. 39 and 46). His friendship for Origen
was warm and steadfast (cf., besides the other passages referred to,
chap. 27). The latter commemorates the loveliness and gentleness of
his character in his first Homily on 1 Samuel, §1. He collected a
valuable library in Jerusalem, which Eusebius made use of in the
composition of his History (see chap. 20). This act shows the literary
tastes of the man. Of his epistles only the five fragments preserved
by Eusebius (chaps. 11, 14, and 19) are now extant. Jerome (de vir.
ill. 62) says that other epistles were extant in his day; and he
relates, on the authority of an epistle written pro Origene contra
Demetrium, that Alexander had ordained Origen juxta testimonium
Demetri. This epistle is not mentioned by Eusebius, but in spite of
Jerome's usual dependence upon the latter, there is no good reason to
doubt the truth of his statement in this case (see below, p. 396).
[1815] On Narcissus, see the next three Chapters, and also Bk. V.
chap. 12, note 1.
Chapter IX.--The Miracles of Narcissus.
1. The citizens of that parish mention many other miracles of
Narcissus, on the tradition of the brethren who succeeded him; among
which they relate the following wonder as performed by him.
2. They say that the oil once failed while the deacons were watching
through the night at the great paschal vigil. Thereupon the whole
multitude being dismayed, Narcissus directed those who attended to the
lights, to draw water and bring it to him.
3. This being immediately done he prayed over the water, and with firm
faith in the Lord, commanded them to pour it into the lamps. And when
they had done so, contrary to all expectation by a wonderful and
divine power, the nature of the water was changed into that of oil. A
small portion of it has been preserved even to our day by many of the
brethren there as a memento of the wonder. [1816]
4. They tell many other things worthy to be noted of the life of this
man, among which is this. Certain base men being unable to endure the
strength and firmness of his life, and fearing punishment for the many
evil deeds of which they were conscious, sought by plotting to
anticipate him, and circulated a terrible slander against him.
5. And to persuade those who heard of it, they confirmed their
accusations with oaths: one invoked upon himself destruction by fire;
another the wasting of his body by a foul disease; the third the loss
of his eyes. But though they swore in this manner, they could not
affect the mind of the believers; because the continence and virtuous
life of Narcissus were well known to all.
6. But he could not in any wise endure the wickedness of these men;
and as he had followed a philosophic [1817] life for a long time, he
fled from the whole body of the Church, and hid himself in desert and
secret places, and remained there many years. [1818]
7. But the great eye of judgment was not unmoved by these things, but
soon looked down upon these impious men, and brought on them the
curses with which they had bound themselves. The residence of the
first, from nothing but a little spark falling upon it, was entirely
consumed by night, and he perished with all his family. The second was
speedily covered with the disease which he had imprecated upon
himself, from the sole of his feet to his head.
8. But the third, perceiving what had happened to the others, and
fearing the inevitable judgment of God, the ruler of all, confessed
publicly what they had plotted together. And in his repentance he
became so wasted by his great lamentations, and continued weeping to
such an extent, that both his eyes were destroyed. Such were the
punishments which these men received for their falsehood.
Footnotes
[1816] This miracle is related by Eusebius upon the testimony, not of
documents, but of those who had shown him the oil, which was preserved
in Jerusalem down to that time; hoi tes paroikias
politai...historousi, he says. His travels had evidently not taught
him to disbelieve every wonderful tale that was told him.
[1817] See above, chap. 3, note 9.
[1818] The date of Narcissus' retirement we have no means of
ascertaining.
Chapter X.--The Bishops of Jerusalem.
Narcissus having departed, and no one knowing where he was, those
presiding over the neighboring churches thought it best to ordain
another bishop. His name was Dius. [1819] He presided but a short
time, and Germanio succeeded him. He was followed by Gordius, [1820]
in whose time Narcissus appeared again, as if raised from the dead.
[1821] And immediately the brethren besought him to take the
episcopate, as all admired him the more on account of his retirement
and philosophy, and especially because of the punishment with which
God had avenged him.
Footnotes
[1819] Of these three bishops, Dius, Germanio, and Gordius, we know
nothing more than is told us here. Syncellus assigns eight years to
Dius, four to Germanio, and five to Sardianus, whom he names instead
of Gordius. Epiphanius reports that Dius was bishop until Severus (193
a.d.), and Gordius until Antonine (i.e. Caracalla, 211 a.d.). But no
reliance is to be placed upon these figures or dates, as remarked
above, Bk. V. chap. 12, note 2.
[1820] Eusebius and Epiphanius give Tordios, and Jerome, Gordius; but
the Armenian has Gordianus, and Syncellus, Sardianos. What became of
Gordius when Narcissus reappeared we do not know. He must have died
very speedily, or some compromise would have been made, as it seems,
which would have rendered the appointment of Alexander as assistant
bishop unnecessary.
[1821] Literally, "as if from a resurrection" (hosper ex anabioseos).
Chapter XI.--Alexander.
1. But as on account of his great age Narcissus was no longer able to
perform his official duties, [1822] the Providence of God called to
the office with him, by a revelation given him in a night vision, the
above-mentioned Alexander, who was then bishop of another parish.
[1823]
2. Thereupon, as by Divine direction, he journeyed from the land of
Cappadocia, where he first held the episcopate, to Jerusalem, in
consequence of a vow and for the sake of information in regard to its
places. [1824] They received him there with great cordiality, and
would not permit him to return, because of another revelation seen by
them at night, which uttered the clearest message to the most zealous
among them. For it made known that if they would go outside the gates,
they would receive the bishop foreordained for them by God. And having
done this, with the unanimous consent of the bishops of the
neighboring churches, they constrained him to remain.
3. Alexander, himself, in private letters to the Antinoites, [1825]
which are still preserved among us, mentions the joint episcopate of
Narcissus and himself, writing in these words at the end of the
epistle:
4. "Narcissus salutes you, who held the episcopate here before me, and
is now associated with me in prayers, being one hundred and sixteen
years of age; and he exhorts you, as I do, to be of one mind."
These things took place in this manner. But, on the death of Serapion,
[1826] Asclepiades, [1827] who had been himself distinguished among
the confessors [1828] during the persecution, succeeded to the
episcopate of the church at Antioch. Alexander alludes to his
appointment, writing thus to the church at Antioch:
5. "Alexander, a servant and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed
church of Antioch, greeting in the Lord. The Lord hath made my bonds
during the time of my imprisonment light and easy, since I learned
that, by the Divine Providence, Asclepiades, who in regard to the true
faith is eminently qualified, has undertaken the bishopric of your
holy church at Antioch."
6. He indicates that he sent this epistle by Clement, [1829] writing
toward its close as follows:
"My honored brethren, [1830] I have sent this letter to you by
Clement, the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and approved, whom ye
yourselves also know and will recognize. Being here, in the providence
and oversight of the Master, he has strengthened and built up the
Church of the Lord."
Footnotes
[1822] The extreme age of Narcissus at this time is evident from the
fact that Alexander, writing before the year 216 (see note 4), says
that Narcissus is already in his 116th year. The translation of
Alexander to Jerusalem must have taken place about 212 (see chap. 8,
note 6), and hence Narcissus was now more than 110 years old. The
appointment of Alexander as Narcissus' assistant involved two acts
which were even at that time not common, and which were later
forbidden by canon; first the translation of a bishop from one see to
another, and secondly the appointment of an assistant bishop, which
made two bishops in one city. The Apost. Canons (No. 14) ordain that
"a bishop ought not to leave his own parish and leap to another,
although the multitude should compel him, unless there be some good
reason forcing him to do this, as that he can contribute much greater
profit to the people of the new parish by the word of piety; but this
is not to be settled by himself, but by the judgment of many bishops
and very great supplication." It has been disputed whether this canon
is older or younger than the fifteenth canon of Nicæa, which forbids
unconditionally the practice of translation from one see to another.
Whichever may be the older, it is certain that even the Council of
Nicæa considered its own canon as liable to exceptions in certain
cases, for it translated Eustathius from Beræa to Antioch (see
Sozomen, H. E. I. 2). The truth is, the rule was established--whether
before or for the first time at the Council of Nicæa--chiefly in order
to guard against the ambition of aspiring men who might wish to go
from a smaller to a greater parish, and to prevent, as the Nicene
Canon says, the many disorders and quarrels which the custom of
translation caused; and a rule formed on such grounds of expediency
was of course liable to exception whenever the good of the Church
seemed to demand it, and therefore, whether the fourteenth Apostolic
Canon is more ancient than the Nicene Council or not, it certainly
embodies a principle which must long have been in force, and which we
find in fact acted upon in the present case; for the translation of
Alexander takes place "with the common consent of the bishops of the
neighboring churches," or, as Jerome puts it, cunctis in Palestina
episcopis in unum congregatis, which is quite in accord with the
provision of the Apostolic Canons. There were some in the early Church
who thought it absolutely unlawful under any circumstances for a
bishop to be translated (cf. Jerome's Ep. ad Oceanum; Migne, Ep. 69,
§5), but this was not the common view, as Bingham (Antiq. VI. 4. 6)
well observes, and instances of translation from one see to another
were during all these centuries common (cf. e.g. Socrates, H. E. VII.
36), although always of course exceptional, and considered lawful only
when made for good and sufficient reasons. To say, therefore, with
Valesius that these Palestinian bishops violated a rule of the Church
in translating Alexander is too strong. They were evidently
unconscious of anything uncanonical, or even irregular in their
action, though it is clear that they regarded the step as too
important to be taken without the approval of all the bishops of the
neighborhood. In regard to assistant bishops, Valesius correctly
remarks that this is the first instance of the kind known to us, but
it is by no means the only one, for the following centuries furnish
numerous examples; e.g. Theotecnus and Anatolius in Cæsarea (see
below, Bk. VII. chap. 32), Maximus and Macarius in Jerusalem (see
Sozomen, H. E. II. 20); and so in Africa Valerius of Hippo had
Augustine as his coadjutor (Possidius, Vita. Aug. chap. 8; see
Bingham's Antiq. II. 13. 4 for other instances and for a discussion of
the whole subject). The principle was in force from as early as the
third century (see Cyprian to Cornelius, Ep. 40, al. 44 and to
Antonianus, Ep. 51, al. 55) that there should be only one bishop in a
city, and we see from the works of various Fathers that this rule was
universally accepted at an early date. The eighth canon of Nicæa
refers to this principle in passing as if it were already firmly
established, and the council evidently did not think it necessary to
promulgate a special canon on the subject. Because of this principle,
Augustine hesitated to allow himself to be ordained assistant bishop
of Hippo; and although his scruples were overcome at the time, he
afterward, upon learning of the Nicene Canon, considered the practice
of having a coadjutor illegal and refused to ordain one for himself.
But, as the instances referred to above and many others show, not all
the Church interpreted the principle as rigidly as Augustine did, and
hence under certain circumstances exceptions were made to the rule,
and were looked upon throughout the Church as quite lawful. The
existence of two bishops in one city as a matter of compromise, for
the sake of healing a schism, formed one common exception to the
general principle (see Bingham, II. 13. 2), and the appointment of
coadjutors, as in the present case, formed another.
[1823] Of what city in Cappadocia Alexander was bishop we are not told
by Eusebius, nor by our other ancient authorities. Valesius (note on
this passage) and Tillemont (Hist. eccles. III. p. 415) give
Flaviopolis or Flaviadis as the name of the city (upon the authority
of Basilicon, Jur. Græco-Rom. Tom. I. p. 295, according to Tillemont).
But Flaviopolis was a city of Cilicia, and hence Tillemont conjectures
that it had once been taken from Cappadocia and attached to Cilicia,
and that its inhabitants retained the memory of Alexander, their early
bishop. The report seems to rest upon a very slender foundation; but
not having access to the authority cited, I am unable to form an
opinion as to the worth of the tradition.
[1824] euches kai ton topon historias heneken.
[1825] 'Antinoeia (Antinoë or Antinoöpolis) was a city of Egypt
founded by Hadrian in honor of Antinous (see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 3).
This is the first mention of a church there, but its bishops were
present at more than one council in later centuries (see Wiltsch's
Geography and Statistics, p. 59, 196, 473). This letter must have been
written between 212, at about which time Alexander became Narcissus'
coadjutor (see chap. 8, note 6), and 216, when Origen visited
Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23). For at the time of that visit
Alexander is said to have been bishop of Jerusalem, and no mention is
made of Narcissus, who must therefore have been already dead (see Bk.
V. chap. 12, note 1). The fragments of Alexander's epistles quoted in
this Chapter are given in Routh's Rel. Sacræ, II. p. 161 sq., and in
English in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 154.
[1826] On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
[1827] The Chron. puts the accession of Asclepiades in the first year
of Caracalla (211 a.d.). Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 47) believes
that this notice rests upon better knowledge than the notices of most
of the Antiochian bishops, because in this case the author departs
from the artificial scheme which he follows in the main. But Harnack
contends that the date is not quite correct, because Alexander, who
suffered under Severus, was still in prison when Asclepiades became
bishop, and therefore the latter's accession must be put back into
Severus' reign. He would fix, therefore, upon about 209 as the date of
it, rightly perceiving that there is good reason for thinking the
Chron. at least nearly correct in its report, and that in any case his
accession cannot be carried back much beyond that, because it is quite
probable (from the congratulations which Alexander extends to the
church of Antioch) that there had been a vacancy in that church for
some time after the death of Serapion (a thing not at all unnatural in
the midst of the persecutions of the time), while Serapion was still
alive as late as 203 (see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1). But it seems to me
that there is no good ground for making any alteration in the date
given by the Chron., for we know that at the very end of Severus'
reign the persecution broke out again with considerable severity, and
that it continued, at least in Africa, for some time after Caracalla's
accession (see Tertullian's ad Scap.). The general amnesty issued by
Caracalla after the murder of his brother Geta in 212 (see Dion
Cassius, LXXVII. 3) seems first to have put a definitive end to the
persecutions. There is therefore no ground for confining Alexander's
imprisonment to the reign of Severus. It may well have run into the
time of Caracalla, and hence it is quite possible that Asclepiades did
not become bishop until after the latter became emperor, so that it is
not necessary to correct the date of the Chron. It is impossible to
determine with certainty the length of Asclepiades' episcopate (see
chap. 21, note 6). Of Asclepiades himself we know no more than is told
us in this Chapter. He seems to have been a man of most excellent
character, to judge from Alexander's epistle. That epistle, of course,
was written immediately after Asclepiades' appointment.
[1828] Literally "confessions" (homologiais).
[1829] On Clement of Alexandria, see above, Bk. V. chap. 11.
[1830] kurioi mou adelphoi.
Chapter XII.--Serapion and his Extant Works.
1. It is probable that others have preserved other memorials of
Serapion's [1831] literary industry, [1832] but there have reached us
only those addressed to a certain Domninus, who, in the time of
persecution, fell away from faith in Christ to the Jewish
will-worship; [1833] and those addressed to Pontius and Caricus,
[1834] ecclesiastical men, and other letters to different persons, and
still another work composed by him on the so-called Gospel of Peter.
[1835]
2. He wrote this last to refute the falsehoods which that Gospel
contained, on account of some in the parish of Rhossus [1836] who had
been led astray by it into heterodox notions. It may be well to give
some brief extracts from his work, showing his opinion of the book. He
writes as follows:
3. "For we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as
Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to
them, knowing that such were not handed down to us.
4. When I visited you I supposed that all of you held the true faith,
and as I had not read the Gospel which they put forward under the name
of Peter, I said, If this is the only thing which occasions dispute
among you, let it be read. But now having learned, from what has been
told me, that their mind was involved in some heresy, I will hasten to
come to you again. Therefore, brethren, expect me shortly.
5. But you will learn, brethren, from what has been written to you,
that we perceived the nature of the heresy of Marcianus, [1837] and
that, not understanding what he was saying, he contradicted himself.
6. For having obtained this Gospel from others who had studied it
diligently, namely, from the successors of those who first used it,
whom we call Docetæ [1838] (for most of their opinions are connected
with the teaching of that school [1839] ) we have been able to read it
through, and we find many things in accordance with the true doctrine
of the Saviour, but some things added to that doctrine, which we have
pointed out for you farther on." So much in regard to Serapion.
Footnotes
[1831] On Serapion, see Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1.
[1832] The Greek reads: tou de Sarapionos tes peri logous askeseos kai
alla men eikos sozesthai par' eterois hupomnemata
[1833] Of this Domninus we know only what is told us here. It is
suggested by Daniell (in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. 630) that this
shows that the prohibition uttered by Severus against the Jews "must
have been soon relaxed, if it ever was enforced." But in regard to
this it must be said, in the first place, that Severus' decree was not
levelled against the Jews, but only against conversion to
Judaism,--against the fieri, not the esse, Judæos. The object of the
edict was not to disturb the Jews in the exercise of their national
faith, but to prevent their proselyting among the non-Jewish residents
of the empire. If Domninus, therefore, fell from Christianity into
Judaism on account of the persecution, it seems highly probable that
he was simply a converted Jew, who gave up now, in order to avoid
persecution, his new faith, and again practised the religion of his
fathers. Nothing, therefore, can be concluded from Domninus' case as
to the strictness with which Severus' law was carried out, even if we
suppose Domninus to have fallen from Christianity into Judaism. But it
must be remarked, in the second place, that it is by no means certain
that Eusebius means to say that Domninus fell into Judaism, or became
a Jew. He is said to have fallen into "Jewish will-worship"
(ekpeptokota epi ten 'Ioudaiken ethelothreskeian). The word
ethelothreskeia occurs for the first time in Col. ii. 23, and means
there an "arbitrary, self-imposed worship" (Ellicott), or a worship
which one "affects" (Cremer). The word is used there in connection
with the Oriental theosophic and Judaistic errors which were creeping
into the churches of Asia Minor at the time the epistle was written,
and it is quite possible that the word may be used in the present case
in reference to the same class of errors. We know that these
theosophizing and Judaizing tendencies continued to exert considerable
influence in Asia Minor and Syria during the early centuries, and that
the Ebionites and the Elcesaites were not the only ones affected by
them (see Harnack, Dogmengesch. I. 218 sq.). The lapse of any one into
Ebionism, or into a Judaizing Gnosticism, or similar form of heresy--a
lapse which cannot have been at all uncommon among the fanatical
Phrygians and other peoples of that section--might well be called a
lapse into "Jewish will-worship." We do not know where Domninus lived,
but it is not improbable that Asia Minor was his home, and that he may
have fallen under the influence of Montanism as well as of Ebionism
and Judaizing Gnosticism. I suggest the possibility that his lapse was
into heresy rather than into Judaism pure and simple, for the reason
that it is easier, on that ground, to explain the fact that Serapion
addressed a work to him. He is known to us only as an opponent of
heresy, and it may be that Domninus' lapse gave him an opportunity to
attack the heretical notions of these Ebionites, or other Judaizing
heretics, as he had attacked the Montanists. It seems to the writer,
also, that it is thus easier to explain the complex phrase used, which
seems to imply something different from Judaism pure and simple.
[1834] See Bk. V. chap. 19, note 4.
[1835] On the so-called "Gospel of Peter," see Bk. III. chap. 3, note
7.
[1836] Rhossus, or Rhosus, was a city of Syria, lying on the Gulf of
Issus, a little to the northwest of Antioch.
[1837] This Marcianus is an otherwise unknown personage, unless we are
to identify him, as Salmon suggests is possible, with Marcion. The
suggestion is attractive, and the reference to Docetæ gives it a show
of probability. But there are serious objections to be urged against
it. In the first place, the form of the name, Markianos instead of
Markion. The two names are by no means identical. Still, according to
Harnack, we have more than once Markianoi and Markianistai for
Markionistai (see his Quellenkritik d. Gesch. d. Gnosticismus, p. 31
sqq.). But again, how can Marcion have used, or his name been in any
way connected with, a Gospel of Peter? Finally, the impression left by
this passage is that "Marcianus" was a man still living, or at any
rate alive shortly before Serapion wrote, for the latter seems only
recently to have learned what his doctrines were. He certainly cannot
have been so ignorant of the teachings of the great "heresiarch"
Marcion. We must, in fact, regard the identification as improbable.
[1838] By Docetism we understand the doctrine that Christ had no true
body, but only an apparent one. The word is derived from dokeo, "to
seem or appear." The belief is as old as the first century (cf. 1 John
iv. 2; 2 John 7), and was a favorite one with most of the Gnostic
sects. The name Docetæ, however, as a general appellation for all
those holding this opinion, seems to have been used first by Theodoret
(Ep. 82). But the term was employed to designate a particular sect
before the end of the second century; thus Clement of Alexandria
speaks of them in Strom. VII. 17, and Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 8. 4,
and X. 12; Ante-Nicene Fathers, Amer. ed.), and it is evidently this
particular sect to which Serapion refers here. An examination of
Hippolytus' account shows that these Docetæ did not hold what we call
Docetic ideas of Christ's body; in fact, Hippolytus says expressly
that they taught that Christ was born, and had a true body from the
Virgin (see Phil. VIII. 3). How the sect came to adopt the name of
Docetæ we cannot tell. They seem to have disappeared entirely before
the fourth century, for no mention of them is found in Epiphanius and
other later heresiologists. As was remarked above, Theodoret uses the
term in a general sense and not as the appellation of a particular
sect, and this became the common usage, and is still. Whether there
was anything in the teaching of the sect to suggest the belief that
Christ had only an apparent body, and thus to lead to the use of their
specific name for all who held that view, or whether the general use
of the name Docetæ arose quite independently of the sect name, we do
not know. The latter seems more probable. The Docetæ referred to by
Hippolytus being a purely Gnostic sect with a belief in the reality of
Christ's body, we have no reason to conclude that the "Gospel of
Peter" contained what we call Docetic teaching. The description which
Serapion gives of the gospel fits quite well a work containing some
such Gnostic speculations as Hippolytus describes, and thus adding to
the Gospel narrative rather than denying the truth of it in any part.
He could hardly have spoken as he did of a work which denied the
reality of Christ's body. See, on the general subject, Salmon's
articles Docetæ and Docetism in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[1839] The interpretation of these last two clauses is beset with
difficulty. The Greek reads toutesti para ton diadochon ton
katarxamenon autou, ohus Doketas kaloumen, (ta gar phronemata ta
pleiona ekeinon esti tes didaskalias), k.t.l. The words ton
katarxamenon autou are usually translated "who preceded him," or "who
led the way before him"; but the phrase hardly seems to admit of this
interpretation, and moreover the autou seems to refer not to
Marcianus, whose name occurs some lines back, but to the gospel which
has just been mentioned. There is a difficulty also in regard to the
reference of the ekeinon, which is commonly connected with the words
tes didaskalias, but which seems to belong rather with the phronemata
and to refer to the diadochon ton katarxamenon. It thus seems
necessary to define the tes didaskalias more closely, and we therefore
venture, with Closs, to insert the words "of that school," referring
to the Docetæ just mentioned.
Chapter XIII.--The Writings of Clement. [1840]
1. All the eight Stromata of Clement are preserved among us, and have
been given by him the following title: "Titus Flavius Clement's
Stromata of Gnostic Notes on the True Philosophy." [1841]
2. The books entitled Hypotyposes [1842] are of the same number. In
them he mentions Pantænus [1843] by name as his teacher, and gives his
opinions and traditions.
3. Besides these there is his Hortatory Discourse addressed to the
Greeks; [1844] three books of a work entitled the Instructor; [1845]
another with the title What Rich Man is Saved? [1846] the work on the
Passover; [1847] discussions on Fasting and on Evil Speaking; [1848]
the Hortatory Discourse on Patience, or To Those Recently Baptized;
[1849] and the one bearing the title Ecclesiastical Canon, or Against
the Judaizers, [1850] which he dedicated to Alexander, the bishop
mentioned above.
4. In the Stromata, he has not only treated extensively [1851] of the
Divine Scripture, but he also quotes from the Greek writers whenever
anything that they have said seems to him profitable.
5. He elucidates the opinions of many, both Greeks and barbarians. He
also refutes the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and besides this,
reviews a large portion of history, giving us specimens of very
various learning; with all the rest he mingles the views of
philosophers. It is likely that on this account he gave his work the
appropriate title of Stromata. [1852]
6. He makes use also in these works of testimonies from the disputed
Scriptures, [1853] the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, [1854] and of
Jesus, the son of Sirach, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, [1855] and
those of Barnabas, [1856] and Clement [1857] and Jude. [1858]
7. He mentions also Tatian's [1859] Discourse to the Greeks, and
speaks of Cassianus [1860] as the author of a chronological work. He
refers to the Jewish authors Philo, [1861] Aristobulus, [1862]
Josephus, [1863] Demetrius, [1864] and Eupolemus, [1865] as showing,
all of them, in their works, that Moses and the Jewish race existed
before the earliest origin of the Greeks.
8. These books abound also in much other learning. In the first of
them [1866] the author speaks of himself as next after the successors
of the apostles.
9. In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis. [1867]
In his book on the Passover [1868] he acknowledges that he had been
urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the
traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the
same work he mentions Melito and Irenæus, and certain others, and
gives extracts from their writings.
Footnotes
[1840] On the life of Clement, see Bk. V. chap. 11, note 1. He was a
very prolific writer, as we can gather from the list of works
mentioned in this Chapter. The list is repeated by Jerome (de vir.
ill. c. 38) and by Photius (Cod. 109-111), the former of whom merely
copies from Eusebius, with some mistakes, while the latter copies from
Jerome, as is clear from the similar variations in the titles given by
the last two from those given by Eusebius, and also by the omission in
both their lists of one work named by Eusebius (see below, note 10).
Eusebius names ten works in this Chapter. In addition to these there
are extant two quotations from a work of Clement entitled peri
pronoias. There are also extant two fragments of a work peri psuches.
In the Instructor, Bk. II. chap. 10, Clement refers to a work On
Continence (ho peri enkrateias) as already written by himself, and
there is no reason to doubt that this was a separate work, for the
third book of the Stromata (to which Fabricius thinks he refers),
which treats of the same subject, was not yet written. The work is no
longer extant. In the Instructor, Bk. III. chap. 8, Clement speaks of
a work which he had written On Marriage (ho gamikos logos). It has
been thought possible that he may have referred here to his discussion
of the same subject in Bk. II. chap. 10 of the same work (see the
Bishop of Lincoln's work on Clement, p. 7), but it seems more probable
that he referred to a separate work now lost. Potter, p. 1022, gives a
fragment which is possibly from this work. In addition to these works,
referred to as already written, Clement promises to write on First
Principles (peri archon; Strom. III. 3, IV. 1, 13, V. 14, et al.); on
Prophecy (Strom. I. 24, IV. 13, V. 13); on Angels (Strom. VI. 13); on
the Origin of the World (Strom. VI. 18),--perhaps a part of the
proposed work on First Principles, and perhaps to be identified with
the commentary on Genesis, referred to below by Eusebius (see note
28),--Against Heresies (Strom. IV. 13), on the Resurrection
(Instructor, I. 6, II. 10). It is quite possible that Clement regarded
his promises as fulfilled by the discussions which he gives in various
parts of the Stromata themselves, or that he gave up his original
purpose.
[1841] Clement's three principal works, the Exhortation to the Greeks
(see below, note 5), the Instructor (note 6), and the Stromata, form a
connected series of works, related to one another (as Schaff says)
very much as apologetics, ethics, and dogmatics. The three works were
composed in the order named. The Stromata (Stromateis) or Miscellanies
(said by Eusebius in this passage to bear the title ton kata ten
alethe philosophian gnostikon hupomnemEURton stromateis) are said by
Eusebius and by Photius (Cod. 109) to consist of eight books. Only
seven are now extant, although there exists a fragment purporting to
be a part of the eighth book, but which is in reality a portion of a
treatise on logic, while in the time of Photius some reckoned the
tract Quis dives salvetur as the eighth book (Photius, Cod. 111).
There thus exists no uniform tradition as to the character of the lost
book, and the suggestion of Westcott seems plausible, that at an early
date the logical introduction to the Hypotyposes was separated from
the remainder of the work, and added to some mss. of the Stromata as
an eighth book. If this be true, the Stromata consisted originally of
only seven books, and hence we now have the whole work (with the
exception of a fragment lost at the beginning). The name Stromateis,
"patchwork," sufficiently indicates the character of the work. It is
without methodical arrangement, containing a heterogeneous mixture of
science, philosophy, poetry, and theology, and yet is animated by one
idea throughout,--that Christianity satisfies the highest intellectual
desires of man,--and hence the work is intended in some sense as a
guide to the deeper knowledge of Christianity, the knowledge to be
sought after by the "true Gnostic." It is full of rich thoughts
mingled with worthless crudities, and, like nearly all of Clement's
works, abounds in wide and varied learning, not always fully digested.
The date at which the work was composed may be gathered from a passage
in Bk. I. chap. 21, where a list of the Roman emperors is closed with
a mention of Commodus, the exact length of whose reign is given,
showing that he was already dead, but also showing apparently that his
successor was still living. This would lead us to put the composition
at least of the first book in the first quarter of the year 193. It
might of course be said that Pertinax and Didius Julianus are omitted
in this list because of the brevity of their reigns, and this is
possible, since in his own list he gives the reigns of the emperors
simply by years, omitting Otho and Vitellius. The other list which he
quotes, however, gives every emperor, with the number of years,
months, and even days of each reign, so that there is no reason, at
least in that list, for the omission of Pertinax and Didius Julianus.
It seems probable that, under the influence of that exact list, and of
the recentness of the reigns of the two emperors named, Clement can
hardly have omitted them if they had already ruled. We can say with
absolute certainty, however, only that the work was written after 192.
Clement left Alexandria in 202, or before, and this, as well as the
rest of his works, was written in all probability before that time at
the latest. The standard edition of Clement's works is that of Potter,
Oxford, 1715, in two vols. (reprinted in Migne's Patr. Gr., Vols.
VIII. and IX.). Complete English translation in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers, Amer. ed., Vol. II. On his writings, see especially
Westcott's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and for the
literature on the subject Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. 781.
[1842] The Hypotyposes (hupotuposeis), or Outlines (Eusebius calls
them hoi epigegrammenoi hupotuposeon autou logoi), are no longer
extant, though fragments have been preserved. The work (which was in
eight books, according to this passage) is referred to by Eusebius, in
Bk. I. chap. 12 (the fifth book), in Bk. II. chap. 1 (the sixth and
seventh books), in Bk. II. chaps. 9 and 23 (the seventh book), chap.
15 (the sixth book), in Bk. V. chap. 11, and in Bk. VI. chap. 14 (the
book not specified). Most of these extracts are of a historical
character, but have to do (most of them, not all) with the apostolic
age, or the New Testament. We are told in chap. 14 that the work
contained abridged accounts of all the Scriptures, but Photius (Cod.
109) says that it seems to have dealt only with Genesis, Exodus, the
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, the epistles of Paul, and the Catholic epistles
(ho de holos skopos hosanei hermeneiai tunchEURnousi tes Gegeseos
k.t.l.). Besides the detached quotations there are extant three series
of extracts which are supposed to have been taken from the
Hypotyposes. These are The Summaries from Theodotus, The Prophetic
Selections, and the Outlines on the Catholic Epistles. On these
fragments, which are very corrupt and desultory, see Westcott in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. They discuss all sorts of doctrines, and
contain the interpretations of the most various schools, and it is not
always clearly stated whether Clement himself adopts the opinion
given, or whether he is simply quoting from another for the purpose of
refuting him. Photius condemns parts of the Hypotyposes severely, but
it seems, from these extracts which we have, that he may have read the
work, full as it was of the heretical opinions of other men and
schools, without distinguishing Clement's own opinions from those of
others, and that thus he may carelessly have attributed to him all the
wild notions which he mentions. These extracts as well as the various
references of Eusebius show that the work, like most of the others
which Clement wrote, covered a great deal of ground, and included
discussions of a great many collateral subjects. It does not seem, in
fact, to have been much more systematic than the Instructor or even
the Stromata. It seems to have been intended as a part of the great
series, of which the Exhortation, Instructor, and Stromata were the
first three. If so, it followed them. We have no means of ascertaining
its date more exactly.
[1843] Pantænus, see above, Bk. V. chap. 10, note 1.
[1844] The Exhortation to the Greeks (ho logos protreptikos pros
;'Ellenas), the first of the series of three works mentioned in note
2, is still extant in its entirety. It is called by Jerome (de vir.
ill. chap. 38) Adversus Gentes, liber unus, but, as Westcott remarks,
it was addressed not to the Gentiles in general, but to the Greeks, as
its title and its contents alike indicate. The general aim of the book
is to "prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and
philosophies of heathendom," and thus to lead the unbeliever to accept
it. It is full of Greek mythology and speculation, and exhibits, as
Schaff says, almost a waste of learning. It was written before the
Instructor, as we learn from a reference to it in the latter (chap.
1). It is stated above (Bk. V. chap. 28, §4), by the anonymous writer
against the Artemonites, that Clement wrote (at least some of his
works) before the time of Victor of Rome (i.e. before 192 a.d.), and
hence Westcott concludes that this work was written about 190, which
cannot be far out of the way.
[1845] The Instructor (ho paidagogos, or, as Eusebius calls it here,
treis te oi tou epigegrammenou paidagogou), is likewise extant, in
three books. The work is chiefly of a moral and practical character,
designed to furnish the new convert with rules for the proper conduct
of his life over against the prevailing immoralities of the heathen.
Its date is approximately fixed by the fact that it was written after
the Exhortation to which it refers, and before the Stromata, which
refers to it (see Strom. VI. 1).
[1846] The Quis Dives Salvetur? as it is called (tis ho sozomenos
plousios), is a brief tract, discussing the words of Christ in Mark x.
17 sqq. It is still extant, and contains the beautiful story of John
and the robber, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 23. It is an
eloquent and able work; and when compared with the prevailing notions
of the Church of his day, its teaching is remarkably wise and
temperate. It is moderately ascetic, but goes to no extremes, and in
this furnishes a pleasing contrast to the writings of most of the
Fathers of Clement's time.
[1847] to peri tou pEURscha sungramma. This work is no longer extant,
nor had Photius seen it, although he reports that he had heard of it.
Two fragments of it are found in the Chronicon Paschale, and are given
by Potter. The work was composed, according to §9, below, at the
instigation of friends, who urged him to commit to writing the
traditions which he had received from the ancient presbyters. From Bk.
IV. chap. 26, we learn that it was written in reply to Melito's work
on the same subject (see notes 5 and 23 on that Chapter); and hence we
may conclude that it was undertaken at the solicitation of friends who
desired to see the arguments presented by Melito, as a representative
of the Quartodeciman practice, refined. The date of the work we have
no means of ascertaining, for Melito's work was written early in the
sixties (see ibid.).
[1848] dialexeis peri nesteias kai peri katalalias. Photius knew both
these works by report (the second under the title peri kakologias),
but had not seen them. Jerome calls the first de jejunio disceptatio,
the second de obtrectatione liber unus. Neither of them is now extant;
but fragments of the second have been preserved, and are given by
Potter.
[1849] ho protreptikos eis hupomonen e pros tous neosti
bebaptismenous. This work is mentioned neither by Jerome nor by
Photius, nor has any vestige of it been preserved, so far as we know.
[1850] ho epigegrammenos kanon ekklesiastikos, e pros tous
'Ioudaizontas. Jerome: de canonibus ecclesiasticis, et adversum eos,
qui Judæorum sequuntur errorum. Photius mentions the work; calling it
peri kanonon ekklesiastikon, but he had not himself seen it. It is no
longer extant, but a few fragments have been preserved, and are given
by Potter. Danz (De Eusebio, p. 90) refers to Clement's Stromata, lib.
VI. p. 803, ed. Potter, where he says that "the ecclesiastical canon
is the agreement or disagreement of the law and the prophets with the
testament given at the coming of Christ." Danz concludes accordingly
that in this work Clement wished to show to those who believed that
the teaching of the law and the prophets was not only different from,
but superior to the teachings of the Christian faith,--that is, to the
Judaizers,--that the writers of the Old and New Testaments were in
full harmony. This might do, were it not for the fact that the work is
directed not against Jews, but against Judaizers, i.e. Judaizing
Christians. A work to prove the Old and New Testament in harmony with
each other could hardly have been addressed to such persons, who must
have believed them in harmony before they became Christians. The truth
is, the phrase kanon ekklesiastikos is used by the Fathers with a
great variety of meanings, and the fact that Clement used it in one
sense in one of his works by no means proves that he always used it in
the same sense. It is more probable that the work was devoted to a
discussion of certain practices or modes of living in which the
Judaizers differed from the rest of the Church Catholic, perhaps in
respect to feasts (might a reference to the Quartodeciman practice
have been perhaps included?), fasts and other ascetic practices,
observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, &c. This use of the word in the
sense of regula was very common (see Suicer's Thesaurus). The work was
dedicated, according to Eusebius, to the bishop Alexander, mentioned
above in chap. 8 and elsewhere. This is sufficient evidence that it
was written considerably later than the three great works already
referred to. Alexander was a student of Clement's; and since he was
likewise a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note 6), his student
days under Clement must have extended at least nearly to the time when
Clement left Alexandria (i.e. in or before 202. a.d.). But Clement of
course cannot have dedicated a work to him while he was still his
pupil, and in fact we shall be safe in saying that Alexander must have
gained some prominence before Clement would be led to dedicate a work
to him. We think naturally of the period which Clement spent with him
while he was in prison and before he became bishop of Jerusalem (see
chap. 11). It is quite possible that Clement's residence in Cappadocia
with Alexander had given him such an acquaintance with Judaizing
heresies and practices that he felt constrained to write against them,
and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander
that he dedicated his work to him.
[1851] Literally, "made a spreading" (katEURstrosin pepoietai).
Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work (Stromateis).
[1852] See note 2.
[1853] antilegomenon graphon. On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap
25, note 1.
[1854] The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old
Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three centuries
made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the
Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without
exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is true that
catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which
separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this
represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even
themselves from using both classes as Scripture. Augustine went so far
as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory
as well as in practice. The only one of the early Fathers to make a
decided stand against the Apocrypha was Jerome; but he was not able to
change the common view, and the Church continued (as the Catholic
Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions)
as Holy Scripture.
[1855] On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.
[1856] On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
[1857] The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.
[1858] On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.
[1859] On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.
[1860] This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I.
21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of
showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the
Greeks, and refers to Cassian's Exegetica and Tatian's Address to the
Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom.
III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of
the Docetæ, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate
(peri enkrateias e peri eunouchias), in which he condemned marriage.
Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these
references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity,
and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which
the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4).
Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with
him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not know,
nor can we fix the date at which he lived. Neither of his works
referred to by Clement is now extant. Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 38)
mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had
not been able to find a copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the
passage referred to here by Eusebius, 'Exegetikoi, and so Eusebius
calls it in his Præf. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But
here he speaks of it as a chronographia, and Jerome transcribes the
word without translating it. We can gather from Clement's words
(Strom. I. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with
chronology, and hence Eusebius' reference to it under the name
chronographia is quite legitimate.
[1861] On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.
[1862] The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and
Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius
referred to below), who lived in the second century b.c., and was the
author of Commentaries upon the Mosaic Law, the chief object of which
was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of
Moses (see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers only to Peripatetic
philosophy, which is too narrow). The work is referred to by Clement
of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V. 14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius
(in his Præp. Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by
Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by
other Fathers. The work is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two
considerable fragments of it in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII.
12. See Schürer's Gesch. d. jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p.
760 sq. Schürer maintains the authenticity of the work against the
attacks of many modern critics.
[1863] On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.
[1864] Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the
third century b.c., a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture
records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius is
mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen;
contra Apionem, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius. His
work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement
(Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See
Schürer, ibid. p. 730 sq.
[1865] Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the
middle of the second century b.c., and is possibly to be identified
with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17. He wrote a History
of the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that
mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three
separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schürer has
shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to
show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see
Clement's Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have
been preserved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. I. 21, which gives us
data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and
by Eusebius (Præp. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30-34, and probably 39). See
Schürer ibid. p. 732 sq.
[1866] Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement's Stromata.
In saying that Clement hon en to proto peri heautou deloi hos zngista
tes ton apostolon genomenou diadoches, he was perhaps thinking of the
passage in Strom. I. 1, where Clement says, "They [i.e. his teachers],
preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly
from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons
receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by
God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds."
Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were
immediate disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the
traditions of the apostles in direct descent from their immediate
disciples. Eusebius' words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to
imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples
of the apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and
can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability
born too late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.
[1867] In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin
of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On
Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is
thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises eis ten
Genesin hupomnematieisthein. If so, Eusebius' words, which imply that
Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.
[1868] On this work, see note 8.
Chapter XIV.--The Scriptures mentioned by Him.
1. To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes [1869] abridged
accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books,
[1870] --I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas
[1871] and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter. [1872]
2. He says that the Epistle to the Hebrews [1873] is the work of Paul,
and that it was written to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language; but
that Luke translated it carefully and published it for the Greeks, and
hence the same style of expression is found in this epistle and in the
Acts.
3. But he says that the words, Paul the Apostle, were probably not
prefixed, because, in sending it to the Hebrews, who were prejudiced
and suspicious of him, he wisely did not wish to repel them at the
very beginning by giving his name.
4. Farther on he says: "But now, as the blessed presbyter said, since
the Lord being the apostle of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews,
Paul, as sent to the Gentiles, on account of his modesty did not
subscribe himself an apostle of the Hebrews, through respect for the
Lord, and because being a herald and apostle of the Gentiles he wrote
to the Hebrews out of his superabundance."
5. Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the
earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following
manner:
6. The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written
first. The Gospel according to Mark [1874] had this occasion. As Peter
had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the
Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed
him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested
it.
7. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor
encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external
[1875] facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his
friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel."
[1876] This is the account of Clement.
8. Again the above-mentioned Alexander, [1877] in a certain letter to
Origen, refers to Clement, and at the same time to Pantænus, as being
among his familiar acquaintances. He writes as follows:
"For this, as thou knowest, was the will of God, that the ancestral
friendship existing between us should remain unshaken; nay, rather
should be warmer and stronger.
9. For we know well those blessed fathers who have trodden the way
before us, with whom we shall soon be; [1878] Pantænus, the truly
blessed man and master, and the holy Clement, my master and
benefactor, and if there is any other like them, through whom I became
acquainted with thee, the best in everything, my master and brother."
[1879]
10. So much for these matters. But Adamantius, [1880] --for this also
was a name of Origen,--when Zephyrinus [1881] was bishop of Rome,
visited Rome, "desiring," as he himself somewhere says, "to see the
most ancient church of Rome."
11. After a short stay there he returned to Alexandria. And he
performed the duties of catechetical instruction there with great
zeal; Demetrius, who was bishop there at that time, urging and even
entreating him to work diligently for the benefit of the brethren.
[1882]
Footnotes
[1869] See the previous Chapter, note 3.
[1870] On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon
in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.
[1871] On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.
[1872] On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.
[1873] On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3,
note 17.
[1874] On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15,
note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter's attitude
toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in §2 of that
Chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).
[1875] ta somatikEUR.
[1876] See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.
[1877] Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.
[1878] We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of
this epistle both Pantænus and Clement were dead. The latter was still
alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11), i.e.
about the year 211 (see note 5 on that Chapter). How much longer he
lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must of course have
been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211, and hence while
Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expression "with whom we shall
soon be" (pros hous met' oligon esometha) seems to imply that the
epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life,
but this cannot be pressed.
[1879] It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a
student of Clement's and a fellow-pupil of Origen's (see chap. 8, note
6, and chap. 2, note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but
the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.
[1880] The name Adamantius ('AdamEURntios from adEURmas
unconquerable,hence hard, adamantine) is said by Jerome (Ep. ad
Paulam, §3; Migne's ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him on account
of his untiring industry, by Photius (Cod. 118) on account of the
invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 74)
to have been vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius' simple statement
at this point looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which
belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his
character. We know that two names were very common in that age. This
opinion is adopted by Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others,
although many still hold the opposite view. Another name,
Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the epistle already referred
to, was undoubtedly, as we can see from the context, applied to him by
Jerome, because of his resemblance to Didymus of Alexandria (who bore
that surname) in his immense industry as an author.
[1881] On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. He
was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives considerable
range for the date of Origen's visit to Rome, which we have no means
of fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing that
Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during
Caracalla's reign (211-217). On the other hand, it must have taken
place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time. Whether Origen's
visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome,
as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot
tell.
[1882] On Demetrius' relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.
Chapter XV.--Heraclas. [1883]
1. But when he saw that he had not time for the deeper study of divine
things, and for the investigation and interpretation of the Sacred
Scriptures, and also for the instruction of those who came to
him,--for coming, one after another, from morning till evening to be
taught by him, they scarcely gave him time to breathe,--he divided the
multitude. And from those whom he knew well, he selected Heraclas, who
was a zealous student of divine things, and in other respects a very
learned man, not ignorant of philosophy, and made him his associate in
the work of instruction. He entrusted to him the elementary training
of beginners, but reserved for himself the teaching of those who were
farther advanced.
Footnotes
[1883] On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.
Chapter XVI.--Origen's Earnest Study of the Divine Scriptures.
1. So earnest and assiduous was Origen's research into the divine
words that he learned the Hebrew language, [1884] and procured as his
own the original Hebrew Scriptures which were in the hands of the
Jews. He investigated also the works of other translators of the
Sacred Scriptures besides the Seventy. [1885] And in addition to the
well-known translations of Aquila, [1886] Symmachus, [1887] and
Theodotion, [1888] he discovered certain others which had been
concealed from remote times,--in what out-of-the-way corners I know
not,--and by his search he brought them to light. [1889]
2. Since he did not know the authors, he simply stated that he had
found this one in Nicopolis near Actium [1890] and that one in some
other place.
3. In the Hexapla [1891] of the Psalms, after the four prominent
translations, he adds not only a fifth, but also a sixth and seventh.
[1892] He states of one of these that he found it in a jar in Jericho
in the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus.
4. Having collected all of these, he divided them into sections, and
placed them opposite each other, with the Hebrew text itself. He thus
left us the copies of the so-called Hexapla. He arranged also
separately an edition of Aquila and Symmachus and Theodotion with the
Septuagint, in the Tetrapla. [1893]
Footnotes
[1884] Origen's study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome (de
vir. ill. chap. 54), was "contrary to the custom of his day and race,"
is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowledge of it
as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted
himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts
of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for
polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now
universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly
supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to
identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he
used, and even in this he often makes mistakes. He sometimes confesses
openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew
(e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4). He often makes blunders which seem
absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in
regard to peculiar forms and idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly
fragmentary and acquired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p.
365 sq.
[1885] On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.
[1886] Aquila is first mentioned by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1,
quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish
proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus. Tradition is
uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time
of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to
Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek translation of the Old
Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original,
sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even
violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of
reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because of its faithfulness
to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and
became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX. (On the
causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.)
Neither Aquila's version, nor the two following, are now extant; but
numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and
used Origen's Hexapla.
[1887] Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the next Chapter, to have
been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. in Hab., lib.
II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact
that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite (see next note). It
has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but
Eusebius' direct statement is too strong to be set aside, and is
corroborated by certain indications in the version itself, e.g. in
Dan. ix. 26, where the word christos, which Aquila avoids, is used.
The composition of his version is assigned by Epiphanius and the
Chron. paschale to the reign of Septimius Severus (193-211); and
although not much reliance is to be placed upon their statements,
still they must be about right in this case, for that Symmachus'
version is younger than Irenæus is rendered highly probable by the
latter's omission of it where he refers to those of Theodotion and
Aquila; and, on the other hand, it must of course have been composed
before Origen began his Hexapla. Symmachus' version is distinguished
from Aquila's by the purity of its Greek and its freedom from
Hebraisms. The author's effort was not slavishly to reproduce the
original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and
in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both
languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the
Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic
prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome, and
was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate. For further
particulars in regard to Symmachus' version, see the Dict. of Christ.
Biog. III. p. 19 sq.
[1888] It has been disputed whether Theodotion was a Jew or a
Christian. Jerome (de vir. ill. 54, and elsewhere) calls him an
Ebionite; in his Ep. ad Augustin. c. 19 (Migne's ed. Ep. 112), a Jew;
while in the preface to his commentary on Daniel he says that some
called him an Ebionite, qui altero genere Judæus est. Irenæus (Adv.
Hær. III. 21. 1) and Epiphanius (de mens. et pond. 17) say that he was
a Jewish proselyte, which is probably true. The reports in regard to
his nationality are conflicting. The time at which he lived is
disputed. The Chron. paschale assigns him to the reign of Commodus,
and Epiphanius may also be urged in support of that date, though he
commits a serious blunder in making a second Commodus, and is thus led
into great confusion. But Theodotion, as well as Aquila, is mentioned
by Irenæus, and hence must be pushed back well into the second
century. It has been discovered, too, that Hermas used his version
(see Hort's article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular,
December, 1884), which obliges us to throw it back still further, and
Schürer has adduced some very strong reasons for believing it older
than Aquila's version (see Schürer's Gesch. d. Juden im Zeitalter
Jesu, II. p. 709). Theodotion's version, like Aquila's, was intended
to reproduce the Hebrew more exactly than the LXX did. It is based
upon the LXX, however, which it corrects by the Hebrew, and therefore
resembles the former much more closely than Theodotion's does. We have
no notices of the use of this version by the Jews. Aquila's version
(supposing it younger than Theodotion's) seems to have superseded it
entirely. Theodotion's translation of Daniel, however, was accepted by
the Christians, instead of the LXX Daniel, and replacing the latter in
all the mss. of the LXX, has been preserved entire. Aside from this we
have only such fragments as have been preserved by the Fathers that
saw and used the Hexapla. It will be seen that the order in which
Eusebius mentions the three versions here is not chronological. He
simply follows the order in which they stand in Origen's Hexapla (see
below, note 8). Epiphanius is led by that order to make Theodotion's
version later than the other, which is quite a mistake, as has been
seen. For further particulars in regard to the versions of Aquila and
Theodotion, and for the literature of the subject, see Schürer, ibid.
p. 704 sq.
[1889] We know very little about these anonymous Greek versions of the
Old Testament. Eusebius' words ("which had been concealed from remote
times," ton pEURlai lanthanousas chronon) would lead us to think them
older than the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. One of
them, Eusebius tells us, was found at Nicopolis near Actium, another
in a jar at Jericho, but where the third was discovered he did not
know. Jerome (in his Prologus in expos. Cant. Cant. sec. Originem;
Origen's works, ed. Lommatzsch, XIV. 235) reports that the "fifth
edition" (quinta editio) was found in Actio litore; but Epiphanius,
who seems to be speaking with more exact knowledge than Jerome, says
that the "fifth" was discovered at Jericho and the "sixth" in
Nicopolis, near Actium (De mens. et pond. 18). Jerome calls the
authors of the "fifth" and "sixth" Judaïcos translatores, which
according to his own usage might mean either Jews or Jewish Christians
(see Redepenning, p. 165), and at any rate the author of the "sixth"
was a Christian, as is clear from his rendering of Heb. iii. 13:
exelthes tou sosai ton laon sou dia 'Iesou tou christou. The "fifth"
is quoted by Origen on the Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, minor
prophets, Kings, &c.; the "sixth," on the Psalms, Song of Songs, and
Habakkuk, according to Field, the latest editor of the Hexapla.
Whether these versions were fragmentary, or were used only in these
particular passages for special reasons, we do not know. Of the
"seventh" no clear traces can be discovered, but it must have been
used for the Psalms at any rate, as we see from this Chapter. As to
the time when these versions were found we are doubtless to assign the
discovery of the one at Nicopolis near Actium to the visit made by
Origen to Greece in 231 (see below, p. 396). Epiphanius, who in the
present case seems to be speaking with more than customary accuracy,
puts its discovery into the time of the emperor Alexander (222-235).
The other one, which Epiphanius calls the "fifth," was found,
according to him, in the seventh year of Caracalla's reign (217) "in
jars at Jericho." We know that at this time Origen was in Palestine
(see chap. 19, note 23), and hence Epiphanius' report may well be
correct. If it is, he has good reason for calling the latter the
"fifth," and the former the "sixth." The place and time of the
discovery of the "seventh" are alike unknown. For further particulars
in regard to these versions, see the prolegomena to Field's edition of
the Hexapla, the article Hexapla in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., and
Redepenning, II. 164 sq.
[1890] Nicopolis near Actium, so designated to distinguish it from a
number of other cities bearing the same name, was a city of Epirus,
lying on the northern shore of the Ambracian gulf, opposite the
promontory of Actium.
[1891] Origen's Hexapla (ta hexapla, to hexaploun, to hexaselidon, the
first form being used by Eusebius in this Chapter) was a polyglot Old
Testament containing the Hebrew text, a transliteration of it in Greek
letters (important because the Hebrew text was unpointed), the
versions of Aquila, of Symmachus, of the LXX, and of Theodotion,
arranged in six columns in the order named, with the addition in
certain places of a fifth, sixth, and even seventh Greek version (see
Jerome's description of it, in his Commentary on Titus, chap. 3, ver.
9). The parts which contained these latter versions were sometimes
called Octapla (they seem never to have borne the name nonapla.) The
order of the columns was determined by the fact that Aquila's version
most closely resembled the Hebrew, and hence was put next to it,
followed by Symmachus' version, which was based directly upon the
Hebrew, but was not so closely conformed to it; while Theodotion's
version, which was based not upon the Hebrew, but upon the LXX,
naturally followed the latter. Origen's object in undertaking this
great work was not scientific, but polemic; it was not for the sake of
securing a correct Hebrew text, but for the purpose of furnishing
adequate means for the reconstruction of the original text of the LXX,
which in his day was exceedingly corrupt. It was Origen's belief, and
he was not alone in his opinion (cf. Justin Martyr's Dial. with
Trypho, chap. 71), that the Hebrew Old Testament had been seriously
altered by the Jews, and that the LXX (an inspired translation, as it
was commonly held to be by the Christians) alone represented the true
form of Scripture. For two centuries before and more than a century
after Christ the LXX stood in high repute among the Jews, even in
Palestine, and outside of Palestine had almost completely taken the
place of the original Hebrew. Under the influence of its universal use
among the Jews the Christians adopted it, and looked upon it as
inspired Scripture just as truly as if it had been in the original
tongue. Early in the second century (as Schürer points out) various
causes were at work to lessen its reputation among the Jews. Chief
among these were first, the growing conservative reaction against all
non-Hebraic culture, which found its culmination in the Rabbinic
schools of the second century; and second, the ever-increasing
hostility to Christianity. The latter cause tended to bring the LXX
into disfavor with the Jews, because it was universally employed by
the Christians, and was cited in favor of Christian doctrines in many
cases where it differed from the Hebrew text, which furnished less
support to the particular doctrine defended. It was under the
influence of this reaction against the LXX, which undoubtedly began
even before the second century, that the various versions already
mentioned took their rise. Aquila especially aimed to keep the Hebrew
text as pure as possible, while making it accessible to the
Greek-speaking Jews, who had hitherto been obliged to rely upon the
LXX. It will be seen that the Christians and the Jews, who originally
accepted the same Scriptures, would gradually draw apart, the one
party still holding to the LXX, the other going back to the original;
and the natural consequence of this was that the Jews taunted the
Christians with using only a translation which did not agree with the
original, and therefore was of no authority, while the Christians, on
the other hand, accused the Jews of falsifyng their Scriptures, which
should agree with the more pure and accurate LXX. Under these
circumstances, Origen conceived the idea that it would be of great
advantage to the Christians, in their polemics against the Jews, to
know more accurately than they did the true form of the LXX text, and
the extent and nature of its variations from the Hebrew. As the matter
stood everything was indefinite, for no one knew to exactly what
extent the two differed, and no one knew, in the face of the numerous
variant texts, the precise form of the LXX itself (cf. Redepenning,
II. p. 156 sq.). The Hebrew text given by Origen seems to have been
the vulgar text, and to have differed little from that in use to-day.
With the LXX it was different. Here Origen made a special effort to
ascertain the most correct text, and did not content himself with
giving simply one of the numerous texts extant, for he well knew that
all were more or less corrupt. But his method was not to throw out of
the text all passages not well supported by the various witnesses, but
rather to enrich the text from all available sources, thus making it
as full as possible. Wherever, therefore, the Hebrew contained a
passage omitted in the LXX, he inserted in the latter the translation
of the passage, taken from one of the other versions, marking the
addition with "obeli"; and wherever, on the other hand, the fullest
LXX text which he had contained more than the Hebrew and the other
versions combined, he allowed the redundant passage to stand, but
marked it with asterisks. The Hexapla as a whole seems never to have
been reproduced, but the LXX text as contained in the fifth column was
multiplied many times, especially under the direction of Pamphilus and
Eusebius (who had the original ms. at Cæsarea), and this recension
came into common use. It will be seen that Origen's process must have
wrought great confusion in the text of the LXX; for future copyists,
in reproducing the text given by Origen, would be prone to neglect the
critical signs, and give the whole as the correct form of the LXX; and
critical editors to-day find it very difficult to reach even the form
of the LXX text used by Origen. The Hexapla is no longer extant. When
the Cæsarean ms. of it perished we do not know. Jerome saw it, and
made large use of it, but after his time we have no further trace of
it, and it probably perished with the rest of the Cæsarean library
before the end of the seventh century