CHAPTER XI
I12
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[II. ro. a chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could not refrain from weeping himself.
And after suffering continually
for five days with pain in the bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign."
Four years he ruled under the Emperor Caius — three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was added in the fourth year that of Herod"
—and three years during the reign of the Emperor Claudius." it had once been the cause of good fortune,® and he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.
And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence, seized his bowels.
And looking upon his friends he said, '1, your god, am now commanded to depart this life ; and fate thus vf on the spot disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me.
He who has been called immortal by you is now led away to die ; but our destiny must be accepted as God has determined it.
For we have passed our life by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor
which is pronounced happiness.'® And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain.
He was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread among all that the king would undoubtedly soon
I marvel greatly that Josephus, in these
things as well as in others, so fully agrees with the divine Scriptures.
But if there should seem to any one to be a disagreement in respect to the name of the king, the time at least and the events show that the same person is meant, whether the change of name has been caused by the error of a copyist, or is due to the fact that he, like so many, bore two names." die.
But the multitude, with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was filled with lamentation and tears2° And the king as he lay in a lofty
CHAPTER XI.
in which, so far as he recollects, 'a s7ucerttatis via paululum de_flexit noster', and even here the indictment cannot be made good.
The Impostor Theudas and his Followers.
The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii. 21, are altogether unjustifiable'? (Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biog. U1. p.
325).
The Greek word BovBwy means, according to Liddell and Sontt, (1) the groin, (2) a swelling in the groin.
The Latin word Bzéo signifies '' an owl,"' and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the Latin into Greek without any explanation, 'A scribe unacquainted with Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests.
In Azz. XVIII.
6,7, where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure, explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a copyist of Luxe, in the Acts, introduces Gamaliel
as saying, at the consultation which was held concerning the apostles, that at the time referred to,! "rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody; who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered."* Let us therefore add the account of Josephus concerning thisman.
He records in the work mentioned just above, the following circumstances :® "While Fadus was procurator of Judea*a certain impostor called Theudas ° persuaded
Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had probably never seen that explanation.
Whiston in his translation of Josephus inserts a note to the following effect:
'' We have a mighty cry made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the parallel account in the 'Acts of the Apostles, because the present copies of his citation of it,
Hist. Eccles. Bk. Il. chap. 10, omit the words BovBova... ém
gYoviov, Tivos, i.e. 'an owl... on a certain rope,' which Josephus' present copies retain, and only have the explanatory word ayyedov, or 'angel,' as if he meant that 'angel of the Lord' which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not that owl, which Josephus called 'an angel or messenger, ipauetly of 41 He was born in ro B.c., and began to reign as successor of Pkilip and Lysanias in 37 A.D.
See above, chap. 4, note 3.
12 Herod Antipas.
13 Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name, while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa.
He is known to us under the name of Herod Agrippa I.
It seems strange that Eusebius should not have known that he bore the two names,
Herod Agrippa, instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does.
In the heading cf the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he entertained any uncertainty in the matter. good but now of bad news,' to Agrippa.
This accusation 1s a somewhat strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient records Sod psriculaaty not a few out of our Josephus also, without any suspicion of prevarication,
Now, not to allege how uncertain we are, whether Josephus' and Eusebius' copies of the fourth century were just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not admit of any such exposition.
' This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of good fortune'; which can belong only to that bird the 'owl,' which, as it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Axz, XVIII. 6.
7, so was it then brateld to prove afterward the unhappy forewarner of his death in five days' time.
If the improper word attvoy, or ' cause,' be changed for Josephus' proper word ayyeAov, ' angel,' or 'messenger,' and the foregoing words, Bov3ava emi cxouviov tivos, be inserted, Eusebius' text will truly represent that in Josephus."
1 kata Tov SnAovmevov xpévor, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's see But Luke writes mpo yap TrovTwy tay nuephr, "' Before these ays.
2 Acts v. 36.
3 Josephus, Ant. XX, 5. 1.
4 About 44 a.p.
See above, chap.
8, note 2.
'5 There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has caused much dispute.
The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that.
Various solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true.
Compare Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zettalters, p. 138, noter; Ewald's Gesch. des Yiidischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's
8 Josephus (A x2. XVIIL. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was {n chains — having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius — an owl made its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. fellow-prisoner interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird would appear to him again five days before his death.
Tiberius died in the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass.
The story was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good faith.
Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. 1]. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts 27 doco.
A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius' conduct in the case.
He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas of Josephus, — an identification which is im9 The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the MSS. of Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read eri THs maxaptCouevns Aaumpotytos, which I have adopted in preference to the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good MSS. in substituting waxaptorntos for Aaumpotntos.
Dossibie, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy.
Eusebius as consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts.
But a protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius.
A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a glaring anachronism — an anach10 This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the fnvor of the Jews.
A far different feeling was shown at his death from that exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.
II. 13.)
SIMON MAGUS.
a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan.
For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and afford
CHAPTER XIII.
Simon Magus Bur faith in our Saviour and Lord Jesus
Christ having now been diffused among all men," the enemy of man's salvation contrived a plan for seizing the imperial city for himself.
He conducted thither the above-mentioned Simon,' aided him in his deceitful arts, led many of the inhabitants of Rome astray, and thus brought them into his own power.
This is
stated by Justin,' one of our distinguished writers who lived not long after the time of the apostles.
Concerning him I shall speak in the proper place.'
Take and read the work of this them an easy passage.
And with these
words he deceived many.
But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took
Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem."
Besides this he also makes mention of the famine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, in the following words.
CHAPTER XII.
_§ Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris, Lycus, and the Gordizan Mountains (see Fin Cassius,
LXVIII.), but before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. WV.
VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6).
Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
Flelen, the Queen of the Osrhenians.
1« AnD at this time? it came to pass that the great famine ® took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen,* having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the 1 It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius' H/story are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen tools.
Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, more- — over, it is highly probable that he did not have access to any of their works.
The accounts of the heretics given by Irenzus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church.
The sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way and very likely for the same reason.
2 See chap. 3, note 1.
3 Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts vili. 9 sqq.
(quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in earl Church history.
His life has oes so greatly embellished wit legends that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him.
Indeed the Tiibingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have denied: altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved the account of him into a yee Christian fiction produced in hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked as the real heretic.
But this identification of Paul and Simon rests upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer of the Recognitions.
The most that can be said is that the author of the HomzZies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article, Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. 1. p. 576).
The original of Simon then is not to be foundin Paul. The third century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him among all parties in the Church.
Salmon considers Simon of Gitton— the basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon legends —a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in the Acts (see his excellent article Siizon Magus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. \V. p. 681 sqq.).
In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all directions, while
Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by suicide.
His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below).
For ancient accounts cf Simon, see Justin Martyr, Afo/. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c. Trypho.
CXX.: the Pseudo-Clementine Homelies and Recognitions ; Irenzus, I.
23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian's Apology, On Idolatry, On the Soni, etc.; Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.; Arnobius,
Adv. Gentes, Il. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq-); Epineedy."
You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, "each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea ; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by
the hands of Barnabas and Paul."*® But splendid monuments® of this Helen, of whom the historian has made mention, are still shown in the suburbs of the city which is now called Aélia.'7
But she is said to have been queen of the Adiabeni.® ronism which every reader had the means of exposing —for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the narrative of Luke.
Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would not have required. a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover in the ages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible reconciliation. he only reasonable explanation of Eusebius' anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions .of chronology.
He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
1 pee cape Ant. XX. 5. 2.
In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander 3 Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of his Axt., chap. 2, § 54 voor gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son Izates in the An¢. XX. 2.
Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor.
Both Izates and Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the distress, and was seconded in ber benefactions by herson.
After their death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and buried just outside of the walls, where
Helen had erected three pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).
5 Acts xi. 29,30.
The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul.
But the change yy Eusebius is a very natural one.
6 '' Pausanias (7% Arcadicizs) speaks of these great monuments of Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus.
Jerome, too, testifies that they were standing in his time.
Helen had besides a palace in Jerusalem" (Stroth).
7 Alia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6), phanius, Her. XXI.; and Theodoret, Her. Fab. 1. 1.
See also Lipsius, article in Schinkel's Brbe/-Lexicon, Vol. V.
4 In his AZology, I. 26, 56.
5 In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18,
I14
THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.
[lis3135 Justin relates these things, and Irenzeus also
agrees with him in the first book of his work, Against Heresies, where he gives an account of the man and of his profane and impure teaching. It would be superfluous to quote his account here, for it is possible for those who wish to know the origin and the lives and the false doctrines of each of the heresiarchs that have followed him, as well as the customs practiced by them all, to find them treated at length in the above-mentioned work of Ireneus.
have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy.
From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life.
But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced ; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.
But those matters which they keep
more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded, are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness."
Forwhat-
ever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest thing — all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices. man, who in the first Apology ® which he addressed to Antonine in behalf of our religion writes
as follows:' "And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven the demons put forward certain men who said they were gods, and who were not only allowed by you to go unpersecuted, but were even deemed worthy of honors.
One of them was Simon, a Samaritan of the village of Gitto,' who in the reign of Claudius Ceesar® performed in your imperial city some mighty acts of magic by the art of demons operating in him, and was considered a god, and as a god was honored by you with a statue, which was erected in the river Tiber," between the two bridges, and bore this inscription in the Latin tongue, Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, Zo Simon the Holy God."
And nearly all the Samaritans and a few even of other nations confess and worship him as the first
God.
And there went around with him at that time a certain Helena" who had formerly been a prostitute in Tyre of Phoenicia; and her they call the first idea that proceeded from him.""
& 6 On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2 7 Justin's Afology, I. 26.
8 Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapolis (the modern Nablus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of Kuryet Jit (see Robinson's Bzblical Researches, Ml. p. 144, note).
Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the reason that Josephus (A#¢. XXII. 7.2) mentions a magician named
Simon, of about the same date, who was born in Cyprus.
There was a town called Kirvov in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this place for the Samaritan Gitton.
But even if we assume the identity of the two Simons, as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own country, than that Josephus was.
Simon's activity may have extended to Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his birthplace.
® Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.D.), as Irenzeus also does.
Other accounts assign it to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death; suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are reported in different traditions.
All, however, agree that he visited Rome at some time or another.
10 That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name
Isola Tiberiana, or di? S. Sebastiano.
11 In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Sesmonz Sanco deo fidio, &c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue was erected to the Sabine divinity
Semo Sancus.
It is therefore highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus.
This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am. ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin in his AZo/. 56, and also by Irenzus, I. 23. r (who, however, simply says "It is said," and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin Martyr) and by Tertullian, ie chap. 13.
The last named is in general a poor authority, even if he be independent of Justin at this point, which is not probable. Eippolrae who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the statue, and his silence is a strong argument against it. emanated, These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the different systems.
Irenzus adv. Her. I. 23.
15 See note 3, above.
16 PauBwOyjcer Oar, _ 11 This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom icture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and renzus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the purpose of exposing these absurdities.
It is treated by none of them as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense.
This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject.
Neander was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since that time the subject has been treated intelli- "pee and discriminatingly by ae writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius,
12 A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenzus, I. 23 ; by Hippolytus, VI. t5 (who adds some important particulars); by Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Her. 21; and by Theodoret, Her. Fab. 1.1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsunt, V. 62.
Simon taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence,
&c. The Simonians, according to Irenzeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus ightfoot, Salmon, and especially Harnack, who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else.
See his Dogmengeschichte, 1. p. 158 sqq.
_ 38 This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the Carpocratians, &c.
But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see below, IV. x1, note 24), Saturninus, Tatian, &c., went to the opposite extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism.
Underlying both of these extremes we perceive the same principle—a dualism of matter and spirit, therefore of body and mind —the former considered as the work of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused; the latter as divine, and therefore to be honored above all else.
The abhorrence of the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of the two opposite results, asceticism or antinomianism, according to the character and instincts of the person himself.
See Schaff, Church Hist. 11. p. 457 sqq.
The Fathers in their hatred of all forms of heresy, naturally saw no good in any
(VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored as Jupiter and Minerva.
Simon's doctrines and practice, as recorded by these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of Gnosticism.
Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Il. p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.
18 This conception of the idea (€vvour) is thoroughly Gnostic, and plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems.
Most of these systems had a dualistic element recognizing the 6¥vaucs and the évvova as the original principles from whose union all beings
DEE Ge]
THE PREACHING OF PETER IN ROME.
speaker for all the others, to Rome ® against this great corrupter of life.
He like a noble commander of God, clad in divine armor, carried the costly merchandise of the light of the understanding from the East to those who dwelt in the West, proclaiming the light itself, and the word which brings salvation to souls, and preaching the kingdom of heaven.°
CHAPTER XIV.
The Preaching of the Apostle Peter in Rome.
Tue evil power,' who hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness," as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired
apostles of our Saviour.
For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them "every
CHAPTER XV.
The Gospel according to Mark. high thing that exalted itself against the
knowledge of God."
Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times.
For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishAnp thus when the divine word had
made its home among them,! the power of 8 Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below, chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero.
The tradition that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded b
Jerome (de vr. z7/. c. 1), and since his time has been almost untversally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so long an episcopate there is a fiction.
The tradition undoubtedly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius.
Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently
Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon's arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter's arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes.
The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter's later life from the New Testament and from other early writers.
In 44 A.D. he was in Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.).
Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note
7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 A.D.), for no mention is made of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent.
Nor can he have been there when Paul wrote fon Rome during his captivity ing upon earth, and dwelling in the apos-
tles themselves.
Immediately* the abovementioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea,' he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind.
And coming to the city of Rome,' by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who (61 or 62 to 63 or 64 A.D.).
We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap.
25, note 7) that he met his death there.
We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the summer of 64 A.D. a most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow Peter thither
(as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does.
Eusebius follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome; but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter, which neither Justin nor Irenzus mentions.
The earlier date for Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition.
Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and_ the Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul.
It.is.impossible to tell from what source Eusebius drew his information.
Neither Justin, Ireneus, nor Tertullian mentions it.
Hippolytus and Arnobius and the 442. Const. give too much, as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow.
As to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet recording the meeting.
'Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account.
Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs.
It is highly probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenzus as far as they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested above (note 4). dwelt there honored him as a god by the
erection of a statue.'
But this did not last long.
For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the of them, and heretics were therefore indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their worst forms.
1 See the previous chapter, note 1.
2 See chap. 1, note 25.
; 3 2 Cor. x. 5.
4 The significance of the word "' immediately " as employed here is somewhat dark.
There is no event described in the preceding context with which it can be connected.
I am tempted to think that Eusebius may have been using at this point some unknown source, and that the word "immediately"' refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter (perhaps his Czsarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius.
The figure employed here is most remarkable.
5 Acts vili. 9 'sqqThis occurred in Samaria, ndt in Judea proper, but Eusebius evidently uses the word "'Judea " in a wide sense, to indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria.
It is not ifpoitle. especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is referred to.
Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, V1. 8.
F ; Z © Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics.
They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his
9 A most amazing mixture of metaphors. This sentence furnishes an excellent illustration of Eusebius' rhetorical style.
1 The origin of the Church at Rome is shrouded in mystery.
Eusebius gives the tradition which rules in the Catholic Church, viz.: that Christianity was introduced into Rome by Peter, who transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the devil.
"1 See above, chap. 13, note 11.
THE CHURCH HISTORY -OF"EUSEBIUS.
[II. 15.
And they say that Peter, when he had
learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches.'
Clement in 'the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias.6
And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you ; and so doth Marcus my son."'*
Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself.?
And so greatly did che splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter's hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,® a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them.
Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.* went there during the reign of Claudius.
But this tradition is sufficiently disproved by history.
The origin of the Church was due to unknown persons, thoughit is possible we may obtain-a hint of them in the Andronicus and Junia of Romans xvi. 7, who are mentioned as apostles, and who were therefore, according to the usage of the word in Paul's writings, persons that introduced Christianity into a new place—missionaries proper, who did not work on others' ground.
CHAPTER XVI.
Mark first proclaimed Christianity to the Inhabitants of Egypt.
2 See chap. 12, note 9, and chap. 14, nate 8.
8 John Mark, son of Mary (Acts xii. 12), a sister of Barnabas (Col. iv. 10), was a companion of Paul and Barnabas in their missionary journeys, and afterward a companion of Barnabas alone
AND they say that this Mark was the first
that was sent to Egypt, and that he proclaimed the Gospel which he had written, and first established churches in Alexandria.'
And the multitude of believers, both men
and women, that were collected there at the very outset, and lived lives of the most philosophical and excessive asceticism, was so great, that Philo thought it worth while to describe their pursuits, their meetings, their entertainments, and their whole manner of life."' *
(Acts xv. 39), and still later was with Paul again in Rome (Col. iv. io and Philemon 24), and with Peter when he wrote his first epistle
(x Pet. v. 13).
For the later traditions concerning Mark, see the next chapter, note r.
4 That Mark wrote the second Gospel under the influence of Peter, or as a record of what he had heard from him,.is the universal tradition of antiquity.
Papias, in the famous and muchdisputed passage (quoted by Eusebius, III. 39, below), is the first to record the tradition.
Justin Martyr refers to Mark's Gospel under the name '' Memoirs (avouvnpovedmata) of Peter" (Dial. c. ie' oo
106; the translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed.
Vol.
I. p. 252, which refers the avrovd to Christ, is incorrect; compare Weiss, V. 7. Einleztung, p. 44, note 4).
Trenzus (Adv.
Her.
III. 11.1, quoted below, V. 8. 2), Tertullian (Adv. Marcionem, IV.
5), and Origen (quoted below, VI. 25) confirm the tradition, which is repeated over and over again by the Fathers.
The question as to the real authorship of our second Gospel, or rather as to its composition and its relation to Matthew and Luke, is avery difficult one.
The relationship of the three synoptical Gospels was first discussed by Augustine (De Consensu Evangelistarunt), who defended the traditional order, but made Mark dependent upon Matthew.
This view prevailed until the beginning of the present century, when the problem was attacked anew, and sirce then it has been the crux of the literary criticism of the Bible.
The three have been held to be dependent upon each other, and every possible order has found its advocates; a common source has been assumed for the three: the Hebrew Matthew, the Gosfel according to the Hebrews that they were not finally crystallized into the form in which we have them before the second century.
_ 5 This mention of the " Nee of Peter, and the '' authority '" given by him to the work of Mark, contradicts the account of Clement to which Eusebius here appeals as his authority.
In Bk. VI. chap. 14 he quotes from the Hyfotyposes of Clement, a passage which must be identical with the one referred to in this place, ier it is from the same work and the general account is the same; but there Clement says expressly, '' which when Peter understood he neither directly hindered nor encouraged it."
(see Bk. III. chap, 25, note 24), our canonical Gospel of Mark, or an original Mark, resembling the present one; a number of fragmentary documents have been assumed; while others, finally, have admitted only oral tradition as the basis.
According to Baur's tendency theory, Matthew (polemically Jewish-Christian) came first, followed by an original Luke (polemically Pauline-Christian), then by our Mark, which was based upon both and written in the interest of neutrality, and lastly by our present Luke, designed as a final irenicum,
This view now finds few advocates.
The whole matter is still unsettled, but criticism seems to be gradually converging toward a common ground type (or rather two independent types) for all three, while at the same time maintaining the relative independence of the three, one toward the other.
What these ground types were, is a matter of still sharper dispute, although criticism is gradually drawing their larger features with more and more certainty and clearness.
(The latest discussion upon the subject by Handmann, das HebrierEvangelium, makes the two es the "' Ur-Marcus"' and the Gospel of the Hebrews.)
That in the last analysis, however, some space must still be left for floating tradition, or for documents irreducible to the one or two types, seems absolutely certain.
For further information as to the state of discussion upon this intricate problem, see among recent works, especially Weiss, Einleztung, p.
473 sqq., Holtzmann, Zznleztung, p. 328 sqq., and Schaff, Ch. Hist.
® The passage from Papias is quoted below in Bk. III. chap. 39.
Papias is a witness to the general fact that Mark wrote down what he had heard from Peter, but not (so far as he is extant) to the details of the account as given by Eusebius.
Upon Papias himself, see Bk. III. chap, 39.
; 7 x Pet. ve13.
Commentators are divided as to the place in which Peter wrote this epistle (compare Schaff's Church H7st. I. p744 saqq.).
The interpretation given by Eusebius is the patristic and Roman Catholic opinion, and is maintained by many Protestant commentators.
But on the other hand the literal use of the word "* Babylon" is defended by a great number of the leading scholars of the present day.
Compare Weiss, V, 7. Exnlectung, p. 433, note r.
1 That Mark labored in Egypt is stated also by Epiphanius (Her. LI. 6), by Jerome (de vrr. tll. 8), by Nicephorus (H. £.
II. 43), and by the Acta Barnabe, p. 26 (Tischendorf's Acta Apost. Apocr. p. 74), which were written probably in the third century.
Eusebius gained his knowledge apparently from oral tradition, for he uses the formula, "they say" gaciv).
In Giap 24, below, he says that Annianus succeeded Mark as a leader of the Alexandrian Church in the eighth year of Nero (62 A.D.), thus implying that Mark died in that year; and Jerome gives the same date for his death.
But if the 'adit that he wrote his Gospel in Rome under Peter (or after Peter's death, as the best tradition puts it, so e.g. Irenzeus) be correct, then this date is hopelessly wrong.
The varying traditions are at best very uncertain, and the whole career of Mark, so far as it is not recorded in the New Testament, is involved in obscurity.
- #75 sqq., where the literature down to 1882 is given with great fullness.
Conservative opinion puts the composition of all the synoptic Gospels before the destruction of Jerusalem (for the date of Luke, see i. 4, note 12); but the critical school, while throwing the original type back of that date, considers the composition of our present Gospels to have been the gradual work of years, assuming
2 See the next chapter.