CHAPTER XIX

CHAPTER XIX

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[Il. 18. eee ee eee ee Samaria and Galilee, and of the land called Perea And after he had reigned thirteen years and eight months® he died, and left Nero as his successor in the empire. foundations he had newly laid.

The sacred book of the Acts informs us also of these things.

CHAPTER XIX.

The: Calamity which befell the Jews in Jerusalem

CHAPTER XX.

on the Day of the Passover.

The Events which took Place in Jerusalem dur-

Wuite Claudius was still emperor, it ing the Reign of Nero. happened that so great a tumult and disturbance took place in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover, that thirty thousand of those Jews alone who were forcibly crowded together at the gate of the temple perished,' being trampled under foot by one another.

Thus the festival became a season of mourning for all the nation, and there was weeping in every house.

These things are related literally' by JosEpHus again, in the twentieth book of

his Antiquities, relates the quarrel which arose among the priests during the reign of Nero, while Felix was procurator of Judea.

His words are as follows!: "There arosea

quarrel between the high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other.'

And each of them collected a body of the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other.

And there was no one that would interpose ; but these things were done at will as if in a city destitute of aruler.

And so great was the shame- $ lessness and audacity of the high priests that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors to seize the tithes due to the priests ; and thus those of the priests that were poor were seen to be perishing of want.

In this way did the violence of the factions prevail over all justice."

And the same

author again relates that about the same time there sprang up in Jerusalem a certain kind of robbers,' " who by day," as he says, "' and in the middle of the city slew those who met them."

For, especially at the feasts,

they mingled with the multitude, and with short swords, which they concealed under their garments, they stabbed the most distinguished men.

And when they fell, the murderers themJosephus.

But Claudius appointed Agrippa,' son of Agrippa, king of the Jews, having sent Felix' as procurator of the whole country of a ee 34 See Acts xviii. 2, 18, 19 sqq1 This disturbance (described by Jos. B. ¥. Il. 12. 1, and Axt.

XX. 5. 3) took place in 48 A.D. while Cumanus was procurator of Judea.

During the Passover feast the procurator, as was the custom, brought extra troops to Jerusalem to guard against any uproar which might arise among the great mass of people.

One of the soldiers, with the view of insulting the Jews, conducted himself indecently in their presence, whereupon so great an uproar arose that the procurator felt obliged to collect his troops upon the temple hill, but the appearance of the soldiers so greatly alarmed the multitude assembled there that they fled in all directions and crushed each other to death in their eagerness to escape.

Josephus, in his ¥ewisk War, gives the number of the slain as ten thousand, and in the Antiquities as twenty thousand. The latter work was written last, but knowing Josephus' fondness for exaggerating numbers, we shall perhaps not accept the correction as any nearer the truth.

That Eusebius gives thirty thousand need not arouse suspicion as to his honesty, —he could have had no object for changing '"' twenty" to '' thirty," when the former was certainly great enough, — we need simply remember how easily numbers become altered in transcription. Valesius says that this disturbance took place under Quadratus in 52 A.D. (quoting Pearson's Ann. Pauill. p. 11 sqq., and Tacitus,

Ann. XI. 54).

But Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the eighth year of Claudius (48 A.D.), and Orosius, VII. 4, gives the seventh year.

Jost and Ewald agree with Eusebius in regard to the date.

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

3 Herod Agrippa II., son of Herod Agrippa I. At the time of his father's death (44 A.D.) he was but seventeen years of age, and his youth deterred Claudius from giving him the kingdom of his father, which was therefore again converted into a Roman province, and Fadus was sent as procurator.

In 49 A.D. Agrippa was given the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod (a brother of Agrippa I.), and in 53 A.D. he was transferred to the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias with the title of King.

He was never king of the Jews in the same sense in which his father was, as Judea remained a Roman province throughout his reign, while his dominion comprised only the northeastern part of Palestine.

He enjoyed, however, the right of appointing and removing the high priests, and under Nero his domain was somewhat increased by the addition of several cities of Galilee, and Perea.

He sided with the Romans in the Jewish war, and afterwards went to Rome, where he died in 100 A.D., the last prince of the Herodian line.

It was before this Agrippa that Paul made his defense recorded in Acts xxvi. selves were among those who expressed their indignation.

And thus on account of the conChron., puts the accession of Felix in the eleventh year of Claudius (51 A.D.), and the accession of Festus in the fourteenth year

( 54, Ce < both of these dates are clearly incorrect (cf. Wieseler, p.

68, note).

5 Eusebius evidently supposed the Roman province at this time to have been limited to Samaria, Galilee, and Perea; but in this he was wrong, for it included also Judea (see preceding note), Agrippa

Il. having under him only the tetrarchies mentioned above (note 3) and a few cities of Galilee and Perea.

He had, however, the authority over the temple and the power of appointing the high priests.

(see Jos. Ant. XX. 8. 11 and 9. 1, 4, 6, 7), which had been given by Claudius to his uncle, the king of Cha' cis (Jos. Ant. XX. 1. 3).

4 Felix, a freedman of Claudius, succeeded Cumanus as procurator of Judea in 52 (or, according to Wieseler, 53) A.D.

The territory over which he ruled included Samaria and the greater part of Galilee and Perea, to which Judea was added by Nero, according to Josephus,

B. ¥. 11. 13.2.

Ewald, in the attempt to reconcile Tacitus, Az.

XII. 54, and Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2-71,—the former of whom makes Cumanus and Felix contemporary procurators, each over a part of the province, while the latter makes Felix the successor of Cumanus, —concludes that Felix was sent to Judea as the assistant of Cumanus, and became procurator upon the banishment of the latter.

This is not impossible, though we have no testimony to support it.

Compare Wieseler, p. 67, note.

Between s9 and 61 (according to Wieseler, in 60; see chap. 22, note tr, below) he was succeeded by Porcius Festus, For the relations of these two procurators to the apostle Paul, see Acts xx. sqq.

Eusebius, in his 6 Claudius ruled from Jan. 24, 41 A-D., to Oct. 13, 54.

, 1 Jos. Ant. XX. 8.8.

Felix showed himself throughout very mean and cruel, and his procuratorship was marked with continual disturbances.

2 This disturbance arose toward the end of Felix's term, under the high priest Ishmael, who had been appointed by Agrippa but a short time before.

No cause is given by Josephus for the quarrel.

3 B. F, Il. 13. 3.

These open robberies and murders, which took place in Jerusalem at this period, were in part a result of the conduct of Felix himself in the murder of Jonathan (see the next note).

At least his conduct in this case started the practice, which Ge lore up with zeal by the ruffians who were so numerous at at time.

II. 22.]

PAUL'S ROMAN CAPTIVITY.

fidence which was reposed in them by all, they remained undiscovered.

The first that was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest ;* and after him many were killed every day, until the fear became worse than the evil itself, each one, as in battle, hourly expecting death. comparing the account of the Egyptian given here with that contained in the Acts of the Apostles.

In the time of Felix it was said to Paul by the centurion in Jerusalem, when the multitude of the Jews raised a disturbance against the apostle, " Art not thou he who before these days made an uproar, and led out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?''?*

These are the events which took place in the time of Felix.° §

CHAPTER XXI.

The Egyptian, who is mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles.

CHAPTER XXII.

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

Paul having been sent bound from Fudea to Rome, made his Defense, and was acquitted of every Charge.

Festus! was sent by Nero to be Felix's

successor. Under him Paul, having made his defense, was sent bound to Rome."

Aristarchus was with him, whom he also somewhere in his epistles quite naturally calls his fellow-prisoner.' reached thirty thousand, and that when attacked the rabble dispersed, but that Felix slew or took captive the six hundred robbers, against whom his attack had been directed, while the Egyptian escaped with a small number (i.e, small in comparison with the thirty thousand), who may well have been the four thousand mentioned by the author of the Acts in the passage quoted below by Eusebius.

It is no more difficult therefore to reconcile the Acts and Josephus in this case than to reconcile Josephus with himself, and we have no reason to assume a mistake upon the part of either one, though as already remarked, numbers are so treacherous in transcription that the difference may really have been originally less than itis.

Whenever the main elements of two accounts are in substantial agreement, little stress can be laid upon a difference in figures.

Cf. Tholuck, Glaubwiirdigkeit, p. 169 (quoted by Hackett, Comz.: on Acts, p. 254). who made the attack with him as bodyguards.

But Felix anticipated his attack, and went out to meet him with the Roman legionaries, and all the people joined in the defense, so that when the battle was fought the Egyptian fled with a few followers, but the most

of them were destroyed or taken captive."

Josephus relates these events in the second book of his History.?

But it is worth while 4 Acts xxi. 38.

5 Valesius and Heinichen assert that Eusebius is incorrect in assigning this uproar, caused by the Egyptian, to the reign of Nero, as he seems to do.

But their assertion is quite groundless, for Josephus in both of his accounts relates the uproar among events which he expressly assigns to Nero's reign, and there is no reason to suppose that the order of events given by him is incorrect.

Valesius and Heinichen proceed on the erroneous assumption that Festus succeeded Felix in the second year of Nero, and that therefore, since

Paul was two years in Czsarea before the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptian, which was referred to at the time of Paul's arrest and just before he was carried to Czsarea, must have taken place before the end of the reign of Claudius.

But it happens to be a fact that Felix was succeeded by Festus at the earliest not before the sixth year of Nero (see chap. 22, note 2, below).

There is, therefore, no ground for accusing either Josephus or Eusebius of a blunder in the present case.

+ This high priest, Jonathan, had used his influence in procuring the appointment of Felix as procurator, and was therefore upon intimate terms with him, and took the liberty of advising and rebuking him at pleasure; until at last he became so burdensome to Felix that he bribed a trusted friend of Jonathan to bring about his murder.

The friend accomplished it by introducing a number of robbers into the city, who, being unknown, mingled freely with the people

-and slew Jonathan and many others with him, in order to turn away 'suspicion as to the object of the crime.

See Jos. Ant. XX. 8.5. ete has omitted to mention Jonathan's appointment to the igh priesthood, and this has led Valesius to conclude that he was not really a high priest, but simply one of the upper class of priests.

But this conclusion is unwarranted, as Josephus expressly calls him the high priest in the passage referred to (cf. also the remarks of Reland, quoted in Havercamp's ed. of Josephus, p. 912).

Wieseler (p77, note) thinks that Jonathan was not high priest at this time, but that he had been high priest and was called so on that account.

He makes Ananias high priest from 48 to 57, quoting Anger, De temporum in Act. Ap. ratione.

1 The exact year of the accession of Festus is not known, but it is known that his death occurred before the summer of 62 a.D.; for at that time his successor, Albinus, was already procurator, as we can see from Josephus, 2. ¥, VI. 5.3.

But from the events recorded by Josephus as happening during his term of office, we know he must have been procurator at least a year; his accession, therefore, took place certainly as early as 61 a.p., and probably at least a year earlier, i.e. in 60 A.D., the date fixed by Wieseler.

The widest possible margin for his accession is from 59-61.__Upon this whole question, see Wieseler, p. 66sqq.

Festus died while in office.

He seems to have been a just and capable gov-2rnor,—in this quite a contrast to his predecessor.

1 Jos. 2. F. 11. 13.5.

2 An Egyptian Jew; one of the numerous magicians and false prophets that arose during this century.

He prophesied that JeruSalem, which had made itself a heathen city, would be destroyed by 'God, who would throw down the walls as he had the walls of Jericho, and then he and his followers, as the true Israel and the army of God, would gain the victory over the oppressors and rule the world.

For this purpose he collected his followers upon the Mount of Olives, from whence they were to witness the falling of the walls and begin their attack.

2 Acts xxv. sqq.

The determination of the year in which Paul was sent as a prisoner to Rome depends in part upon the determination of the year of Festus' accession.

He was in Rome (which he reached in the spring) at least two years before the Neronic persecution (June, 64 A.D.), therefore as early as 62 A.D.

He was sent from Czsarea the previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn of 6x.

If Festus became procurator in 61, this must have been the date.

But if, as is probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then Paul was sent to Rome in the autumn of the same year, and reached

Rome in the spring of 61.

This is now the commonly accepted date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out (cf. Wieseler, zézd.).

Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot have become procurator before 60 a.D., and hence Paul cannot have been taken to Rome before the fall of that year.

5 Josephus gives two different accounts of this event.

In the B. F. he says that this Egyptian led thirty thousand men out of the 'desert to the Mount of Olives, but that Felix attacked them, and the Egyptian "escaped with a few," while most of his followers were either destroyed or captured.

In Ant. XX. 8.6, which was written later, he states that the Egyptian led a multitude "' out from Jerusalem" to the Mount of Olives, and that when they were attacked by Felix, four hundred were slain and two hundred taken captive.

There seems to be here a glaring contradiction, but we are able to reconcile the two accounts by supposing the Egyptian to have brought a large following of robbers from the desert, which was augmented by a great rabble from Jerusalem, until the number

3 Col. iv. ro.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[II. 22.

first answer," he says, "no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.

Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me ; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.''®

He plainly indicates in these words that

on the former occasion, in order that the preaching might be fulfilled by him, he was rescued from the mouth of the lion, referring, in this expression, to Nero, as is probable on account of the latter's cruelty.

He did not therefore afterward add the similar statement, "He will rescue me from the mouth of the lion" ; for he saw in the spirit that his end would not be long delayed.

Wherefore he

adds to the words, " And he delivered me from the mouth of the lion," this sentence:

"The Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom," " indicating his speedy martyrdom ; which he also foretells still more clearly in the same epistle, when he writes, " For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."™ In his second

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

But

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

And Luke, who wrote the Acts of the Apostles,' brought his history to a close at this point, after stating that Paul spent two whole years at Rome as a prisoner at large, and preached the Q word of God without restraint.?

Thus after he had made his defense it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching,® and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom.'

In this imprisonment he wrote his second epistle to Timothy,' in which he mentions his first

defense and his impending death.

But hear his testimony on these matters: "At my ae 4 See below, Bk. III. chap. 4.

5 See Acis xxviii. 30.

6 Eusebius is the first writer to record the release of Paul from a first, and his martyrdom during a second Roman imprisonment. He introduces the statement with the formula Adyos exer, which indicates probably that he has only an oral tradition as his authority, and his efforts to establish the fact by exegetical arguments show how weak the tradition was.

Many maintain that Eusebius follows no tradition here, but records simply his own conclusion formed from a study of the Pastoral Epistles, which Byparendy necessitate a second imprisonment.

But were this the case, he wou d hardly have used the formula Adyos éxer.

The report may have arisen solel upon exegetical grounds, but it can hardly have originated wit

Eusebius himself.

In accordance with this tradition, Eusebius, in his Chron., gives the date of Paul's death as 67 A.D.

Jerome (de vir. ll. 5) and other later writers follow Eusebius (though Jerome ives the date as 68 instead of 67), and the tradition soon became Foaly established (see below, chap. 25, note 5). Scholars are greatly divided as to the fact of a second imprisonment.

Nearly all that defend the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles assume a second imprisonment, though some (e.g. Wieseler, Ebrard, Reuss and others) defend the epistles while assuming only one imprisonment; but this is very dificult.

On the other hand, most opponents of the epistles (e.g. the Tiibingen critics and the majority of the new critical school) deny the second imprisonment.

As to the place where Paul spent the interval — supposing him to have been released — there is again a difference of opinion.

The Pastoral Epistles, if assumed to be genuine, seem to: necessitate another visit to the Orient.

But for such a visit there is no ancient tradition, although Paul himself, in the Epistle to the Philippians, expresses his expectation of making such a visit.

On the other hand, there is an old tradition that he visited Spain (which must of course have been during this interval, as he did'not reach it before the first imprisonment).

The Muratorian Fragment (from the end of the second century) records this tradition in a way to imply that it was universally known.

Clement of Rome (Efistle to the Corinthians, c. 5.) is also claimed as a witness for such a visit, but the interpretation of his words is doubtful, so that little weight can be laid upon his statement.

In later times the tradition of this visit to Spain dropped out of the Church.

The strongest argument against the visit is the absence 'of any trace of it in Spain itself.

If any church there could have claimed the great apostle to the Gentiles as its founder, it seems that it must have asserted its claim and the tradition have been preserved at least in that church, This appears to the writer a fatal argument against a journey to Spain.

On the other hand, the absence of all tradition of another journey to the Orient does not militate against such a visit, for tradition at any place might easily preserve the fact of a visit of the apostle, without preserving an accurate account of the number of his visits if more than one were made.

Of the defenders of the Pastoral Epistles, that accept a second imprisonment, some assume simply a journey to the Orient, others assume also the journey to Spain.

Between the spring of 63 A.D., the time when he was probably released, if released, and the date of his death (at the earliest the summer of 64), there is time enough, but barely so, for both journeys.

If the date of Paul's death be put later with Eusebius and Jerome (as many modern critics put it), the time is of course quite sufficient.

Compare the various Lives of Paul, Commentaries, etc., and neni among recent works, Schaff's Church Hist. I. p231 sqq.; Weiss' Eznleztung 7 das N. T. p. 283 sqq.; Holtzmann's £zuzlettung, p. 295 sqq-; and Weizsacker's Afostolisches

Zeitalter, p. 453 sqqand to his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the Meyer Series, for a defense of their genuineness, and also to Woodruff's article in the Andover Review, October, 1886, for a brief and somewhat popular discussion of the subject.

The second epistle must have been written latest of all Paul's epistles, just before his death, — at the termination of his second captivity, or of his first, if his second be denied.

9 2 Tim. iv. 16, 17.

10 2 Tim. iv. 18.

12 See 2 Tim. iv. 11..

11 Jézd. iv. 6.

18 See 2 Tim. iv. 16.

14 This is a very commonly accepted opinion among conservative commentators, who thus explain the lack of mention of the persecution of Nero andof the death of Paul.

On the other hand, some who accept Luke's authorship of the Acts, put the composition into the latter part of the century and explain the omission of the persecution and the death of Paul from the object of the work, e.g Weiss, who dates the Gospel of Luke between 70 and 80, and thus. brings the Acts down to a still later date (see his Eiulettung, Pp.

88s sqq-).

It is now becoming quite generally admitted that Luke's ospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and if this be so; the Acts must have been written still later.

There is in fact no ceason for supposing the book to have been written at the point of time at which its account of Paul ceases.

The design of the book (its text is found in the eighth verse of the first chapter) was to 7 See below, chap. 25, note 6, 8 Eusebius looked upon the Pastoral Epistles as undoubtedly genuine, and placed them among the Homologumena, or undisputed writings (compare Bk, III. chaps. 3 and 25).

The external testimony for them is very strong, but their genuineness has, during the present century, been quite widely denied upon internal grounds.

The advanced critical scholars of Germany treat their non-Pauline authorship as completely established, and many otherwise conservative scholars follow their lead.

It is impossible here to give the various arguments for or against their genuineness; we may refer the reader particularly to Holtzmann's Dze Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (1880), and to his Eznleztung (1886), for the most complete presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to Weiss' Einlettung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., ive an account of the progress of the Church from Jerusalem to ome, not to write the life of Paul.

The record of Paul's death at the close of the book would have been quite out of harmony with this design, and would have formed a decided anti-climax, as the oo ge i enough to Si ea He was writing, not a life of Paul, nor of any apcstle or group of apos i ' the planting of the Church of Chest, The sivateen papell deny that the Acts were written by a pupil of Paul, of course put its composition much later, — some into the time of Domitian, most into the second century.

But even such critics admit the genuineness. of certain portions of the book (the celebrated '* We" passages) and the old Tiibingen theory of intentional misrepresentation on the par of the author is finding less favor even among the most radicab

Deel

MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER.

succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.

He has been called the Just® by all from the time of our Sayiour to the present day ; for there were many that bore the name of James.

Hewasholy

from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.

No razor came upon his head ; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.

He alone was permitted to enter

into the holy place ; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.

And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people."

Because

of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias," which signifies in Greek,

'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.

Now some of the seven

sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs,# asked him, ' What is the gate of Jesus?'"

records.

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

CHAPTER XXIII.

The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord.

Bur after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Czesar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord,! to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles.?.

The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him. Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in

the presence of all the people.

But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with 8 pera Tov amogToAwy, 'with the apostles'; as Rufinus rightly translates, cue afostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, '' after the apostles," as if the Greek were meta Tovs amoatdAovs.

This statement of Hegesippus is correct.

James was a leader of the Jerusalem church, in company with Peter and John, as we see from Gal. ii. 9. But that is quite different from saying, as Eusebius does just above, and as Clement (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 1, § 3) does, that he was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles.

See chap. 1, note 11.

9 See chap. 1, note 6.

10 ** The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits which may have been derived from the A scents of greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God.

But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue® and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and Yames, and other Apocryphal sources.

He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite saint (cf. his advice to Paul, Acts xxi.

23, 24), who drank no wine, ate no flesh, never shaved nor took a bath, and wore only linen.

But the Biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic, rather than Essenic and ascetic "» (Schaff, Ch. Hzst. I. p.

268).

For Peter's asceticism, see the Clementine Recognitions, VII. 6; and for Matthew's, see Clement of Alexandria's Pedagogus,

Tix.

, 11 "QBAlas: probably a corruption of the Heb. BY bk, which consequently they slew him.

Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the preyailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a gov-

ernor and head.t The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club.'

But Hegesippus,® who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in signifies 'bulwark of the core The same name is given to James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others.

See Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclestasticus, s.v.

12 qepioxy TOU Aaov Kat Sixarogvvy.

13 To what Hepeeippus refers I do not know, as there is no passage in the prophets which can be interpreted in this way.

He may have been thinking of the passage from Isaiah quoted in § 15, below, but the reference is certainly very much strained.

14 See Bk. IV. chap. 22.

15 For a discussion of this very difficult question, whose interpretation has puzzled all commentators, see Routh Re/. Sac. I. the fifth book of his Memoirs.'

He writes

as follows: " James, the brother of the Lord, il at eee Se . 434 sq-, and Heinichen's Mel. 1V., in his edition of Eusebius, Vol. fit? p. 654 sqqThe explanation given by Grabe (in his Sfic. PP. p. 254), seems to me the best.

According to him, the Jews wish to ascertain James' opinion in regard to Christ, whether he considers him a true guide or an impostor, and therefore they ask, ' What (of what sort) is the gate (or the way) of Christ?

Is it a gate which opens into life (or a way which leads to life); or is it a gate which opens upon death (or a way which leads to death)?"?

Cf. Matt. vii.

13, 14, where the two ways and the two gates are compared, The Jews had undoubtedly often heard Christ called "the Way," and thus they might naturally use the expression in asking ames' opinion about Jesus, '' Is he the true or the false wa' ?" or, 'Is this way true or false?" The answer of James which follows is then perfectly consistent:

'' He is the Saviour," in which words he expresses as decidedly as he can his belief that the way or the gate of Christ led to salvation.

And so below, in § 12, where he gives a second answer to the question, expressing his belief in Christ still more emphatically.

This is somewhat similar to the explanation of Heinichen (bd. p. 659 sq.), who construes the genitive "lygod as in virtual apposition to @vpa: '' What is this way, Jesus?''

But Grabe seems to bring out most clearly the true meaning of the question.

16 Whether Eusebius' conclusion be correct or not, it is a fact that Nero became much more cruel and tyrannical in the latter part of his reign.

The famous "first five years," however exaggerated the reports about them, must at least have been of a very different character from the remainder of his reign.

But those five years of clemency and justice were past before Faul reached Rome.

1 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

2 See above, chap.

1, note 11.

3 didogodias.

See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

4 See the preceding chapter, note 1, ana below, note 40.

5 See pt 3, above. irate i P

egesippus, see Bk.

IV. chap. 22.

7 ne she Mecioles of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf.

Book IV. chap. 22).

This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac.

I. p. 208 sqq., with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq-

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[II. 23.

Se le ena ees eee ee ee eS and he replied that he was the Saviour.

On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works.'

But as many as believed did so on account of James.

Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, theré was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said

'hat there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ.

Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat thee, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ."

We entreat thee to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in thee.

For we bear thee witness, as do all the people, concerning Jesus, the Son of Man?

He himself sitteth in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.'* And when many were

fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, 'We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus.

But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.' And

they cried out, saying, 'Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.'

And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah," ' Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.'

So they went up and threw down

the just man, and said to each other, ' Let us stone James the Just.'

And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'* And

while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites,* who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet," cried out, saying, 'Cease, what do ye?

The just one prayeth for you.'™ that thou art just, and dost not respect per-

sons.

Do thou therefore persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus.

For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in thee.

Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple," that from that high position thou mayest be clearly seen, and that thy words may be readily heard by all the people.

For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Pass-

over.' The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said:

'Thou just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.' And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do ye ask me

21 Cf. Matt. xxvi. 64 and Mark xiv. 62.

22 Tsa. ili. zo. hs (p. 50) says, '' Auch darin ist Hegesipp nur ein Kind seiner Zeit, dass er in ausgedehntem Masse im Alten

Testamente Weissagungen auffindet.

Aber mit Bezug darauf darf man nicht vergessen, — dass dergletchen mehr oratorische Benutzung als exegetische Erklarungen sein sollen."

Cf. the writer's fais between a Christian and a Few (Papiscus and Philo), chap. 1.

33 dpwuev.

The LXX, as we have it to-day, reads Syjcwmer, but Justin Martyr's Dza/., chap. 136, reads dpwpev (though in chaps.

17 and 133 it reads Syowmev).

Tertullian also in his Adv. Marc.

Bk. III. chap. 22, shows that he read apwuev, for he translates auferamus.

24 Kupre Océ marep, 25 Luke xxiii. 34.

26 "PaxaBeiu, which is simply the reproduction in Greek letters of the Hebrew plural, and is equivalent to "the Rechabites."

But Hegesippus uses it without any article as if it were the name of an individual, just as he uses the name 'Pnx48 which immediately precedes.

The Rechabites were a tribe who took their origin from Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, who appears from 1x Chron. ii. 55 to have belonged to a branch of the Kenites, the Arabian tribe which came into Palestine with the Israelites.

Jehonadab enjoined upon his descendants a nomadic and ascetic mode of life, which the observed with great strictness for centuries, and received a blessing from God on account of their steadfastness (Jer. xxxv. 19).

That a Rechabite, who did not belong to the tribe of Judah, nor even to the genuine people of Israel, should have been a priest seems at first sight inexplicable.

Different solutions have been offered.

Some think that Hegesippus was mistaken,—the source from which he took his account having confounded this ascetic

Rechabite with a priest, — but this is hardly probable.

Plumptre in Smith's Bzd, Dict. art. Rechabites (which see for a full account of the tribe), thinks that the blessing pronounced upon them by God

(Jer. xxxv. 19) included their solemn adoption among the people of Israel, and their incorporation into the tribe of Levi, and therefore into the number of the priests.

Others (e.g. Tillemont, 7. £. I, Pp. 633) have supposed that many Jews, including also priests, embraced the practices and the institutions of the Rechabites and were therefore identified with them.

The language here, however, seems to im ly a native Rechabite, and it is probable that Hegesippus at least ed lieved this person to be such, whether his belief was correct or not.

See Routh, I. p. 243 sq.

27 See Jer. xxxv.

16 Rufinus translates xon crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and he is followed by Fabricius (Cod. Afoc. NV. T. II. p. 603).

This rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence.

And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus, as both avdoracw and épxémevoy are left entirely indefinite.

The Greek runs, ovx émigtevov avacracwy, ovte épydmevov amodovvat, x.T.A, Cf. the notes of Valesius and of Heinichen on this passage.

Of these seven sects, so far as we know, only one, the Sadducees, disbelieved in the resurrection from the dead.

If Hegesippus' words, therefore, be understood of a general resurrection, he is certainly in error.

1 This sentence sufficiently reveals the legendary character of Hegesippus' account.

James' position as a Christian must have been well enough known to prevent such a request being made to him in good faith (and there is no sign that it was made in any other spirit); and at any rate, after his reply to them already recorded, such a repetition of the question in public is absurd.

Fabricius, who does not think the account is true, says that, if it is, the Jews seem to have asked him a second time, thinking that they could either flatter or frighten him into denying Christ.

48 Cf. Matt. xxii. 16.

_ 2 éni ro mrepvviov trod vaod.

Some MSS. read 100 iepod, and in the preceding paragraph that phrase occurs, which is identical with the phrase used in Matt. iv. 5, where the devil places Christ on a pinnacle of the temple. iepds is the general name for the temple buildings as a whole, while vads is a specific name for the temple proper.

*8 In Epiphanius, Her. LX XVIII. 14, these words are put into the mouth of Simeon, the son of Clopas; from which some have concluded that Simeon had joined the order of the Rechabites: but there is no ground for such an assumption.

The Simeon of Epiphanius and the Rechawite of Hegesippus are not necessarily identical. They represent simply varieties of the original account, and Epiphanius', as the more exact, was undoubtedly the later tradition and an intentional improvement upon the vagueness of the original.

30 Some MSS., with Rufinus and the editions of Valesius and Heinichen, add cravpwOévros, "who was crucified,'"? and Stroth Closs, and Crusé follow this reading in their trarslations.

But many of the best MSS. omit the words, as do also Nicephorus, Burton Routh, Schwegler, Laemmer, and Stigloher, and I prefer to follow their example, as the words seem to be an addition from the previous e.

MARTYRDOM OF JAMES, THE LORD'S BROTHER:

N23) procurator of Judea.

But the younger Ananus," who, as we have already said," had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition.

He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.® Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others," and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned."

But those in the city who

seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king," requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings.

For he had not done right even this first time.

And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge." And Albinus, being

And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head.

And thus he suffered martyrdom."

And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple."

He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ.

And immediately Vespasian besieged them." *!

These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement."

James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jeru- /salem, which happened to them immediately

after his martyrdom for no other reason than

their daring act against him.

Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says,® "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.

For the Jews slew him, although

he was a most just man."

And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words :* "But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus® to be

36 Ananus was the fifth son of the high priest Annas mentioned in the N. T.

His father and his four brothers had been high priests before him, as Josephus tells us in this same paragraph. He was appointed high priest by Agrippa II. in 6x or 62 A.pD., and held the office but three months.

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

29 Clement (in chap. 5, § 4, above), who undoubtedly used the account of Hegesippus as his source, describes the death of qantas as taking place in the same way, but omits the stoning which preceded.

Josephus, on the other hand (quoted below), mentions only the stoning.

But Hegesippus' account, which is the fullest that we have, gives us the means of reconciling the briefer accounts of Clement and of Josephus, and we have no reason to think either account incorrect.

38 IT can find no previous mention in Josephus of the hardness of the Sadducees; but see Reland's note upon this passage ie cose

It may be that we have lost a part of the account of the Sadducees and Pharisees.

39 kai mapayayov eis avTd [Tov adeApdy "Ingod Tov xpioTov Aeyouevov, lakwBos ovoua avT@, kai] Twvas [érépovs], x.7.A,

Some critics regard the bracketed words as spurious, but Neander, Gesch. der Phlanzung und Lettung der Christlichen Kirche, 5th ed.,

Pp. 445, note, contends for their genuineness, and this is now the common opinion of critics.

It is in fact very difficult to suppose that a Christian in interpolating the passage, would have referred to James as the brother of the "' so-called Christ.''

On the other hand, as the words stand there is no good reason to doubt their genuineness.

30 Valesius remarks that the monument (077A) could not have stood through the destruction of Jerusalem until the time of Hegesippus, nor could James have been buried near the temple, as the Jews always buried their dead without the city walls.

Tillemont attempted to meet the difficulty by supposing that James was thrown from a pinnacle of the temple eveniconiag the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore fell without the walls, where he was stoned and buried, and where his monument could remain undisturbed.

Tillemont, however, afterward withdrew his explanation, which was beset with difficulties.

Others have supposed that the monument mentioned by Hegesippus was erected after the destruction of Jerusalem (cf.

Jerome, de vir. zl. 2), while his body was buried in another place.

This is quite possible, as Hegesippus must have seen some monument of James which was reported to have been the original one, but which must certainly have been of later date.

A monument, which is now commonly known as the tomb of St. James, is shown upon the east side of the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and therefore at a considerable distance from the temple.

See Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p246 sqq.

31 See below, note 40.

32 See above, chap. 1, § 4.

His agreement with Clement is not very surprising, inasmuch as the latter probably drew his knowledge from the account of the former.

40 The date of the martyrdom of James, given here by Josephus, is 61 or 62 A.D. (at the time of the Passover, according to Hegesippus, § 10, above).

There is no reason for doubting this date which is given with such exactness by Josephus, and it is further confirmed by Eusebius in his Chrox., who puts James's martyrdom in the seyenth year of Nero, i.e. 6x A.D., while Jerome puts it in the eighth year of Nero.

The Clementines and the Chrontcon Paschale, which state that James survived Peter, and are therefore cited in support of a later date, are too late to be of any weight over against such an exact statement as that of Josephus, especially since Peter and James died at such a distance from one another.

Hegesippus has been cited over and over again by historians as assigning the date of the martyrdom to 69 a.D., and as thus being in direct conflict with Josephus; as a consequence some follow his supposed date, others that of Josephus.

But I can find no reason for asserting that Hegesippus assigns the martyrdom to 69.

Certainly his words in this chapter, which are referred to, by no means necessitate such an assumption.

He concludes his account with the words kai evOvs Ovecmaciavds moAvopKet avTovs.

The modcopxet avrous is certainly to be referred to the commencement of the war (not to the siege of the city of Jerusalem, which was undertaken by Titus, not by Vespasiany: i.e. to the year 67 A.D., and in such an account as this, in which the overthrow of the Jews is designedly presented in connection with the death of James, it is hyper-criticism to insist that the word e«v@v¥s must indicate a space of time of only a few months' duration.

It is a very indefinite word, and\the most we can draw from Hegesippus' account is that not long before Vespasian's invasion of Judea, James was slain.

The same may be said in regard to Eusebius' report in Bk. III. chap. 11, § 1, which certainly is not definite enough to be cited as a contradiction of his express statement in his Chronicle.

But however it may be with this report and that of Hegesippus, the date given by Josephus is undoubtedly to be accepted as correct.

41 Agrippa II.

2 &s ovK cfd Hv Avave Xwpls THS aVTOD yrwOuns Kabioat ovvE38 This passage is not found in our existing MSS. of Josephus, but is given by Origen (Contra Celsum, I. 47), which shows at any

' rate that Eusebius did not invent the words.

It is probable therefore, that the copies of Josephus used by Origen and Eusebius contained this interpolation, while the copies from which our existing

MSS. drew were without it.

It is of course possible, especially since he does not mention the reference in Josephus, that Eusebius quoted these words from Origen.

But this does not help matters any, as it sti!l remains as difficult to account for the occurrence of the words in Origen, and even if Eusebius did take the passage from Origen instead of from Josephus himself, we still have no right with Jachmann (23. p. 40) to accuse him of wilful deception,

For with his great confidence in Origen, and his unbounded admiration for him, and with his naturally uncritical spirit, he would readity accept as true in all good faith a quotation given by Origen and purporting to be taken from Josephus, even though he could not find it in his own copy of the latter's works.

_ 4 Ant. XX. 9. 135 Albinus succeeded Festus in 61 or 62 A.D.

He was a very corrupt governor and was in turn succeeded by Gessius Florus in 64 A.D.

See Wieseler, Chron, d. Ap, Zettalters, p89-

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[Lises:

Se ee ee ee ee lee also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles.

Nevertheless we know that these also,* with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches." persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood,* which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of

Damneus."* These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called catholic * epistles.

But it is to be observed that it is disputed ; " at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude," which is.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark.

Wuen Nero was in the eighth year of his reign,' Annianus? succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria.'

Sprov.

Jost reads éxeivov (referring to Agrippa) instead of avTov (referring to Albinus), and consequently draws the conclusion that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of Agrippa, and that therefore Ananus had acted contrary to the rights of Agrippa, but not contrary to the rights of Albinus.

But the reading avtov is supported by overwhelming MS. authority, and must be regarded as undoubtedly correct.

Jost's conclusion, therefore, which his acceptance of the éxecvov forced upon him, is quite incorrect.

The passage appears to imply that the Sanhedrim could be called only with the consent of the procurator, and it has been so interpreted; but as Schiirer points out (Gesch. der ¥uden im Zettalter Fesu Christi, p169 sq.), this conclusion is incorrect, and all that the passage implies is that the Sanhedrim could not hold a sovereign process, that is, could not meet for the purpose of passing sentence of death and executing the sentence, during the absence or without the consent of the procurator.

For the transaction of ordinary business the consent of the procurator was not necessary.

Compare the Commentaries on John xviii. 31, and the remarks of Schiirer in the passage referred to above.

J 43 Agrippa, as remarked above, chap. 1g, note 4, exercised government over the temple, and enjoyed the power of appointing and removing the high priests.

CHAPTER XXV.

The Persecution under Nero in which Paul and Peter were honored at Rome with Martyrdom in Behalf of Religion.

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

To describe the greatness of his depravity

does not lie within the plan of the present work.

As there are many indeed that have recorded his history in most accurate narratives,? every one may at his pleasure learn from them the coarseness of the man's extraordinary madness, under the influence of which, after he had accomplished the destruction of so many myriads without any reason, he ran into such blood-guiltiness that he did not spare even his nearest relatives and dearest friends, but destroyed his mother and his brothers and his wife," with very many others of his own family,

44 Of Jesus, the son of Damnzus, nothing further is known. He was succeeded, while Albinus was still procurator, by Jesus, the son of Gamaliel (Ant. XX.

9. 4).

45 This term was applied to all or a part of these seven epistles by the Alexandrian Clement, Origen, and Dionysius, and since the 'time of Eusebius has been the common designation.

The word is used in the sense of '' general,' to denote that the epistles are encyclical letters addressed to no particular persons or congregations, though this is not true of II. and III.

John, which, however, are classed with the others on account of their supposed Johannine authorship, and consequent close connection with his first epistle.

The word was not first used, as some have held, in the sense of "canonical," to denote the catholic or general acceptance of the epistle, —a meaning which Eusebius contradicts in this very passage, and which the history of the epistles themselves (five of the seven being among the antilegomena) sufficiently refutes.

See Holtzmann's Eznleztung, p. 472 sqq-, and Weiss, zbzd. p. 89 sqq.

46 yoOeverar, It is common to translate the word vos, " spurious" (and the kindred verb, ''to be spurious"); but it is plain enough from this passage, as also from others, that Eusebius did not employ the word in that sense.

He commonly used it, in fact, ina loose way, to mean '"' disputed,'' in the same sense in which he often employed the word avrtAeyouevos.

Liicke, indeed, maintained that Eusebius always used the words vd00s and avriAcyouevos as synonymous; but in Bk. III. chap. 25, as pointed out in note x on that chapter, he employed the words as respective designations of two distinct classes of books. the antilegomena by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 25) is. about as well supported as that of the Epistle of James.

The Peshito does not contain it, and the Syrian Church in general rejected it for a number of centuries.

The Muratorian Fragment accepts it, and Tertullian wyideatly considered it a work of Jude, the apostle (see

De Cultu Fem.

1. 3).

The first to quote from it is Clement of Alexandria, who wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other catholic epistles, according to Eusebius, VI. 14. 1. Origen looked upon it much as he looked upon the Epistle of James, but did not make the '' Jude, the brother of James,' one of the twelve apostles.

Eusebius treats it as he does James, and Luther, followed by many modern conservative scholars (among them Neander), rejects it. Its defenders commonly ascribe it to Jude, the brother of the Lord, in distinction from Jude the apostle, and put its composition before the destruction of Jerusalem.

'The advanced critical school unanimously deny its authenticity, and most of them throw its composition into the second century, although some put it back into the latter part of the first.

See Holtzmann, p. gor.

48 On the Epistles of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, notes x and 2.

On the Epistles of John, see 247d. chap. 44, notes 18 and 19.

The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap.

25) among the antilegomena, The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few:

It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century.

Irenzus seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it.

The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius, VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon "

Jude and the other catholic epistles."

It is quoted frequently by Origen, who first connects it with the " Brother of the Lord,' Bus does not express himself with decision as to its authenticity.

From his time on it was commonly accepted as the work of ' James, the Lord's brother.""

Eusebius throws it among the antilegomena; not necessarily because he 'considered it unauthentic, but because the early testimonies for it are too few to raise it to the dignity of one of the homologoumena (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).

Luther rejected the epistle upon purely dogmatic grounds.

The advanced critical school are unanimous in considering it a post-apostolic work, and many conservative scholars agree with them.

See Holtzmann's Linleitung, p. 475 sqq.,and Weiss' Eznzlectung, p. 396 sqq.

The latter defends its authenticity (i.e. the authorship of James, the brother of the Lord), and, in agreement with many other scholars of conservative tendencies, throws its origin back into the early part of the fifties.

49 €v mAciotats exxAnoiats, 1 62 av.

With this agrees Jerome's version of the Chron., while the Armenian version gives the seventh year of Nero.

? Annianus, according to Bk. III. chap. 14, below, held his office twenty-two years.

In Afost. Const. Vil. 46 he is said to have been ordained by Mark as the first bishop of Alexandria.

The Chron.

Orient. 89 (according to Westcott in the. Dzct. of Christ. Biog.) reports that he was a pointed by Mark after he had performed a miracle upon him.

€ is commemorated in the Roman martyrology with St. Mark, on April 2s. i Upon Mark's connection with Egypt, see above, chap. 16, note 1.

1 Tacitus (d#x. XIIL-XVI.), i i aes (LT CLRTIT).

I.), Suetonius (Vero), and Dion 47 The authenticity of the Epistle of Jude (also classed among 2 Nero's mother, Agrippina the younger, daughter of Germani-

II. 25.]

MARTYRDOM OF PAUL AND PETER.

Peter likewise was crucified under Nero.'

This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day.

It is confirmed likewise by Caius,*

as he would private and public enemies,

with various kinds of deaths.

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

The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness the first quarter of the third century, is another witness to his death in Rome, as is also Dionysius of Corinth (quoted below, § 8) of the second century.

Origen (quoted by Russ. III. 1) states that he was martyred in Rome under Nero.

Tertullian (at the end of the second century), in his De prescriptione Her, chap. 36, is still more distinct, recording that Paul was beheaded in Dane

Eusebius and Jerome accept this tradition unhesitatingly, and we may do likewise.

As a Roman citizen, we should expect him to meet death by the sword.

of this.

He writes as follows :* " Examine your records.

There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine,* particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome.

We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment.

For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something

of great excellence."

Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God's chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles.

It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself,® and that 7 The tradition that Peter suffered martyrdom in Rome is as old and as universal as that in regard to Paul, but owing to a great amount of falsehood which became mixed with the original tradition by the end of the second century the whole has been rejected as untrue by some modern critics, who go so far as to deny that Peter was ever at Rome.

(See capecially Lipsius' Dze Quellen der rimischen Petrus-Sage, Kiel, 1872; a summary of his view is given by Jackson in the Presbyterian Ouarterly and Princeton Review, 1876, p. 265 sq.

In Lipsius' latest work upon this subject, Dze Acta Pauli und Petri, 1887, he makes important concessions.)

The tradition is, however, too strong to be set aside, and there is absolutely no trace of any conflicting tradition.

We may therefore assume it as overwhelmingly probable that Peter was in Rome and suffered martyrdom there. is martyrdom is plainly referred to in (es xxi. 10, though the place of it is not given.

The first extraiblical witness to it is Clement of Rome. He also leaves the place of the martyrdom unspecified (Ad Cor. 5), but he evidently assumes the place as well known, and indeed it is impossible that the early Church could have known of the death of Peter and Paul without knowing where they died, and there is in neither case a single opposing tradition, Ignatius (4d Rom. chap. 4) connects Paul and Peter in an especial way with the Roman Church, which seems plainly to imply that Peter had been in Rome.

Phlegon \scie sues to be the Emperor Hadrian writing under the name of a 'avorite slave) is said by Origen (Contra Celsum, II. 14) to have confused Jesus and Peter in his Chronicles.

This is very significant as implying that Peter must have been well known in Rome.

Dionysius, quoted below, distinctly states that Peter labored in Rome, and Gaius is a witness for it.

So Irenzus, Clement, Tertullian, and later Fathers without a dissenting voice. The first to mention Peter's death by crucifixion (unless

John xxi. 18 be supposed to imply it) is Tertullian (De Prescrip. Her. chap.

6), but he mentions it as a fact already known, and tradition since is time is so unanimous in regard to it that we may consider it in the highest degree probable.

On the tradition reported by Origen, that Peter was crucified head downward, see below, Bk. III. chap. 1, where

Origen is quoted by Eusebius. cus and of Agrippina the elder, was assassinated at Nero's command in 60 A.D. in her villa on Lake Lucrine, after an unsuccessful attempt to drown her in a boat so constructed as to break to pieces while she was sailing in it on the lake.

His younger brother Britannicus was poisoned by his order at a banquet in 55 A.D.

His first wife Octavia was divorced in order that he might marry Poppza, the wife of his friend Otho, and was afterward put to death.

Poppza herself died from the effects of a kick given her by Nero while she was with child.

3 Tertullian, 4Zo/. V.

4 We learn from Tacitus, Axn. XV. 39, that Nero was suspected to be the author of the great Roman conflagration, which took place in 64 A.D. (Pliny, H. V. XVII. 1, Suetonius, 38, and Dion Cassius,

LXII. 18, state directly that he was the author of it), and that to avert this suspicion from himself he accused the Christians of the deed, and the terrible Neronian persecution which Tacitus describes so fully was the result.

Gibbon, and in recent times especially Schiller (Geschichte der Rimischen Katserzett unter der Regierung des Nero, p. 584 sqq.), have maintained that Tacitus was mistaken in callin; his a persecution of Christians, which was rather a persecution of the Jews as a whole.

But we have no reason for impeaching Tacitus' accuracy in this case, especially since we remember that the Jews enjoyed favor with Nero through his wife Poppza.

What is very sicnibenst) Josephus is entirely silent in regard to a persecution of his countrymen under Nero.

We may assume as probable (with Ewald and Renan) that it was through the suggestion of the Jews that Nero's attention was drawn to the Christians, | and he was led to throw the guilt upon them, as a people whose habits would best give countenance to such a suspicion, and most easily excite the rage of the populace against them.

This was not a persecution of the Christians in the strict sense, that is, it was not aimed against their religion as such; and yet it assumed such proportions and was attended with such horrors that it always lived in 8 The matory of Caius is veiled in obscurity.

All that we know of him is that he was a very learned ecclesiastical writer, who at the beginning of the third century held a disputation with Proclus in Rome (cf, Bk. VI. chap. 20, below).

The accounts of him given by Jerome, Theodoret, and Nicephorus are drawn from Eusebius and furnish us no new data.

Photius, however (8767. XLVIII.), reports that Caius was said to have been a presbyter oi the Roman

Church during the episcopates of Victor and ephyrinus, and to have been elected " Bishop of the Gentiles," and hence he is commonly spoken of as a presbyter of the Roman Church, though the tradition rests certainly upon a very slender foundation, as Photius lived some six hundred years after Caius, and is the first to mention the fact.

Photius also, although with hesitation, ascribes to Caius a work On the Cause of the Universe, and one called The Labyvinth, and another Against the Heresy of Artemon (see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1).

The first of these (and by some the last also), is now commonly ascribed to Hippolytus.

Though the second may have been written by Caius it is no longer extant, and hence all that we have of his writings are the fragments of the Dialogue with Proclus preserved by Eusebius in this chapter and in Bk. III. chaps. 28, 31. The absence of any notice of the personal activity of so distinguished a writer has led some critics (e.g. Salmon in Smith and Wace, I. p. 386, who refers to Lightfoot, Fournal of Philology, 1. 98, as holding the same view) to assume the identity of Caius and Hippolytus, supposing that nape in the Dialogue with Proclus styled himself simply by his prenomen Caius, and that thus as the book fell into the hands of strangers the tradition arose of a writer Caius who in reality never had a separate existence.

This theory is ingenious, and in many respects plausible, and certainly cannot be disproved (owing chiefly to our lack of knowledge about Caius), and yet in the absence of any proof that Hippolytus actually bore the prenomen Caius it can be regarded as no more than a the memory of the Church as the first and one of the most awful of a long line of persecutions instituted against them by imperial Rome, and it revealed to them the essential conflict which existed between Rome as it then was and Christianity.

5 The Greek translator of Tertullian's Afology, whoever he may have been (certainly not Eusebius himself; see chap. 2, note 2 above), being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, has made very bad work of this sentence, and has utterly destroyed the sense of the original, which runs as follows: ziléc repertetis primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Rome ortentem Cesariano gladio ferocisse ('' There you will find that Nero was the first to assail with the imperial sword the Christian sect, which was then especially flourishing in Rome").

The Greek translation reads: kei evpraete mpatoy Nepava tovTo 7d Sdyua, nvixa madera ey 'Péun Thy avarodAny magav vroTdéas wpds a els mavTas, Si0fovra, in the rendering of which I have followed Crusé, who has reproduced the idea of the Greek translator with as much fidelity as the sentence will allow.

The German translators, Stroth and Closs, render the sentence directly from the original Latin, and thus preserve the meaning of Tertullian, which is, of course, what the Greek translator intended to reproduce.

I have not, however, felt at liberty in the present case to follow their example.

6 This tradition, that Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome, is early and universal, and disputed by no counter-tradition, and may be accepted as the one certain historical fact known about Paul outside of the New Testament accounts.

Clement (Ad. Cor. chap. 5) is the first to mention the death of Paul, and seems to imply, though he does not directly state, that his death took place in Rome during the persecution of Nero.

Caius (quoted below, § 7), a writer of bare hypothesis.

The two are distinguished by Eusebius and by all the writers who mention them.

On Caius' attitude toward the Apocalypse, see Bk. IIT. chap. 28, note 4; and on his opinion in regard to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. VI, chap.

20, and Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

The fragments of Caius (including fragments from the Lzttie Labyrinth, mentioned above) are given with annotations in Routh's Red. Sacre, Il. 125-158, and in translation (with the addition of the Muratorian Fragment, wrongly ascribed to Caius by its discoverer) in the Ante-Nicene Fathers,

THE,CHURCH HISTORY OF(EUSEBIUS.

[II. 25. ee ee Ow ee ee taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.""

I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed. a member of the Church,' who arose" under Zephyrinus," bishop of Rome.

He, in a published disputation with Proclus," the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses

of the aforesaid apostles are laid: "But™ I can show the trophies of the apostles.

For if you will go to the Vatican © or to the Ostian way,'® you will find the trophies of those

CHAPTER XXVI.

The Jews, afflicted with Innumerable Evils, commenced the Last War against the Romans. who laid the foundations of this church," "

And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth," in his epistle to the Romans," in the following words: " You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth.

For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth."

And _ they JosEPHus again, after relating many things

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

V. 599-604.

See also the article of Salmon in Smith and Wace, of Harnack, in Herzog (2d ed.), and Schaff's Ch. Hist. II. p. 775 sqq9 €xcAngLagTiKos avinp. r 10 yeyovws.

Crusé translates "born"; but Eusebius cannot have meant that, for in Bk. VI. chap. 20 he tells us that Caius' dismartyrdom at Rome, he is almost certainly in error in speaking as he does of Peter's work in Corinth.

It is difficult, to be sure, to dispose of so direct and early a tradition, but it is still more difficult to accept it.

The statement that Paul and Peter together planted the Corinthian church is certainly an error, as we know that it was

Paul's own church, founded by him alone.

The so-called Cephas party, mentioned in 1 Cor, i., is perhaps easiest explained by the previous presence and activity of Peter in Corinth, but this is by no means necessary, and the absence of any reference to the fact in the two epistles of Paul renders it almost absolutely impossible.

It is barely possible, though by no means probable, that Peter visited Corinth on his way to Rome (assuming the Roman journey) and that thus, although the church had already been founded many years, he became connected in tradition with its early days, and finally with its origination.

But it is more probable that the tradition is wholly in error and arose, as Neander suggests, partly from the mention of Peter in x Cor. i., partly from the natural desire to ascribe the origin of this great apostolic church to the two leading apostles, to whom in like manner the founding of the Roman church was ascribed.

It is significant that this tradition is recorded only by a Corinthian, who of course had every inducement to accept such a report, and to repeat it in comparing his own church with the central church of Christendom.

We find no mention of the tradition in later writers, so far as I am aware. utation with Proclus was held during the episcopate of Zephyrinus.

Fre used yeyovds, therefore, as to indicate that at that time he came into public notice, as we use the word "' arose."

11 On Zephyrinus, see below, Bk. V. chap. 28, § 7.

12 This Proclus probably introduced Montanism into Rome at the beginning of the third century.

According to Pseudo-Tertullian (Adv. omnes Her. chap. 7) he was a leader of one division of the Montanists, the other division being composed of followers of AXschines.

He is probably to be identified with the Proculus noster, classed by Tertullian, in Adv. Val. chap. 5, with Justin Martyr,

Miltiades, and Irenzeus as a successful opponent of heresy.

13 The sect of the Montanists.

Called the '' Phrygian heresy," from the fact that it took its rise in Phrygia.

Upon Montanism, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 27, and especially Bk. V. chap. 16 sqq.

14 The d€ here makes it probable that Caius, in reply to certain claims of Proclus, was asserting over against him the ability of the Roman church to exhibit the true trophies of the greatest of all the apostles.

And what these claims of Proclus were can perhaps be gathered from his words, quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 35

§ 4, in which Philip and his daughters are said to have been buried in Hierapolis.

That these two sentences were closely connected in the original is quite possible.

15 According to an ancient tradition, Peter was crucified upon the hill of Janiculum, near the Vatican, where the Church of San Pietro in Montorio now stands, and the hole in which his cross stood is still shown to the trustful visitor.

A more probable tradition makes the scene of execution the Vatican hill, where Nero's circus was, and where the persecution took place.

Baronius makes the whole ridge on the right bank of the Tiber one hill, and thus reconciles the two traditions.

In the fourth century the remains of Peter were transferred from the Catacombs of San Sebastiano (where they are said to have been interred in 258 a.D.) to the Basilica of St,

Peter, which occupied the sight of the present basilica on the Vatican. kara Tov avTov Kaipdv, The xara allows some margin in time and does not necessarily imply the same day.

Dionysius is the first one to connect the deaths of Peter and Pau chronologically, but later it became quite the custom.

One tradition put their deaths on the same day, one year apart (Augustine and Prudentius, e.g., are said to support this tradition).

Jerome (de vr. z//. x) is the first to state explicitly that they suffered on the same day.

Eusebius in his Chron. (Armen.) puts their martyrdom in 67, Jerome in 68.

The Roman Catholic Chaech celebrates the death of Peter on the 2gth and that of Paul on the 30th of June, but has no fixed tradition as to the year of the death of either of them.

18 Paul was beheaded, according to tradition, on the Ostian way, at the spot now occupied by the Abbey of the Three Fountains.

The fountains, which are said to have sprung up at the spots where Paul's head struck the ground three times after the decapitation, are still shown, as also the pillar to which he is supposed to have been bound!

In the fourth century, at the same time that Peter's remains were transferred to the Vatican, Paul's remains are said to have been buried in the Basilica of St. Paul, which occupied the site now marked by the church of San Paolo fuori le mura.

There is nothing improbable in the traditions as to the spot where Paul and Peter met their death.

They are as old as the second century; and while they cannot be accepted as indisputably true (since there is always a tendency to fix the deathplace of a great man even if it is not nown), et on the other hand if Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome, it is hardly possible that the place of their death and burial could have been forgotten by the Roman church itself within a century and a half.

1 Josephus, BY. Il. 14.9.

He relates that Florus, in order to shield himself from the consequences of his misrule and of his abominable extortions, endeavored to inflame the Jews to rebel against Rome by acting still more cruelly toward them.

As a result many disturbances broke out, and many bitter things were said against Florus, in consequence of which he proceeded to the severe measures referred to here by Eusebius.

_ ? pupiovs dgovs.

Josephus gives the whole number of those that were destroyed, including women and children, as about thirty-six hundred (no doubt a gross exaggeration, like most of his figures).

He does not state the number of noble Jews whom Florus whipped and crucified.

The '' myriads'? of Eusebius is an instance of the exaggerated use of language which was common to his age, and which almost invariably marks a period of decline.

In many cases "' myriads'? meant to Eusebius and his contemporaries twenty, or thirty, or even less.

Any number that seemed large under the circumstances was called a ' myriad."

17 Neither Paul nor Peter founded the Roman church in the strict sense, for there was a congregation of believers there even before Paul came to Rome, as his Epistle to the Romans shows, and Peter cannot have reached there until some time after Paul.

It was, however, a very early fiction that Paul and Peter together founded the church in that city.

° Gessius Florus was a Greek whose wife, Cleopatra, was a friend of the Empress Poppza, through whose influence he obtained his appointment (Jos. dzt. XX.11.1).

He succeeded Albinus in 64 A.D. (see above, chap. 23, note 35), and was universally'hated as the most corrupt and unprincipled governor Judea had ever endured.

Josephus (3. ¥. I. 14. 2 sqq. and Ant. XX. a. 1) paints him in very fee pears.

18 On Dionysius of Corinth, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 23.

19 Another quotation from this epistle is given in Bk. IV. chap.

The fragments are discussed by Routh, Re/. Sac. I. 179 sq. osephus (B. ¥. II. 14. 4) puts the beginning of the war in the Weta year of the reign of Nero (i.e. A.D. 66) in the month of 23.

°° Whatever may be the truth of Dionysius' report as to Peter's ttemision, Corresponding to the month Iyar, the second month of

Hie:

BEGINNING OF THE JEWISH WAR.

PZT

Josephus says® that at that time a terrible with unburied corpses, and the dead bodies of the aged scattered about with the bodies of infants, and women without even a covering for their nakedness, and the whole province full of indescribable calamities, while the dread of those things that were threatened was greater than the sufferings themselves which they anywhere endured."*®

Such is the account of Josephus ; and such was the condition of the Jews at that time. commotion was stirred up throughout all Syria in consequence of the revolt of the Jews, and that everywhere the latter were destroyed without mercy, like enemies, by the inhabitants of the cities, "so that one could see cities filled the Jewish year.

According to Josephus (Azz. XX. 11. x) this was in the second year of Gessius Florus.

The war began at this time by repeated rebellious outbreaks among the Jews, who had been driven to desperation by the unprincipled and tyrannical conduct of Florus,

— though Vespasian himself did not appear in Palestine until the spring of 67, when he began his operations in Galilee.

5 Jos. B. ¥, II. 18. 2.

8 Jbed.

BOOK III. had lived some time there,' died at Ephesus.

Peter appears to have preached® in

Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia® to the Jews of the dispersion.

And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards ;" for he had requested that he might suffer in this way.

What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum," and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under CHAPTER I.

The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached Christ. ui SucH was the condition of the Jews.

Meanwhile the holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour were dispersed throughout the world!

Parthia,? according to tradition, was allotted to Thomas as his field of labor, Scythia ® to Andrew,' and Asia® to John,® who, after he

6 The universal testimony of antiquity assigns John's later life to Ephesus: e.g. Ireneus, Adv. Her. Ill. 1. 1 and 3. 4, etc.;

Clement of Alex., Ouzs Dzves Salvetur, c. 42 (quoted by Eusebius, chap. 23, below); Polycrates in his Epistle to Victor (quoted by Eusebius in chap. 31, below, and in Bk. V. chap. 24); and many others.

The testimony of Irenzus is especially weighty, for the series: Irenzeus, the pupil of Polycarp, the pupil of John, formsa complete chain such as we have in no other case.

Such testimony, when its force is broken by no adverse tradition, ought to be suffi-' cient to establish John's residence in Ephesus beyond the shadow of a doubt, but it has been denied by many of the critics who reject the Johannine authorship of the foarth Gospel (e.g. Keim, Holtzmann, the author of Supernat. Religion, and others), though the denial is much less positive now than it was a few years ago.

The chief arguments urged against the residence of John in Ephesus are two, both @ szlextzo : first, Clement in his first Epistle to the Corinthians speaks of the apostles in such a way as to seem to impl that they were all dead; secondly, in the Ignatian Epistles, Paul is mentioned, but not John, which is certainly very remarkable, as one is addressed to Ephesus itself.

In reply it may be said that such an interpretation of Clement's words is not necessary, and that the omission of John in the epistles of Ignatius becomes perfectly natural if the Epistles are thrown into the time of Hadrian or into the latter part of Trajan's reign, as they ought to be (cf. chap. 36, note 4).

In the face of the strong testimony — Ephesian residence these two his paera.on must be overruled.

The traditional view is defended by all conservative critics as well as by the majority even of those who deny the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel (cf. especially Hilgenfeld in his Zzmlectung, and Weizsacker in his

Apostoliches Zeitalter).

The silence of Paul's epistles and of the Acts proves that John cannot have gone to Ephesus until after Paul had permanently left there, and this we should naturall expect to be the case. pon the time of John's banishment to Patmos, see Bk. III. chap. 18, note x.

Tradition reports that he lived until the reign of Trajan (98-117).

Cf. Irenzeus, II. 22. 5 and III. 3. i':

1 According to Lipsius, the legends concerning the labors of the apostles in various countries were all originally connected with that of their separation at Jerusalem, which is as old as the second century.

But this separation was put at various dates by different traditions, varying from immediately after the Ascension to twentyfour years later.

A lost book, referred to by the Decretum Gelasit as Liber qui appellatus sortes Apostolorum apocryphus, very likely contained the original tradition, and an account of the fate of the apostles, and was probably of Gnostic or Manichean origin.

The.efforts to derive from the varying traditions any trustworthy particulars as to the apostles chemmelves is almost wholly vain. The various traditions not only assign different fields of labor to the different apostles, but also give different lists of the apostles themselves. See

Lipsius' article on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. 1. p.17 sqq.

The extant Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, Apocalypses, &c., are translated in the Axte-Niceue

Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 361 sqq.

Lipsius states that, according to the oldest form of the tradition, the apostles were divided into three groups: first, Peter and Andrew, Matthew and Bartholomew, who were said to have preached in the region of the Black Sea; second,

Thomas, Thaddeus, and Simeon, the Canaanite, in Parthia; third, John and Philip, in Asia Minor.

2 Parthia, in the time of the apostles, was an independent kingdom, extending from the Indus to the Tigris, and from the Caspian

Sea to the Persian Gulf.

This is the oldest form of the tradition in regard to Thomas (see preceding note).

It is found also in the Clementine Recognitions, IX. 29, and in Socrates, H. £. I. 19.

Rufinus (4. Z. Il. 5) and Socrates (H. £. IV. 18) speak of Edessa as his burial place.

Later traditions extended his labors eastward as far as India, and made him suffer martyrdom in that land; and there his remains were exhibited down to the sixteenth century.

According to the Martyrium Romanum, however, his remains were brought from India to Edessa, and from thence to Ortona, in Italy, during the Crusades.

The Syrian Christians in India called themselves Thomas-Christians; but the name cannot be traced beyond the eighth century, and is derived, probably, from a Nestorian missionary.

* Origen in this extract seems to be uncertain how long John remained in Ephesus and when he died.

3 The name Scythia was commonly used by the ancients, in a very loose sense, to denote all the region lying north of the Caspian and Black Seas.

But two Scythias were distinguished in more accurate usage: a European Scythia, lying north of the Black Sea, between the Danube and the Tanais, and an Asiatic Scythia, extending eastward from the Ural.

The former is here meant.

4 The traditions seapectitie Andrew are very uncertain and contradictory, though, as remarked above (note r), the original form, represented here, assigned as his field the region in the neighborhood of the Black Sea.

His traditional activity in Scythia has made him the patron saint of Russia.

He is also called the patron saint of Greece, where he is reported to have been crucified; but his activity there rests upon a late tradition.

His body is said to have been carried to Constantinople in 357 (cf. Philostorgius, H7st. Eccles. III.

2), and during the Crusades transferred to Amalpz in Italy, in whose cathedral the remains are still shown. Andrew is in addition the patron saint of Scotland; but the tradition of his activity there dates back only to the eighth century (cf. Skene's Celéze Scotland, \\. 221 sq.).

Numerous other regions are claimed, by various traditions, to have been the scene of his labors.

_ § The language of Origen (kexnpuxévar Eorxev, instead of Adyos exet Or Tapadoors meptéxer) seems to imply that he is recording not a tradition, but a conclusion drawn from the first Epistle of Peter, which was known to him, and in which these places are mentioned.

Such a tradition did, however, exist quite early.

Cf, e.g. the Syriac Doctrina Afostolorum (ed. Cureton) and the Gnostic Acts of Peter and Andrew.

The former assigns to Peter, Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, in addition to Galatia and Pontus, and cannot, therefore, rest solely upon the first Epistle of Peter, which does not mention the first three places.

All the places assigned to Peter are portions of the field of Paul, who in all the traditions of this class is completely crowded out and his field given to other apostles, showing the Jewish origin of the traditions.

Upon Peter's activity in Rome and his death there, see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 7. as Five provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned in 1 Pet. i. 2.

Origen is the first to record that Peter was crucified with his head downward, but the tradition afterward became quite common.

It is of course not impossible, but the absence of any reference to it by earlier Fathers (even by Tertullian, who mentions the crucieo ae its decidedly legendary character, render it exceedingly

5 Proconsular Asia included only a narrow strip of Asia Minor, lying upon the coast of the Mediterranean, and comprising Mysia,

Lydia, and Caria.

1 Cf. Rom. xv. 1g.

Illyricum wa:

R ' ip along the eastern coast of the Adriatic. Se Dra ne

III. 3.] tHE EV istees Om HE APOSTLES:

12% Nero?"

'These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. ancient elders? used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.?

But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;* yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.*> The so-called Acts

of Peter,' however, and the Gospel' which bears his name, and the Preaching® and. the CHAPTER II.

The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

AFTER the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus! was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.

Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.? but an effort of a later age to find an author for the anonymous epistle.

In support of this is urged the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second century, it is never connected with Peter's name until the time of Irenzeus.

(Cf. Harnack's Lehre der Zwilf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his Dogmengeschichte, 1. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.

2 oi waAae mpeaBvtepot.

On the use of the term "' elders" among the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.

8 ws avaypiAEKTw.

4 obk évdtdOnxov pév elvat maoeAjdapev.

The authorship of the second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed.

The external testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to have existed before the third century.

Numerous explanations have been offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of the apostle.

The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, § 6 (Z/. 74, in the collection of Cyprian's Epistles, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed.

Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14).

The epistle was not admitted into the Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and discussion ceased until the Reformation.

It is at present disputed by all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars.

Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the second century, — some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwilf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who assigns its comCHAPTER

III.

The Epistles of the Apostles.

OnE epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine.'

And this the 12 See above, Bk. II. chap. 25, note 5.

18 This fragment of Origen has been preserved by no one else.

It is impossible to tell where the quotation begins— whether with the words '' Thomas according to tradition received Parthia," as I have given it, or with the words '' Peter appears to have preached," etc., as Bright gives it.

1 The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter.

The oldest tradition is that given by Irenzus (Adv. Har. ill. 3. 3) and followed here b Extsching, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus,

Clement.

Hipi gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fra ers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed.

In the second chapter of the socalled Epzstle of Clement to Fames (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homz/zes) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first.

Gieseler (Eccles. Hist.

Eng.

Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair.

It is at least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the question as to the order of these first three so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions.

The Roman Church gives the following order: Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus of the original tradition.

The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Afost. Apocr. osition to Egypt).

Cf. Holtzmann, Zzzleztung, p. 495 sqq., and eiss (who leaves its Ferimnesers an open question), £zndeztung,

P. 436 sqq.

Fora defense of the genuineness, see especially Wareld, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p390 Sqq., and Salmon's

Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.

5 Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and conseuently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the ourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc.

The same is true, however, of Biel writings, which the Church afterward placed among the Apocpha.

6 These mpdgéers (or mepiodor, as they are often called) Ieérpov were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collection of mepiodo. tay amogTéAwy, which were ascribed to Lucius

Charinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament.

The work, as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the title Passzo Petr?.

Upon these Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius,

A poorer A postelgeschichten, Il. 1, p.78 sq.

Like the heretical Acta Pauli already referred to, this work, too, was used in the composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still extant, and which assumed their present form .in the fifth century, according to Lipsius.

These Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1-39.

English translation in the A xte-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vill, Pp. 477.

. xix. sq.). | Eusebius aca 13, below) says that Linus was Lichen for twelve years.

In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while Jerome says eleven.

These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal succession itself.

We have no trustworthy information as to the eer character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in this note see especially Salmon's articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

2 2 Tim. iv. 21.

The same identification is made by Irenzus, Adv. Her. Ill. 3.3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the ZAzstle to the 7 This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. Vi. chap. 12, below), but was rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained.

It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical; also by Origen (z# Matt. Vol. X.17) and by Jerome (de vir. wi. 1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church.

Lipsius regards it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels.

From Serapion's account of this Gospel (see below, Bk.

VI. chap. 12), we see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ's life, but rather in adding to the account given by them.

This, of course, favors Lipsius' hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel (as we learn from the same chaples) was used by the Docete, but that does not imply that it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ's body (cf. note 8 on that chapter).

The Gospel is no longer extant.

See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 712.

Trallians (longer version), chap. 7.

1 The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter.

It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenzus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the homologoumena.

Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely ungenuine.

The Tiibingen School followed, and at the present time the genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf.

Holtzmann, Zzzleztung, p. 487 sqq-, also Weiss, E77leitung, p428 sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans ied to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle).

The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine authorship.

A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no fraud on the part of the writer,

8 This Preaching of Peter (Kypvyna Iértpov, Predicatio Petr?), which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[IIl. 3. and undisputed.'

It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews," saying that it is disApocalypse,' as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted," because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them."

But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works," and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings,"

16 The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.

These formed for Eusebius an absolutely undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted until the present century.

The external testimony for all of them is ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of the second century.

The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the Tiibingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul.

The other epistles have not fared so well.

The genuineness of Ephesians was first questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the Tiibingen School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided; the majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all conservative scholars defend it.

Colossians was first attacked by Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tiibingen School.

It fares neg! somewhat better than Ephesians.

It is still, however, rejected by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense (e.g. Weizsacker in his

Afpostolisches Zeitalter).

Since 1872, when the theory was proosed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our present

Bristle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul tojthe Colossians, of which it is a later revision and expansion.

Baur and the Tiibingen School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsacker and even Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness).

Second Thessalonians was first attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also.

Second Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative critics, and even by some moderates, while First 'Thessalonians has regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld, Weizsacker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by comparatively few critics. Philemon

— which was first attacked by Baur — is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are almost as generally rejected, except by the regular conservative school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk.

II. chaps 22, note 8, above).

For a concise account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see Holtzmann's

Einlettung.

Fora defense of them all, see the Eznleztung of Weiss.

17 cies nOetyjxaot.

That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain.

It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship ; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul.

The first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantzenus and Clement of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap.

14), and they evidently find it necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the face of the objections of others.

Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 25) leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it probable that the thoughts are Paul's, but the diction that of some one elsé, who has recorded what he heard from the apostle.

He then remarks that one tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to Luke.

Eusebius himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship), looks upon it as a work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria's theory that it was written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome was its translator (see chap, 38, below).

In the Western Church, where the epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses it freely), it is not connected with Paul until the fourth century.

Indeed, Tertullian (de pudicit. 20) states that it bore the name of Barnabas, and evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed to any one else.

The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally: prevailed, and from the fifth century on we find it universally accepted, both East and West, as an epistle of Paul, and not dal the Reformation was its origin again questioned.

Since that time its authorship has been commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery.

Numerous guesses have been made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos and he has been followed by many), but it is impossible to prove that any of them are correct.

For Barnabas, however more can be said than for any of the others.

Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with him; and its contents are just what we should expect from the pen of a Levite who had been for a time under Paul's influence, and yet had not received his Christianity from him? its standpoint, in fact, is Levitic, and decidedly non-Pauline, and. yet reveals in many places the influence of Pauline ideas.

Still further it is noticeable that in the place where the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul, there first appears an epistle which is ascribed

(quite wrongly; see below, chap. 25, note 20) to Barnabas.

May it not be (as has been suggested by Weiss and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was ascribed t that the tradition that Barnabas had wri i ;

a written an

still have remained in the Church, | ee ; f ed to the ascription of another pen nous epee tohim? We seem thus most ae to explain the as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine' and acknowledged by

the ancient elders."

Paul's fourteen epistles are well known Preaching of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom.

VI. 5, and Lactantius, /zs¢. IV. 21).

It was mentioned frequently by the early Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter's teaching.

(The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Sfic. Patr. I. 55-71, and by Hilgenfeld in his V. 7. extra Can. rec., 2d ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.).

It is mentioned twice by Origen (2% Fohan. XIII. 17, and De Princ. Pref. 8), and in the latter place is expressly. classed among spurious works.

It was probably, according to Lipsius, closely connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above.

Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the Preaching is not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is to be distinguished from the Ebionitic xyp¥yuata.

It would seem therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the original of the Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been done away with.

Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching is as old as the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works recording Peter's preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of Peter's preaching embodied in the Acts and in the Preaching.

The latter (if it included also the Preaching of Paul, as seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account of some of the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin.

Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Dzct. of Christ. Biog. I. p28 (Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon's article on the Preaching of Peter, tbid. 1V. 329.

» The sinacerepse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the apostle.

It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman

Canon, and is accepted by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at that time rejected it.

Clement of Alexandria, in his HEL bs «as (according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon.

It thethird century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus).

The Ecloge or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine work of Peter

(§§ 41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter's ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius).

After Euisebius' time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin

(see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon.

It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches.

According to Sozomen, H. &.

VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was treated with especial respect.

Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the A: ocalypse of John.

As Lipsius remarks, its " lay-recognition in cithodos circles proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians" (see Lipsius, Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.).

Only a few fragments of the work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his

Nov. Test. extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Sfzc.

Patr. I. 71 sqq.

10 05 dAws ev KaB0ALKais iomev Tapadcdomeva.

11 Eusebius exaggerates in this statement.

The Apocalypse of Peter was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14) wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.

12 TOV avTiAeyomevav,.

13 repi Tov évdtabyKwv Kal d40A0youpLEvwr, 14 Oy povny wiav yvyoiav éyvwv.

15 As above; see note 2. alse ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and the false ascription of the aod, to Bapaahes, It may be said that the claims of both Barnabas and : pollos ioe many supporters, while still more attempt no decision. n regard to the canonicity of the epistle there seems never to:

IIL. 3.]

Pie SsEPISTRESSOR eTHE TAPROSLLES.

this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith.

Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it. puted ® by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul.

But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place." In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul,"

I have not found them among the undisputed writings."

But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans," has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that

vi This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged. among the Latins of his time.

As to the date and authorship of the Shepherd opinions vary widely.

The only direct testimony of antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment, which says that it was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the episcopacy of the latter (139-154 A-D.).

This testimony is accepted by the majority of scholars, most of whom date the book near the middle of the second century, or at least as late as the reign of Hadrian.

This opinion received not long ago what was supposed to be a strong confirmation from the discovery of the fact that Hermas in all probability quoted from 'Theodotion's version of Daniel (see Hort's article inthe Yohns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884), which has been commonly ascribed to the second century.

But it must now be admitted that no one knows the fermnus a guo for the composition of Theodotion's version, and therefore the discovery leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined (see Schiirer, Gesch. des jiidischen Volkes, Il. p. 709).

Meanwhile Eusebius in this connection records the tradition, which he had read, that the book was written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi.

This tradition, however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is no more than a mere guess.

While in our absence of any knowledge as to this Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name.

In Vzs. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy cf his book to Clement.

From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been contemporary with the well-known Roman

Clement, the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians.

While this appears very likely, it cannot be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later date.

Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it.

Zahn dates it between 97 and roo, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas, a contemporary of the Roman

Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.

Critics are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome.

It consists of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt.

The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and has been compared to the Prlgrzim's Progress.

Opinions are divided as to whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the author, or is wholly a fiction.

The former opinion seems to be the more probable. have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact doubtless which did most to foster the nara in its Pauline authorship from the third century on.

For the criterion of canonicity more and more came to be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect.

The early Church had cared little for suchacriterion.

In only one place does Eusebius seem to imply that doubts existed as to its canonicity, —in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where he classes it-with the Book of Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, among the aztzlegomena.

But in view of his treatment of it elsewhere it must be concluded that he is thinking in that passage not at all of its canonicity, but of its

Pauline authorship, which he knows is disputed by some, and in reference to which he uses the same word, avtvAéyeotar, in the present sentence.

Upon the canonicity of the epistle, see still further chap. 25, note r.

For a discussion of the epistle, see especially the N. T. Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.

18 avtiAéyer@ar, 19 See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.

20 These mpagéers are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they are classed among the v0@o1, implying that they had been originally accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius wrote widely accepted as such.

This implies that they were not, like the works which he mentions later in the chapter, of an heretical character.

They were already known to Origen, who (De Prz1.

I. 2, 3) refers to them in such a way as to show that they were in good repute in the Catholic Church.

They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic wepcoSou or mpagters Iavaov, which from the end of the fourth century formed a part of the Manichean canon of the New

Testament, and of which some fragments are still extant under various forms.

The failure to keep these Catholic and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has caused considerable confusion.

Both of these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed, according to Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgeschichten, Il. 1, p305 sq.) one of the sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their extant form belong to the fifth century.

For a discussion of these Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, zdzd., p. oO sq.

2 ovds myy Tas Aeyouevas avrod mpdkets ev dvapgrdrcKTors TapetAnda.

2 See Rom. xvi. 14.

The greater part of this last chapter of Romans is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus.

This has been quite a common ese since 1829, when it was first broached by David Schulz (Studien und Krittken, p. 629 sq-), and is accepted even by many conservative scholars (e.g.

Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was known.

In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos MS. discovered shortly before by éiss), while on the éther hand it is opposed by many of the opposite school.

While Aquila and Priscilla, of verse 3, and Epznetus, of verse 5, seem to point to Ephesus, and the fact that so many

Simonides.

Of the ten leaves of the MS. the last was lost; three were sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were transcribed by him in a very faulty manner.

The Sinaitic Codex has enabled us to control the text ehbiskoates in part, but unfortunately it contains only the V¢szons and a small part of the Mandates.

All recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of Simonides as their foundation.

In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only through Simonides' transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt. Athos, and in 1888 A Codlatzon of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A. Robinson, at Cambridge,

England.

We thus have now a reliable Greek text of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas.

Hilgenfeld, in his last edition (1887) of his Move Test. Extra Car. Rec., published also a Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos MS, But this has been conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we are therefore still without any MS. authority for the Greek text of the close of the work.

(Cf. Robinson's introduction to the Collation of Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack's artipersonal friends are greeted, leads us to look naturally to the East as Paul's field of labor, where he had formed so many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had not been; yet on the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus, Rufus, Hermas, Nereus, Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to Rome.

We must, however, be content to leave the matter undecided, but may be confident that the evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is certainly, in the face of the Roman names mentioned, and of universal tradition (for which as for Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not strong enough to establish it.

23 "The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of the second century, and is quoted by lIrenzus (Adv. Her. IV.

20. 2) as Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered it not quite on a level with regular Scripture.

Clement of 'Alexandria and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it is disputed by many (cf. De Prix. 1V.11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it among the voor or spurious writings In connéction with the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter.

According to the Muratorian Fragment it was '' written very recently in our cles in the Theol. Literaturzettung (1887).

The most useful edition of the original is that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrus Apost. Ofera, Fasc. III. (Lips. 1877). _

The work is translated times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop

Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome.

And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. ff. The literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should examine espepeople, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.'"?

This shows the very cially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition.

Cf. Zahn's Azrt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dect. of high esteem in which the work was held in that age.

It was very widely employed in private and in public, both in the East and the Christ. Biog. Il. p912 sqq.

Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.

West, until about the fourth century, when it gradually passed out of use.

Jerome (de wir. zi. 10) says that it was almost unknown

THE, CHURCH? HISTORY

OF" EUSEBIUS.

(III. 4.

But Luke,' who was of Antiochian parent-

age and a physician by profession," and who was especially intimate with Paul and well

{acquainted with the rest of the apostles," has CHAPTER IV.

The First Successors of the Apostles. left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them.

One of these books is the Gospel," which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first.% The other book is the Acts of the Apostles * which he

Hl TuaT Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the churches " from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is evident both from his own words,! and from the account which Luke has given in the Acts.?

And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed,' in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Ponhonor of being his burial place (see Cave's Afostolicz, ed. 1677, p63).

'Titus is a saint, in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 4.

. i :

9 Of Luke personally we know very little.

He is not mentioned in the Acts, and only three times in Paul's epistles (Col. iv. 14;

Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11), from which passages we learn that he was a physician, was one of Paul's fellow-workers who was very dear to him, and was with him during his last imprisonment.

Irenzus, who is the first to ascribe the third Gospel and the Acts to this Luke, seems to know nothing more about him personally.

Eusebius is the first to record that he was born at Antioch; but the tradition must have been universally accepted in his day, as he states it without any misgivings and with no qualifying phrase.

Jerome (de vir. zl. 7) and many later writers follow Eusebius in this statement.

There is no intrinsic improbability in the tradition, which seems, in fact, to be favored by certain minor notices in the Acts (see Schaff,

Ch. Hist. I. 651).

Gregory Nazianzen (Orat, 25) says that he labored in Achaia, and in Orat. 4 he calls him a martyr.

Jerome (26¢d.) says that he was buried in Constantinople.

According to Nicephorus (4. £. II. 43) and later writers, Luke was a painter of great skill; but this late tradition, of which the earlier Fathers know nothing, is quite worthless.

Epiphanius (Her. II. 11) makes him one of the Seventy, which does not accord with Luke's own words at the beginning of his Gospel, where he certainly implies that he himself was not an eye-witness of the events welch he records.

In the same connection, Epiphanius says that he labored in Dalmatia, Gallia, Italy, and Macedonia, —a tradition which has about as much worth as most such traditions in regard to the fields of labor of the various apostles and their followers.

Theophylact (Ox Luke xxiv.

13-24) records that some supposed that he was one of the disciples with whom Christ walked to Emmaus, and this ingenious but unfounded guess has gained some modern supporters (e.g. Lange).

He is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated October 15.

10 See Col. iv. 14. it Of Luke's acquaintance with the other apostles we know nothing, although, if we suppose him to have been the author of the "We" sections in the Acts, he was with Paul in Jerusalem at the time he was taken prisoner (Acts xxi.), when he met James at least, and possibly others of the Twelve.

It is not at all improbable that in the course of his life he became acquainted with several of the apostles. tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithy-

nia.* But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those

mentioned in the writings of Paul.

For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or " fellow-soldiers," as he called them,' and most of them were honored by him with an imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony

concerning them in his own epistles.

Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by name.® § Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus,' Titus of the churches in Crete.

4x Pet. ix.

1 Rom. xv. 19.

5 Phil. ii. 25; Philem. 2.

2 From Acts ix. on.

3 In chap. 3, § 1.

6 Barnabas (Acts ix. 27, and often); John Mark (xii. 25; xiii.

13; XV. 37,

39); Silas (xv. 40); Timothy (xvi. 1 sqq. and often); Aquila and Priscilla (xviii.); Erastus (xix. 22); Gaite of Macedonia (xix. 29); Aristarchus (xix. 29; xx. 4; xxvii. 2); Sopater,

Secundus, Gaius of Derbe (perhaps the same as the Gaius of Macedonia?), and Tychichus (xx. 4);

Trophimus (xx. 4; xxi. 29).

7 That Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus is sate. also by the Afost. Const: (VII. 46), and by Nicephorus (H. £. III. rr) who records (upon what authority we do not know) that he suffered martyrdom under Domitian.

Against the tradition that he labored during his later years in Ephesus there is nothing to be urged; though on the other hand the evidence for it amounts to little, as it seems to be no more than a conclusion drawn from the Epistles toTimothy, though hardly a conclusion drawn by Eusebius himself, for he uses the word ioropettar, which seems to imply that he had some authority for his statement.

According to those epistles, he was at the time of their composition in Ephesus, though they give us no hint as to whether he was afterward there or not.

From Heb. xiii. 23 (the date of which we do not know) we learn that he had just been released from some imprisonment, apparently in Italy, but whither he afterward went is quite uncertain.

Eusebius' report that he was bishop of Ephesus is the customary but unwarranted carrying back into the first century of the monarchical episcopate which was not known until the second, According to the Afost. Const. VII. 46 both Timothy and John were bishops of Ephesus, the former appointed by Paul, the latter by himself. Timothy is a saint in the Roman Catholic sense, and is commemorated January 24.

_ _22 The testimony to the existence of our third Gospel, although It Is not so old as that for Matthew and Mark, is still very early.

It was used by Marcion, who based upon it his own mutilated gospel, and is quoted very frequently by Justin Martyr.

The Gospel 1s first distinctly ascribed to Luke by Jrenzus (III. 1. x) and by the Muratorian Fragment.

From that time on tradition was unanimous both as to its authorship and its authority.

The common opinion— still defended by the great majority of conservative critics — has always been that the third Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

The radical critics of the present century, however, bring its composition down to a latter date

— ranging all the way from 70 to 140 (the latter is Baur's date, which is now universally recognized as very wild).

Many conservative critics put its composition after the destruction of Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its eschatological discourses —e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 7o and 80 (while putting Matthew and Mark fore the destruction of Jerusalem).

The traditional and still prevalent opinion is that Luke's Gospel was written later than those of Matthew and Mark.

See the various commentaries and New Testament Introductions, and for a clear exhibition of the synoptical problem in general, see Schaff's Ch. Hist. I. P: 607 sqq. on Luke in particular, p. 648 say

Luke 1. 2, 3 14 Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic i and before the end of the second century the book occupied a place in the Canon, undisputed except by heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c.

The Muratorian Fragment and Irenzeus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke < a per of fhe. Acts, hea from Ao time on tradition has been nanimous in ascribing it to him, only exception occurs in the case of Photius (ad Amphil. Quest. fog Te: Migne), who siates that the work was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others to Luke; but it is probable, as Weiss remarks,

= Photius, in this casé, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the 8 Cf. Tit. i. 5.

Titus is commonly connected by tradition with Crete, of which he is supposed to have been the first bishop, — the later institution being again pushed back into the first centu

In the fragment de Vita et Actis Tztz, by the lawyer Zenas (in Fabric, Cod. Apoc. N. T. 11. 831 sqq., according to Howson, in Smith's Dic.

'Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, of the Bible), he is said to have been bishop of Gortyna, a city of rete (where still stand the ruins of a church which bears his name), and of a royal Cretan famity by birth.

This tradition is late, and, of course, of little authority, but at the same time, accords very well with all that we know of Titus; and consequently there is no season for denying it 7 tofo.

According to 2 Tim. iv. 10, he went, or was sent, into Dalmatia; but universal tradition ascribes his later life and his death to Crete.

Candia, the modern capital, claims the ebrews.

As to the date of its composition, Irenzus (III. x. x) stems (one cannot speak with certainty, as some have done) to put

III. 4.]

FIRST SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES.

ee — —— — __N©N» Second Epistle to Timothy" as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.® Clement also; who was ap-

pointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.®

Besides these, that Areopa-

gite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts)" is mentioned by another Dionysius, an a eee ee composed not from the accounts of others,

but from what he had seen himself.

And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, " according

tomy Gospel."™ As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul ;** but Linus, whom he mentions in the it after the death of Peter and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the 'Acts still later.

The Muratorian Fragment implies that the work was written at least after the death of Peter.

Later, however, the tradition arose that the work was written during the lifetime of Paul

(so Jerome, de vir. 211. 7), and this has been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars ever since, although many put the composition between the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it after the destruction of Jerucontends that in 2 Tim. iv. ro should be 'read TadAia and not Todatia: ov yap év TH Tadatia ds tives mAavnO€vTns vowiCove.,

GAAG év TH TadAia.

Theodoret (in 2 Tim. IV. 10) reads TaAariav, but interprets it as meaning tas TaAAias: ovtw ydp éxadovvTo

Tada, salem, though still assigning it to Luke.

The opposite school of critics deny Luke's authorship, throwing the book into the latter

17 2 Tim. iv. 21.

F 18 See chap. 2, note 1, above.

19 Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv.

3, but is not called a " fellowsoldier."

Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul's references to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom he calls his fellow-soldiers.

The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers was a very important personage in the carly Roman church, being known to tradition as one of its first three bishops.

He has played a prominent part in Church history on account of the numerous writings which have passed under his name.

We know nothing certain about his life.

Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul,—an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after him repeated by a great many writers.

But the identification is, to say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement in a very common name deserves little consideration.

It was quite customary in the early Church to find Paul's companions, whenever possible, in peaponeinls and influential positions during the latter part of the first century.

A more plausible theory, which, if true, would throw an interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of his day, is that which identifies him with the consul Flavius Clement, a relative of the emperor Domitian (see below, chap. 18, note 6). Some ood reasons for the identification might be urged, and his rank would then explain well

Clement's influential position in the Church.

But as pointed out in chap. 38, note 6, it is extremely improbable that the consul Flavius

Clement was a Christian; and in any case a fatal objection to the identification (which is nevertheless adopted by Hilgenfeld and others) is the fact that Clement is nowhere spoken of as a martyr until the time of Rufinus, and also that no ancient wsiter identifies him or connects him in any way with the consul, although Eusebius' mention of the latter in fn 23 shows that he was a well-known person.

When we remember the tendency of the early Church to make all its heroes martyrs, and to ascribe high birth to them, the omission in this case renders the identification, we may say, virtually impossible.

More probable is the conjecture of Lightfoot, that he was a freedman belonging to the family of the consul Clement, whose name he bore.

This is simply conjecture, however, and is supported by no testimony.

Whoever Clement was, he occupied a very prominent. position in the early Roman church, and wrote an epistle to the Corinthians which is still extant (see below, chap. 16; and upon the works falsely ascribed to him, see chap. 38). in regard to his eee in the succession of Roman bishops, see chap. 2, note 1, above. part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld, &c.), or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath, &c.).

The Tiibingen School saw in the Acts a "' tendency-writing,"' in which the history was intentionally perverted.

This theory finds few supporters at present, even among the most extreme critics, all of whom, however, consider the book a source of the second rank,

'containing much that is legendary and distorted and irreconcilable with Paul's Epistles, which aye oked upon as the only reliable source.

The question turns upon the relation of the author of the << we" sections to the editor of the whole.

Conservative scholars agree with universal tradition in identifying them (though this is not necessary in order to maintain the historical accuracy of the work), while the opposite school denies the identity, considering the <'we" sections authentic historical accounts from the pen of a companion of Paul, which were afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who was not a pupil of Paul.

The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all parties.

See the various Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare especially

Weizsacker's A fost. Zettalter, p182 sqq-, and Weiss' Zznleztung, .

569 sq.

. ty Ram. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8.

Eusebius uses the expression ¢aci, 'they say,'' which seems to imply that the interpretation was a common one in his day.

Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen also thus interpreted the passages 1n Romans and Timothy referred to, but he gives no references, and I have not been bile to find in Origen's works anything to confirm the statement.

Indeed, in commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the words "' my Gospel "" to refer to the gospel reached by Paul, not to the Gospel written by Luke.

It is true, owever, that in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18.

The interpretation of the words ''according to my Gospel," which Eusebits represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome

(de vir. zl. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. | Paul never uses the word evayyéAcov in such a sense, nor is it used by any New Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the written Gospels.

It is used always in the general sense of '' glad tidings," or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of the gospel revelation.

Eusebius is not the-first to connect Luke's Gospel with Paul.

The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke's connection with Paul, and Irenzus (III. x. 1,

'or a full account of Clement, see especially Harnack's Prolegomena to his edition of Clement's Epistle (Patrum Apost. Opera, Vol.1.),

Salmon's article, Clemens Romanus, in the Dict. of Chri Biog., Schaff's Ch. Hist. Il. 636 sq., and, Donaldson's

Hzst. of Christ.

Lit. and Doctrine, I. P: gosq.

- 20 Acts xvii. 34.

This Dionysius has played an important part in Church history, as the pretended author of a series of very remarkable writings, which pass under the name of Dionysius, the Areopagite, but which in reality date from the fifth or sixth century, and probably owe their origin to the influence of Neo-Platonism.

The first mention of these writings is in the records of the Council of Constantinople (532 A-D.); but from that time on ney Oa constantly used and unanimously ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, until, in the seventeenth century, their claims to so great antiquity were disputed.

They are stil defended, however, in the face of the most positive evidence, by many Roman Catholic writers.

The influence of these works upon the theology of the Middle Ages was prodigious.

Scholasticism. may be said to be based upon them, for Thomas Aquinas used them, perhaps, more than any other source; so much so, that he has been said "' to have drawn his whole theological system from Dionysius." uoted below in V.8. § 2) says directly that Luke recorded the ospel preached by Paul.

Tertullian (4 dv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Tule' form 'of the Gospel is usually ascribed to Paul, and jin the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul.

In chap. 24 Eusebius refers again to Luke's relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25.

The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still is by the majority of scholars.

This must not be carried so far, however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from which he derived his material.

The influence of Paul is seen jn Luke's standpoint, and in his general spirit — his Gospel is the Gospel of universal salvation. ae ; 36 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is éropet@n, which means simply "' went "' or "' is gone."

That Paul had sent him as Eusebius states (using the word oretAdmevos) is not implied in the Our Dionysius has had the further honor of being identified by tradition with Dionysius (St. Denis), the patron saint of France, — an identification which we may follow the most loyal of the French in accepting, if we will, though we shall be obliged to suppose that our Dionysius lived to the good old age of two to three hundred epistle.

Instead of ets ras TadAcas (or Thy TaAdiav) most of the ancient MSS. of the New Testament have eis TaAariav, which is the reading of the Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others.

Some MSS., however (including the Sinaitic), have PadAiav, which Tischendorf adopts; and some of the MSS. of ears.

2 The statement of Dionysius of Corinth that the Areopagite was bishop of Athens (repeated by Eusebius again in Bk. IV. chap. 23)

Eusebius also have this form, thou, h the majority read 7as Taddias.

Christophorsonus in his edition of usebius reads émi rhy Tadatiav, but entirely without MS. authority.

Epiphanius (Her. LI. 11) is the usual unwarranted throwing back of a second century conception into the first century.

That Dionysius held a position of

THE-CHURCH. HISTORY: OF (EUSEBIUS:

auyare war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella."

And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

But the number of calamities which every-

where fell upon the nation at that time, the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable, — all these things, as. well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general-course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets," stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire, —all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth,": as the first bishop of the church at

Athens.

But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time.

Meanwhile let us continue the course of our history.

CHAPTER V.

The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ.

AFTER Nero had held the power thirteen years, and Galba and Otho had ruled a year and six months,? Vespasian, who had become distinguished in the campaigns against the Jews, was proclaimed sovereign in Judea and received the title of Emperor from the armies there.?

Setting out immediately, therefore, for Rome, he entrusted the conduct of the war

against the Jews to his son Titus.* For the Jews after the ascension of our Saviour, in addition to their crime against him, had been devising as many plots as they could against his apostles.

First Stephen was stoned to death by them,' and after him James, the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded,® and finally James, the first that had obtained the episcopal seat in Jerusalem after the ascension of our Saviour, died in the manner already described.'

But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel,* relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, " Go ye and make

But it is necessary to state that this writer 5: records that the multitude of those who were assembled from all Judea at the time of the Passover, to the number of three million souls,* were shut up in Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words.

For it was right

that in the very days in which they had inflicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet with destruction at the hands of divine justice. disciples of all the nations in my name." ®

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before: the influence among the few Christians whom Paul left in Athens is highly probable, and the tradition that later he was made the first bishop there is quite natural.

The church of Athens plays no. part in the history of the apostolic age, and it is improbable that there was any organization there until many years after Paul's visit; for even in the time of Dionysius of Corinth, the church there seems to have been extremely small and weak (cf. Bk. IV. chap. 23, § 2).

Upon Dionysius and the writings ascribed to him, see especially the article of Lupton in the Dict. of Christ. Brog. I. p. 841-848.

But passing by the particular calamities

which they suffered from the attempts made upon them by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to relate only the misfortunes which the famine caused, that those who read

21 Upon Dionysius of Corinth, see Bk. IV. chap. 23, below.

1 Nero was emperor from Oct. 16, 54, to June

9, 68 A.D.

2 Eusebius' figures are incorrect.

He omits Vitellius entirely, while he stretches Galba's and Otho's reigns to make them cover a period of eighteen months, instead of nine (Galba reigned from June 9, 68, to Jan. 15, 69; and Otho from Jan. rs to April 20, 69).

The total of the three reigns of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius was about eighteen months, 10 Pella was a town situated beyond the ordan, i Perea, within the dominions of Hevod res Il.' 7 Here aa ing population was chiefly Gentile.

See Pliny V. 18, and Josephus Tae LLL 35 3, and I. 4. 8.

Epiphanius (De pond. et mens. 15) aNd this flight of the Christians to Pella an. 1X, 27, 2 Josephus, B.

¥. Bks. V.

F 8 B. F. V1.9, §§3.and4.

Eusebius simply Bee youn Behe.

Josephus in § 3 puts the number at 2,700,000, exclusive of the " unclean and the Strangers"' who were not allowed to eat the Passover. me the same work, Bk. II. chap. 14, § 3, Josephus states that when

8 Vespasian was proclaimed emperor by the prefect of Egypt at Alexandria, July 1, 69, while Vitellius was the acknowledged emperor in Italy.

"His choice was immediately ratified by his army in Judea, and then by all the legions in the East.

Vitellius was conquered by Vespasian's generals, and slain in Italy, Dec. 20, 69, while Vespasian himself went to Alexandria.

The latter was imme. diately recognized by the Senate, and reached Italy in the summer of 7o.

Eusebius is thus approximately correct, though he is not exact as to details. estius Gallus, Sovernor of Syria, came to Jerusalem at the time of the Passover in 65 A.D.,no less than 3,000,000 persons came about him to enter complaint against the procurator Florus.

These numbers are grossly exaggerated.

Tacitus estimates the number in the city at the time of the siege as 600,000, but this, too, is far above the truth. The writer of the article Yerwsalem, in Smith's Bible

* Titus undertook the prosecution of the war against the Jews after his father's departure, and brought the siege of Jerusalem to an end, Sept. 8, 70 A.D.

+, estimates that the city can never have had a population of more than 50,000 souls, and he concludes that at the time of the spre there cannot have been more than 60,000 or 70,000 collected wit i the walls.

This is probably too low an estimate, but shows Ow far out of the way the figures of Josephus and Tacitus must be..

5 See Acts vil. 8 sqq.

6 See Acts xii. 2.

7 See Bk. II. chap. 23.

8 See chap, 1, note x.

9 See Matt. xxviii. 19.

III. 6.]

THE FAMINE IN JERUSALEM.

peared, to rob them even of these portions of food.

For whenever they saw a house shut up, they regarded it as a sign that those inside were taking food.

And immediately bursting open the doors they rushed in and seized what they were eating, almost forcing it out of their very throats.

Qld men who clung to their

food were beaten, and if the women concealed it in their hands, their hair was torn for so doing.. There was pity neither for gray hairs nor for infants, but, taking up the babes that clung to their morsels of food, they dashed them to the ground.

But to those that anticipated their entrance and swallowed what they were about to seize, they were still more cruel, just as if they had been wronged by them.

And

they devised the most terrible modes of torture to discover food, stopping up the privy passages of the poor wretches with bitter herbs, and piercing their seats with sharp rods.

And men suffered things horrible even to hear of, for the sake of compelling them to confess to the possession of one loaf of bread, or in order that they might be made to disclose a single drachm of barley which they had concealed.

But the tormentors themselves did not suffer hunger.

Their conduct might indeed have seemed less barbarous if they had been driven to it by necessity ; but they did it for the sake of exercising their madness and of providing sustenance for themselves for days to come.

And when any one crept out of the city by night as far as the outposts of the Romans to collect wild herbs and grass, they went to meet him ; and when he thought he had already escaped the enemy, they seized what he had brought with him, and even though oftentimes the man would entreat them, and, calling upon the most awful name of God, adjure them to give him a portion of what he had obtained at the risk of his life, they would give him nothing back.

Indeed, it was fortunate if the one that was plundered was not also slain." this work may have some means of knowing that God was not long in executing vengeance upon them for their wickedness against the Christ of God.

CHAPTER VI.

The Famine which oppressed them.

E Taxinc the fifth book of the History of Josephus again in our hands, let us go through the tragedy of events which then

occurred.'

" For the wealthy," he says, "it was equally dangerous to remain.

For under pretense that they were going to desert men were put to death for their wealth.

The madness of the seditions increased with the famine, and both the miseries were inflamed more

and more day by day.

Nowhere was food to be seen; but, bursting into the houses, men searched them thoroughly, and whenever they found anything to eat they tormented the owners on the ground that they had denied that they had anything; but if they found nothing, they tortured them on the ground that they had more carefully concealed it. The proof of their having or not having food was found in the bodies of the poor wretches.

Those of them who were still in good condition they asi

sumed were well supplied with food, while those who were already wasted away they passed by,

for it seemed absurd to slay those who were

onthe point of perishing for want.

Many, indeed, secretly sold their possessions for one measure of wheat, if they belonged to the wealthier class, of barley if they were poorer.

'Then shutting themselves up in the innermost patts of their houses, some ate the grain uncooked on account of their terrible want, while others baked it according as necessity and

fear dictated. Nowhere were tables set, but, snatching the yet uncooked food from the fire, they tore it in pieces.

Wretched was the fare, and a lamentable spectacle it was to see the To this account Josephus, after relating other things, adds the following:* "The possibility of going out of the city being brought to an end,' all hope of safety for the Jews was cut off. And the famine increased and devoured the people by houses and families.

And the rooms were filled with dead women and children, the lanes of the city with the corpses of old men.

Children and youths, swollen with the famine, wandered about the market-places like shadows, and fell down wherever the death agony overtook them.

The more powerful secure an abundance while

the weaker mourned.

Of all evils, indeed, famine is the worst, and it destroys nothing so effectively as shame.

For that which under other circumstances is worthy of respect, in the

midst of famine is despised.

Thus women snatched the food from the very mouths of their husbands and children, from their fathers, and what was most pitiable of all, mothers from

their babes.

And while their dearest ones were wasting away in their arms, they were not ashamed to take away from them the last

drops that supported life.

And even while they were eating thus they did not remain undiscovered.

But everywhere the rioters apsick were not strong enough to bury even their own relatives, and those who had the strength

2 Jb¢d. chap. 12, §§ 3 and 4.

3 Titus had just completed the building of a wall about the city by which all egress from the town was shut off.

Josephus gives an account of the wall in the paragraph immediately preceding.

1 Josephus, B. ¥. Bk. V. chap. to, §§ 2 and 3.

THE CHURCH HISTORY OF EUSEBIUS.

[III. 6. were expiring, lest any one should feign death while concealing food in his bosom.

With mouths gaping for want of food, they stumbled and staggered along like mad dogs, and beat the doors as if they were drunk, and in their impotence they would rush into the same houses twice or thrice in one hour.

Necessity compelled them to eat anything

they could find, and they gathered and devoured things that were not fit even for the filthiest of irrational beasts.

Finally they did not abstain even from their girdles and shoes, and they stripped the hides off their shields and devoured them.

Some used even wisps of old hay for food, and others gathered stubble and sold the smallest weight of it for four Attic drachme.® hesitated because of the multitude of the dead and the uncertainty as to their own fate. Many, indeed, died while they were burying others, and many betook themselves to their graves

before death came upon them.

There was neither weeping nor lamentation under these misfortunes ; but the famine stifled the natural affections.

Those that were dying a lingering death looked with dry eyes upon those that had gone to their rest before them.

Deep silence and death-laden night encircled the city.

But the robbers were more terrible than these miseries; for they broke open the houses, which were now mere sepulchres, robbed the dead and stripped the covering from their bodies, and went away with a laugh. They tried the points of their swords in the dead bodies, and some that were lying on the ground still alive they thrust through in order to test their weapons. But those that prayed that they would use their right hand and their sword upon them, they contemptuously left to be destroyed by the famine. Every one of these died with eyes fixed

"But why should I speak of the shamelessness which was displayed during the famine toward inanimate things?

For I am going to relate a fact such as is recorded neither by Greeks nor Barbarians; horrible to relate, incredible to hear.

And indeed I should gladly have omitted this calamity, that I might not seem to posterity to be a teller of fabulous tales, if I had not innumerable witnesses to it in my own age.

And besides, I should render my country poor service if I suppressed the account of the sufferings which she endured. upon the temple ; and they left the seditious alive.

These at first gave orders that the dead should be buried out of the public treasury, for they could not endure the stench.

But afterward, when they were not able to do

this, they threw the bodies from the walls into the trenches.

And as Titus went around and saw the trenches filled with the dead, and the thick blood oozing out of the putrid bodies, he groaned aloud, and, raising his

"There was a certain woman named

Mary that dwelt beyond Jordan, whose father was Eleazer, of the village of Bathezor'

(which signifies the house of hyssop).

She was distinguished for her family and her wealth, and had fled with the rest of the multitude to Jerusalem and was shut up there with them during the siege. The tyrants had robbed her of the rest of the property which she had brought with her into the city from Perea. And the remnants of her possessions and whatever food was to be seen the guards rushed ir daily and snatched away from her. This made the woman terribly angry, and by her frequent reproaches and imprecations she aroused the anger of the rapacious villains against herself.

But no one either through anger or pity would slay her; and she grew weary of finding food for others to eat.

The search, too, was already become everywhere difficult, and the famine was piercing her bowels and marrow, and resentment was raging more violently than famine.

Taking, therefore, anger and necessity as her counsellors, she proceeded to do a most unnatural thing.

Seizing her child, a boy which was sucking

at her breast, she said, Oh, wretched child, in war, in famine, in sedition, for what do I prehands, called God to witness that this was

not his doing."

After speaking of some other things, Josephus proceeds as follows :* "I cannot hesitate to declare what my feelings compel me to.

I suppose, if the Romans had longer delayed in coming against these guilty wretches, the city would have been swallowed up by a chasm, or overwhelmed with a flood, or struck with such thunderbolts as destroyed Sodom.

For it had brought forth a generation of men much more godless than were those that suffered such punishment.

By their madness indeed was the whole people

brought to destruction."

And in the sixth book he writes as follows :° "Of those that perished by famine in the city the number was countless, and the miseries they underwent unspeakable.

For if so much as the shadow of food appeared in any house, there was war, and the dearest friends engaged in hand-to-hand conflict with one another, and snatched from each other the most wretched

supports of life.

Nor would they believe

that even the dying were without food ; but the robbers would search them while they

6 "Artikav tecodpwv; the word Spaxudyv is to be supplied, A:

Attic drachm, according to some authorities, wae e vial e wou fifteen cents, according to others (among them Liddell and Scott) to about nineteen cents.

4 Jbid. chap. 13, § 6.

5 Ibid. Bk. VI. chap. 3, §§ 3 and 4.

T BabeCup.

Some MSS. have Badex.wp, phus have 87068, which Whiston translates Bethezub. and the MSS, of Jose-

TL: |

THE PREDICTIONS

+OF CHRIST.

I4I FE a ee ec ee en eee there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." serve thee?

Slaves among the Romans we shall be even if we are allowed to live by them.

But even slavery is anticipated by the famine, and the rioters are more cruel than both.

Come, be food for me, a fury for these rioters,' and a byeword to the world, for this is all that is wanting to complete the calamities of the Jews.

And when she had said this she slew her son ;

and having roasted him, she ate one half herself, and covering up the remainder, she kept it.

Very soon the rioters appeared on the scene, and, smelling the nefarious odor, they threatened to slay her immediately unless she should show them what she had prepared.

She replied that she had saved an excellent portion The historian, reckoning the whole num-

ber of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword,' and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain.? But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph.

Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt,* while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts.

Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as for them, and with that she uncovered the remains of the child.

They were immediately seized with horror and amazement, and stood transfixed at the sight.

But she said, This is my own son, and the deed is mine. Eat, for I too have eaten.

Be not more merciful than a woman, nor more compassionate than a mother.

But if you are too pious and shrink

slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand.'

These things

took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian,® in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour

Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement from my sacrifice, I have already ® eaten of

it; let the rest also remain for me.

At these words the men went out trembling, in this one case being affrighted ; yet with difficulty did they yield that food to the mother.

Forthwith the whole city was filled with the awful crime, and as all pictured the terrible deed beof the holy evangelists, who give the very words which he uttered, when, as if addressing

Jerusalem herself, he said:' "If thou hadst

known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace!

But now they are hid from thine eyes.

For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep fore their own eyes, they trembled as if they

had done it themselves.

Those that were suffering from the famine now longed for death ; and blessed were they that had died bethee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground."

And

fore hearing and seeing miseries like these." then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says,' " For there shall be great distress in

Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness and impiety against the Christ of God. the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations.

And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until

CHAPTER VII.

the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

And again:® "When ye shall see Jerusalem comem The Predictions of Christ.

Ir is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he

foretold these very events.

His words are as follows :! " Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day:

For 2 Josephus, 2. ¥. Bk. VI. chap. 9, § 3Josephus simply says that the whole number of those that perished during the siege was

1,100,000; he does not specify the manner of their death.

On the accuracy of the numbers which he gives, see above, chap. 5, note 13.

3 [bid. § 2.

4 cis Ta Kar' "Avyumtov épya.

The works meant are the great stone quarries of Egypt (commonly called the mines of Egypt), which furnished a considerable part of the finest marble used for building purposes in Rome and elsewhere.

The quarries were chiefly in the hands of the Roman government, and the work of quarrying was done largely by captives taken in war, as in the present case.

} 5 Josephus does not sa' was upward of 90,000, as the number of captives taken during the number which Eusebius, through an error, of prisoners that were sold as slaves.

F 6 In B. ¥. Bk. VI. 8. 5 and 10. 1 Josephus puts the completion of the siege on the eighth of the month Elul (September), and in the second passage he puts it in the second year of Vespasian.

Vespasian was proclaimed emperor in Egypt July x, 69, so that Sept.

8 of his second year would be Sept. 8, A.D. 70.

(Cf, Schiirer, N. T. Zettgesch. p. 347-) 8 «In accordance with the idea that the souls of the murdered tormented, as furies, those who were most guilty of their death" that the number of those sold as slaves usebius asserts, but simply (zézd. § 3) that whole war was 97,000, a Stroth).

: 9 jm.

All the MSS. of Eusebius read vuav.

Some of the MSS. applies to the one class of Josephus read 75, and Rufinus translates xa et ego prior contedi.

Walesius, without MS. authority (but apparently with the support of some MSS. of Josephus, for Whiston translates "' onehalf?) reads jurcv, a half, and he is followed by the English and German translators.

Some change from the reading of the MSS. of Eusebius is certainly necessary; and though the alteration made by Valesius produces very good sense and seems quite natural, I have preferred to accept the reading which is given by many of the MSS. of Josephus, and which has the support of Rufinus.

7 Luke xix. 42-44.

8 Jbid. xxi. 23, 24.

» Jbid. verse 20, 1 Matt. xxiv. 19-21.

THE (GHURCHS HISTOR Y OF EUSEBIUS.

(III. 7. passed with armies, then know that the desoladid not heed nor give credit to the visions and signs that foretold the approaching desolation.

On the contrary, as if struck by lightning, and as if possessing neither eyes nor understanding, they slighted the proclamations of God. At

one time a star, in form like a sword, stood over the city, and a comet, which lasted fora whole year ; and again before the revolt and before the disturbances that led to the war, when the people were gathered for the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth of the month Xanthicus,' at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone about the altar and the temple that it seemed to be bright day; and this continued for half an hour.

This seemed to the unskillful a good sign, but was interpreted by the sacred scribes as portending those events which very soon took place.

And at the same feast a cow, led

by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.

And the eastern gate of the inner temple,

which was of bronze and very massive, and which at evening was closed with difficulty by twenty men, and rested upon iron-bound beams, and had bars sunk deep in the ground, was seen at the sixth hour of the night to open of itself.

And not many days after the feast,

on the twenty-first of the month Artemisium,* a certain marvelous vision was seen which passes belief.

The prodigy might seem fabulous were it not related by those who saw it, and were not the calamities which followed deserving of such signs.

For before the setting of the sun chariots and armed troops were seen throughout the whole region in mid-air, wheeling through the clouds and encircling the cities.

And at the feast which is called Pentecost,

when the priests entered the temple at night, as was their custom, to perform the services, they said that at first they perceived a movement and a noise, and afterward a voice as of a great multitude, saying, 'Let us go hence.'* But what follows is still more

terrible; for a certain Jesus, the son of Ananias, a common countryman, four years before the war,' when the city was particularly tion thereof is nigh." yf If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were

truly divine and marvellously strange." Concerning those calamities, then, that befell the whole Jewish nation after the Saviour's passion and after the words which the multitude of the Jews uttered, when they begged the release of the robber and murderer, but besought that the Prince of Life should be taken from their midst, it is not necessary to add anything to the

account of the historian.

But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ, — during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord," were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place.

Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.

Since these matters have been thought worthy of mention by the historian already cited, we cannot do better than to recount them for the benefit of the readers of this work.

CHAPTER VIII.

The Signs which preceded the War.

TakiNc, then, the work of this author, read what he records in the sixth book of his History.

His words are as follows :1 "Thus were the miserable people won over at this time by the impostors and false prophets ;* but they a eri against God"? (as Crusé does), which is indefinite, and might have various meanings.

10 Tt is but right to remark that not merely the negative school of critics, but even many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss) put the composition of the Gospel of Luke after the year

70, because its eschatological discourses seem to bear the mark o having been recorded after the fulfillment of the prediction, differing as they do in many minor particulars from the accounts of the same discourses in Matthew and Mark.

To cite a single instance: in the passage quoted just above from Luke xxi. 20, the armies encompassing Jerusalem are mentioned, while in parallel passages in the other Gospels

(Matt. xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14) not armies, but 'the abomina. tion of desolation standing in the holy place" is spoken of as the sign.

Compare the various commentaries upon these passages, 11 Compare Acts iii. 14, and see Matt. xvii, 20, Mark xy. 11,

Luke xxii, 18, 12 See above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

1 Josephus, B. ¥. Bk. VI. chap. 5, § 3. kataWevdouevor Tov Meovd.

In the previous paragraph Josephus says that a great many false prophets were suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people.

It is to these false prophets therefore that he refers here, and I have consequently felt at liberty thus to translate the Greek word given above, instead of rendering merely " liars

®* The feast referred to is the feast of the Passover, The Greek name of the month used here is €avixds, which was the name of a Macedonian month corresponding to our April,

According to Whiston, Josephus regularly used this name for the Jewish month Nisan

(the first month of the Jewish year), in which case this event took place six days before the Passover, which began on the 14th of Nisan.

Apreutctos. _ According to Liddell and Scott, this was a Spartan and Macedonian month Corresponding to a part of the ninth

Attic month (cAadnBodwv), which in turn corresponded to the latter part of our March and the early part of April.

According to Wieseler, Josephus used the word to dénote the second month of the Jewish year, the month Iyar.

5 The majority of the MSS. of Eusebius read MeTaBaivouer, 'we go hence."

But at least one of the best MSS. and a majority of the MSS. of Josephus, supported by Rufinus and Jerome (who render migremus), read HeTaBaivwmer, " let us go hence," and I have followed Stephanus, Valesius, Stroth, and the English and German translators in adopting that reading.

° That is, in 62 a.p., for, according to Josephus, the war began

Il. 9.]

THE WRITINGS OF JOSEPHUS.

Fama eee nr Sr SS "Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Roprosperous and peaceful, came to the feast, at which it was customary for all to make tents at the temple to the honor of God,' and suddenly began to cry out: 'A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the temple, a voice against bridegrooms and brides, a voice against mans in the beginning and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward." He

was the most noted ofall the Jews of that day, not only among his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by the erection of a statue in Rome,' and his works were deemed worthy of a place in the library.'

He wrote. the whole of the Antiquities of

the Jews' in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books.'

He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself all the people.'

Day and night he went 8 _ through all the alleys crying thus.

But certain of the more distinguished citizens, vexed at the ominous cry, seized the man and beat him with many stripes.

_ But without uttering a word in his own behalf, or saying anything in particular to those that were present, he continued to cry out in the same words as be-

fore.

And the rulers, thinking, as was true, that the man was moved by a higher power, brought him before the Roman governor.* And reference to himself, but also in his autobiography, which was written after the year 100.

The work was occasioned by the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, which had represented him as more patriotic and more hostile to the Romans than he liked, and he therefore felt impelled to paint himself in the blackest of colors, as a traitor and renegade, — probably much blacker than he really was.

It is devoted chiefly to an account of the intrigues and plots formed against him while he was governor of Galilee, and contains little of general biographical interest, except in the introduction and the conclusion. then, though he was scourged to the bone, he neither made supplication nor shed tears, but, changing his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, he answered each stroke with the words, ' Woe, woe unto Jerusalem.'"'

; Josephus was of a priestly family, — his father Matthias belonging to the first of the twenty-four courses, — and he was born in the first ear of Caius Cesar} i.e. in the year beginning March 16, 37 A.D.

The same historian records another fact

e played a prominent part in the Jewish war, being entrusted with the duty, as governor of Galilee and commander of the forces there, of meeting and opposing Vespasian, who attacked that province first.

He was, however, defeated, and gave himself up to the victors, in the summer of 67.

He was treated with honor in the camp of the Romans, whom he served until the end of the war, and became a favorite and flatterer of the Vespasian house, incurring thereby the everlasting contempt of his countrymen,

He went to Rome at the close of the war, and lived in prosperity there until early in the second century.

His works are our chief source for a knowledge of Jewish affairs from the time of the Maccabees, and as duch are, and will always remain, indispensable, and their author immortal, whatever his character.

He was a man of learning and of talent, but of inordinate selfishness and self-esteem.

He was formerly accused of great inaccuracy, and his works were considered a very poor historical source; but later investigations have increased his credit, and he seems, upon the whole, to have been a historian of unusual ability and conscientiousness. still more wonderful than this.

He says? that a certain oracle was found in their sacred writings which declared that at that time a certain person should go forth from their country to rule the world.

He himself understood that this was fulfilled in Vespasian.

But Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part of it which was subject to the Romans.

With better right could it be applied

to Christ ; to whom it was said by the Father, " Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen

2 Eusebius is the only one, so far as we know, to mention this statue in Rome, and what authority there is for his statement we cannot tell.

; 3 In § 64 of his Lzfe Josephus tells us that Titus was so much pleased with his accounts of the Jewish war that he subscribed his name to them, and ordered them published (see the next chapter, for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession."

At that very time, indeed, the voice of his holy apostles " went throughout all the earth, and their words to the end of the world,"

8 sqq-, where the passage is quoted).

The first public library in ome, according to Pliny, was founded by Pollio (76 B.c.-4 A.D.).

The one referred to here is undoubtedly the imperial library, which, according to Suetonius, was originally established by Augustus in the temple of Apollo on the Palatine, and contained two sections, — one for Greek, and the other for Latin works.

It was greatly enlarged by Tiberius and Domitian.

CHAPTER IX.

Josephus and the Works which he has left.

4 "Tovdaiky 'Apxacodroyla, Antiguitates Fudaice.

This work, which is still extant, is Josephus' most extensive work, and aims to give, in twenty books, a complete history of the Jews, from the time of Abraham to the beginning of the great war with Rome.

The object of the work is mainly apologetic, the author aiming to place ne before Gentile readers in as favorable a light as possible.

AFTER all this it is fitting that we should know something in regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so much to the history in hand.

He himself gives us information on this point in the following words re De SS t contains much legendary matter, but is the main source for our knowledge of a long period of Jewish history, and as such is invaluable.

The work was completed, according to his own statement (XX. 11. 2), in the thirteenth year of Domitian (93-94 A.D.), and frequently corrects erroneous statements made in his earlier work upon the Jewish war.

5 'Igropia 'lovdaixod moAguov mpos 'Pwpatous, de Bello Fudaico.

This work, in seven books, constitutes our most complete and trustworthy source for a knowledge of that great war, so momentous in its consequences both to Judaism and to Christianity.

The author wrote from personal knowledge of many of the events described, and had, besides, access to extensive and reliable written sources; and the general accuracy of the work may therefore be accepted.

He says that he undertook the work for the purpose of giving a true narrative of the war, in consequence of the many false and distorted accounts which had already appeared in various quarters.

He presented the work, when finished, to Vespasian and Titus, and obtained their approval and testimony to its trustworthiness: and hence it must have been written during the reign of Vespasian, probably toward the end of it, as other works upon the war had preceded his (8. ¥., Preface, § I). in 66 a.D. A little further on, Josephus says that he continued his cry for seven years and five months, when he was slain during the siege of Jerusalem.

This shows that he is here, as well as elsewhere, reckoning the date of the beginning of the war as 66 A.D.

7 That is, the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish year, and continued seven days.

% This was Albinus, as we should know from the date of the event, and as Josephus directly states in the context.

He was procurator from 61 or 62 to 64 A.D.

See above, Bk. Il. chap. 23, note 35, and chap. 22, note 1. ps 9 See Josephus, 2. F. VI. §- 4; 762d. III. 8. 9.

10 Ps. i. 8.

S. XIX. 4.

1B, ¥., Preface, § 1.

We have an original source for the life of Josephus, not only in his various works, in which he makes frequent and cf. i Pp.

THE 'CHURCH? HISTORY GEYEUSESLUS.

(III. 9. another; but we have only twenty-two, which contain the record of all time and are justly held to be divine.

Of these, five are by

Moses, and contain the laws and the tradiinto his native tongue.

He is worthy of credit here because of his truthfulness in other

matters.

There are extant also two other books of his which are worth reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews,' and in them he replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at 11. Ezra and Nehemiah.

17. Twelve Minor Prophets.

: h A 12. pee 18. Job 5 i i i Isaiah.

1g.

Psalms. that time written a treatise against the Jews, an ee ea oe ee also to others who had attempted to vilify the | t" syevie. ee ee 16. Daniel.

22. Song of Songs. hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.

In the first of these books he gives the number of the canonical books of the soThe earliest detailed list of Old Testament books is that of Melito

(given by Eusebius, IV. 26), which is as follows: — :

= Genesis.

Proverbs. called Old Testament.

Apparently ® drawing his | Books | Exodus.

Ecclesiastes.

* q +4 of 4 Leviticus.

Song of Songs. information from ancient tradition, he shows | yore.) Numbers, Job. j i Deuteronomy. saiah. what books were accepted without dispute dene aoey eae among the Hebrews.

His words are as follows.

Jose Twelve Minor Prophets.

, Ruth. aniel.

Four of Kings, Ezekiel.

Chronicles.

Ezra.

CHAPTER X.

Psalms.

Melito says nothing of the number twenty-two, and, in fact, his list, as he gives it, numbers only twenty-one.

His list really differs from joe only in omitting the Book of Esther.

This omission may accidental, though it is omitted by Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen.

He makes no mention of Nehemiah, but that is doubtless included with Ezra, as in the case of Josephus' canon.

His canon purports to be the Palestinian one, and hence we should expect it to be the same as that of Josephus, which makes it more probable that the omission of Esther was only accidental.

Origen (in Eusebius, VI. 25) tells us that there were twenty-two books in the Hebrew canon; but his list differs somewhat from that of Josephus.

It is as follows: — The Manner in which Josephus mentions the Divine Books. i 1" We have not, therefore, a multitude of books disagreeing and conflicting with one

6 The work, as Josephus informs us (B. ¥., Preface, § 1; and contra Apion. I. 9), was written originally in his own tongue, —

Aramaic, —and afterwards translated by himself into Greek, with 1-5. Books of Moses.

15. Song of Songs. the help of others.

Eusebius inverts the fact, making the Greek the 6. Joshua.

16. [Twelve Minor Prophets original.

Judges and Ruth.

Rufinus).

5 The full title of this work is the Adology of Flavius Fosephus z uae 17. "ane )-J on the Antiquities of the Fews against Apion (wept apxatorytos

9. Kings.

18. Jeremiah, Lamentations, and 'lovSaiwy kata 'Amiwvos, De Antiguitate ¥ud@orum contra ZApi0= | ole Chronicles:

Epistle. nent).

It is ordinarily cited saci as contra Apionem (Against| 3, Ezra I. and Il.

19. Daniel.

Apion).

It consists of two books, and is, in fact, nothing else than an 52" Psalms:

20. Ezekiel. apology for Judaism in general, and to a less extent, a defense of 13. Proverbs.

21. Job. himself and his former work (the 4 ntiguztzes) against hostile critics,

14. Ecclesiastes.

22. Esther.

The common title, contra Apionem, is rather misleading, as he is not once mentioned in the first book, although in the first part of the second book he is attacked with considerable bitterness and through him a large class of enemies and detractors of Judaism. (Upon Apion, the famous Alexandrian and the bitter enemy of the Jews, see above,

Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5.) The work is Josephus' best effort from a literary point of view, and shows both learning and ability, and in spite of its brevity contains much of great yalue,

It was written after his Antiguztics (i.e. after 93 A-D.), how long afterward we cannot tell.

These three works of Josephus, with his autobiography already mentioned (note 1), ave all that are extant, although he seems to have written another work relating to the history of the Seleucid (cf. Ant. XIII. 2. 1, 2. 4, 4-6, 5.11) of which not a trace remains, and which is mentioned by no one else.

The other works planned by Josephus—Onx God and his Essence (Ant. XX.

Eig 3) iy GA the Laws of the Fews (zbid. and Ant. III. Be 65 8. 10) —seem never to have been written.

(They are mentioned also by Eusebius in the next chapter.) Other compositions attributed to him are not from his hand.

The best edition of the works of Josephus is that of Benedict Niese (Berlin, 1885 sq.), of which the first two volumes have been already issued, comprising ten books of the Antiguzties.

A good complete edition is that of Dindorf (Paris, 1845-47, 2 vols.).

That of Bekker (Leipzig, 1855, 6 vols.) is very convenient.

The only complete English translation is by Whiston, unfortunately uncritical and inaccurate.

Traill's translation of the ¥ewsk War (London, 1862) is a great improve- "* Besides these also the Maccabees.""

The peculiar thing about the list is the omission of the Twelve Minor Prophets and the insertion of the Epistle of Jeremiah.

The former were certainly looked upon by Origen as sacred books, for he wrote a commentary upon them (according to Eusebius, VI. 36).

There is no conceivable reason for their omission, and indeed they are needed to make up the number twenty-two.

We must conclude that the omission was simply an oversight on the part of Eusebius or of some transcriber.

Rufinus gives them as number sixteen, as shown in the list, but the position there assigned to them is not the ordinary one.

We should expect to find them in connection with the other prophets; but the various lists are by no means uniform in the order of the books.

On the other hand, the Greek Epistle of poretdials (Baruch vi.) did not stand in the Hebrew canon, and can ave been included by Origen here only because he had been used to seeing it in connection with Jeremiah in his copy of the LXX, (for in ancient MSS. of the LXX., which probably represent the original arrangement, it is given not as a part of Baruch, but as an appendix to Lamentations), and hence mentioned it in this book without thinking of its absence from the Hebrew canon.

Origen adds the Maccabees to his list, but expressly excludes them from the twenty-two books (see Bk. VI. chap. 25, note 5). Meanwhile the Talmud and the Midrash divide the canon into twenty-four books, and this was ric'

Be a ace division, 'The number ment, but does not cover the remainder of osephus' works.

Upon | 'Wenty-two was gained by adding uth to Judges and Lamentations Joven ang wings Se the ace of Bera te Ze | Jeon he number thus obtained agra with che numberof =,

> qs it ae a eta the literature given sanctioned by divine authority, and the cs was commonly 1 Against Apion, 1.8.

The common Christian tradition (since pena by the early Fathers.

This is Strack's view, and seems the first peptiey, when it was stated in the fourth book of Ezra xiv. cin acta ane sae ae ict iy cg Menace rete =

Ahi however, is a mistake, fr the canon ge eT game: | twenty-four might be changed twenty-two than how the reverse pleted before the time of Judas ee eee so Jerephs. te the earliPa is RPE femoe Rat ore slo hS yee dee er ést writer to give us a summary of the books of the Oi estament; ;

Bact agai and he evidently gives not merely his own private opinion, but the ae — ae agrees with the canon of Josephus except in the commonly accepted canor. of his day.

He does not name the sepace general divisions, which are differently composed.

It will be rate books, but he tells us that they were twenty-two in number (the pede eet these various lists (with the exception of that of Origen, number of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet), and gives us the Pees a are of Jeremiah and appends the Maccabees) three divisions, so that we are able to ascertain his canon in detail. ny tne Dooks of our canon.

But the LXX. prints with the It was doubtless as follows: — ae oe eee peers which we cat pasty pla | oe ex- .

: as been commonly supposed, therefore ce pee Moses.

. ape that there was a regular Alexandrian canon differing from the Pales- . tinian.

But this is not likely. Ane inati f Philo'

7. Judges and Ruth. to. Chronicles, Old Testament shows us hay his catia dareed Gl 'hat! of Eee,

III. 10.]

JOSEPHUS' OLD TESTAMENT CANON.

opt lobsl JS are are attached to our own writings is shown plainly by our treatment of them.

For although so great a period has already passed by, no one has ventured either to add to or to take from them, but it is inbred in all Jews from their very birth to regard them as the teachings of God, and to abide by them, and, if necessary, cheerfully to die for them." tion respecting the origin of man, and continue the history? down to his own death.

This period embraces nearly three thousand

years.

From the death of Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets that followed

Moses wrote the history of their own times in thirteen books.

The other four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regula-

tion of the life of men.

From the time of Artaxerxes to our own day all the events have been recorded, but the accounts are not worthy of the same confidence that we repose in those which preceded them, because there

These remarks of the historian I have thought might advantageously be introduced in this connection. Another work of no little merit

has been produced by the same writer, On the Supremacy of Reason,° which some have called Maccabaicum,' because it contains an account of the struggles of those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is related in the books called Maccabees.

And at the end of the twentieth book of

his Antiquities * Josephus himself intimates that he had purposed to write a work in four books concerning God and his existence, according to the traditional opinions of the Jews, and also concerning the laws, why it is that they permit some things while prohibiting others.2

And the same writer also mentions in his own works other books written by himself?

addition to these things it is proper to quote also the words that are found at the close of his.

Antiquities," in confirmation of the testimony which we have drawn from his accounts.

In that place he attacks Justus of Tiberias," who, like himself, had attempted to write a history of contemporary events, on the ground that he had not written truthfully.

Having brought many has not been during this time an exact

succession of prophets.© How much we comprising no apocryphal books.

It is probable in fact that the LXX. included in their translation these other books which were held in high esteem, without intending to deliver any utterance as to the extent of the canon or to alter the common Jewish canon by declaring these a part of it.

But however that was, the use of the LXX., which was much wider than that of the Hebrew, brought these books into general use, and thus we see them gradually acquiring canonical authority and used as a part of the canon by Augustine and later Fathers.

Jerome was the only one in the West to utter a protest against such use of them.

Both Athanasius and Cyril of Jerusalem added to the canon Baruch and the Epistle of Secinpea but opinion in the Orient was mostly against making any oks not in the Hebrew canon of canonical authority, and from the fourth century the Eastern Fathers used them less and less.

They were, however, officially recognized as a part of the canon by numerous medieval and modern synods until 1839, when the larger Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, the most authoritative standard of the Grzeco-Russian Church, expressly excluded them.

The Latin Church, meanwhile, has always regarded the Apocrypha as canonical, and by its action at the Council of Trent has made them a part of the official canon.

See Strack's article in Herzog, translated in Schaff-Herzog; also Harman's Introduction to the Holy Scripture, p33 $qqThe subject is discussed in all Old Testament introductions.

2 Literally, '' the tradition ar pere | the origin of man (avé@pwmoyovias) down to his own death."

I have felt it necessary to insert the words, "' and continue the history,' which are not ound in the Greek, but which are implied in the words, '' down to his own death." carried on their work and that the later prophets flourished.

Malachi—the last of them— uttered his prophecies at the end of Artaxerxes' or at the Daring of Darius' reign.

It was commonly held. among the Jews that with Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachi the prophetical spirit had departed from Israel, and the line was sharply drawn, as here by pest between them and the writers of the Apocrypha who followed them, 3 Among the Jews in the time of Christ a world's era was in use, dating from the creation of the world; and it is this era which Josephus employs here and throughout his Amtiguzties.

His figures are often quite inconsistent, — perbel'y owing, in large part, to the corrupt state of the existing text, — an the confusion which results is considerable.

See Destinon's Chronologie des Fosephus.

8 els MaxxaBaiovs Adyos 7 Tepi avroxpatopos Aoyiopov: De Maccabaeis, seu de rationis intperto liber.

This book is often called the Fourth Book of Maccabees, and was formerly ascribed to:

Josephus.

As a consequence it is printed with his works in many editions.

But it is now universally acknowledged to be spurious, although who the author is we cannot tell.

4 These thirteen books were: — 1. Joshua.

8. Isaiah.

2. godess and Ruth. gJeremiah and Lamentations.

Samuel.

10, Ezekiel.

4. Kings.

11. Daniel.

5. Chronicles.

12. Twelve Minor Prophets.

6. Ezra and Nehemiah.

13. Job.

7 MaxkxaBaikov, 8 Ant, XX. 11. 3.

See the previous chapter, note 7.

7. Esther.

9 See the same note.

10 The passage referred to, which is quoted just below, is: found in his Lzfe, § 6s, and not in the Antzguzties.

But we can see from the last paragraph of the Axtzguztzes that he wrote his Life really as an appendix to that work, and undoubtedly, as Ewald suggests, issued it with a second edition of the Antiguzties about twenty years after the first.

In the MSS. it is always found with the Antiquities, and hence the whole might with justice be viewed as one work.

It will be noticed that Eusebius mentions no separate Life of Josephus, which shows that he regarded it simply as a part of the Antigutties.

Josephus divided the canon into three parts: first, As will be seen, the Law (five books of Moses) ; second, the Prophets (the thirteen just mentioned) ; third, the Hagiographa (Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles).

The division of the canon into three such parts is older than Josephus; at the same time, his division is quite different from any other division known.

Jerome's is as follows: — 1. Law: five books of Moses.

( 2. Prophets: Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, ako and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Twelve Minor Prophets (eight jooks).

3; Mikes eranke (Holy writings): Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Daniel, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther (nine books).

The division which exists in our Hebrew Bibles differs from this of Jerome's only in transferring Ruth and Lamentations to the third division, and thus making twenty-four books.

This is held by many to be a later form, as remarked above, but as Strack shows, it 1s rather the original. In the LXX., which is followed in our English Bible, the books are arranged, without reference to the three divisions, solely according to their subject-matter.

The peculiar division of Josephus was caused by his looking at the matter from the historical standpoint, which led him to include in the second division all the books which contained, as he says, an account of events from Moses to Artaxerxes. é 5 The Artaxerxes here referred to is Artaxerxes Longimanus who reigned B.C. 464 to 425+ It was under him that Ezra and Nehemiah 11 Justus of Tiberias was the leader of one of the factions of that city during the troublous times before the outbreak of the war, while ig ios was governor of Galilee, and as an opponent he caused. im considerable trouble.

He is mentioned frequently in Josephus'

Life, and we are thus enabled to gather a tolerably complete idea of him — though of course the account is that of an enemy.

He wrote a work upon the Jews which was devoted chiefly to the affairs of the Jewish war and in which he attacked Josephus very severely.

This work, which is no longer extant, was read by Photius and is' described by him in his Bid/. Cod. 33, under the title, Baoudeis

Tovdaior o1 év Tos oTéumacr.

It was in consequence of this work that Josephus felt obliged to publish his Zz/e, which is really little more than a defense of himself over against the attacks of viene.

See above, note 1.

THE CHURCH "HISTORY OP -BUSERICS.

[TIL 10; alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.

They all with one consent pronounced Symeon,* the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention,' to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish.

He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour.

For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.® other accusations against the man, he continues in these words: "TI indeed was not afraid in respect to my writings as you were," but, on the contrary, I presented my books to the emperors themselves when the events were almost under men's eyes.

For I was conscious that I had preserved the truth in my account,

and hence was not disappointed in my ex-

pectation of obtaining their attestation. And I presented my history also to many others, some of whom were present at the war, as, for CHAPTER aii. instance, King Agrippa' and some of his relatives.

For the Emperor Titus desired so much that the knowledge of the events should be communicated to men by my history alone, that he indorsed the books with his own hand and commanded that they should be published.

And King Agrippa wrote sixty-two epistles testifying to the truthfulness of my account."

Lt Vespasian commands the Descendants of David to be sought.

He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.!

Of these epistles Josephus subjoins two."

But this will suffice in regard to him.

Let us now proceed with our history. bius' more definite account rests we do not know.

He introduces it with the formula Adyos xaréyer, and we know of no other author who has put it as he does.

It may be that the simple statement of Hegesippus was the sole ground of the more detailed tradition which Eusebius repeats in this chapter.

The reason of Symeon's appointment as given by Hegesippus is quite significant.

It was the common Oriental custom to accord the highest honors to all the members of a prophet's or religious leader's family, and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his close physical relationship to Christ that James enjoyed such prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding even that of the apostles themselves. h

CHAPTER XI.

Symeon rules the Church of Jerusalem after Fames.

AFTER the martyrdom of James! and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed,' it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the

This Symeon is to be distinguished don the apostle Simon, the Canaanite, and also from Simon, the brother of our Lord (mentioned in Matt. xiii. 55 and Mark vi. 3).

It is noticeable that Hegesippus nowhere calls him the " brother of the Lord," though he does give

James that title in Bk. II. chap. 23.

Clopas is mentioned in John xix. 25, as the husband of Mary, who is without doubt identical with Mary the mother of James (the little) and of Joses; mentioned in Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, &c.

If Hegesippus' account be accepted as trustworthy (and there is no reason for doubting it), Symeon was the son of Clopas and Mary, and therefore brother of James the Little and Joses.

If, then, Alphaus and Clopas be the same, as man claim, James the Little is to be identified with James the son of Alphzeus, the apostle, and hence the latter was the brother of Symeon.

This identification, however, is entirely arbitrary, and linguistically difficult, and we shall do better therefore to keep the men separate, as Renan does (see above, Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14).

Upon the martyrdom of Symeon, see below, chap. gas

In John xix, 25.

6 Hegesippus, quoted below in Bk. IV. chap. 22, calls Clopas the uncle of the Lord, which would make him of course the brother or brother-in-law of Joseph.

Eusebius evidently considered them own brothers.

Whether Hegesippus elsewhere stated this directly, or whether Eusebius' opinion is simply an inference from the words of Hegesippus already referred to, we do not know.

There is no objection to the conclusion that Clopas and Joseph were own brothers, flesh ® (for the majority of them also were still 12 Vita, § 65.

13 Josephus has just affirmed in a previous paragraph tha. fustus had had his H7s¢ory written for twenty years, and yet had not published it until after the death of Vespasian, Titus, and Agrippa, and he accuses him of waiting until after their death because he was afraid that they would contradict his statements.

Josephus then goes on to oy in the passage quoted that he was not, like Justus, afraid to publish his work during the lifetime of the chief actors in the war.

Bk. II. chap. x9, note 3. Agrippa sided with the Romans in the war and was with Vespasian and 1* Agrippa II.

See above, Titus in their camp much of the time, and in Galilee made repeated efforts to induce the people to give up their rebellion, that the war might be avoided.

15 These two epistles are still extant, and are given by Josephus in his Vzta, immediately after the passage just quoted by Eusebius. although it cannot be proved from Hegesippus' words that they were more than brothers-in-law.

From John xix. 25 it is at any rate plain that their wives cannot have been own sisters, as was formerly maintained by so many commentators.

With the remaining possibilities of relationship we do not need to concern ourselves.

The first of them reads as follows (according to Whiston's translation): 'King Agrippa to Josephus, his dear Pend, sendeth greeting.

I have read over thy book with great pleasure, and it appears to me that thou hast done it much more accurately and with greater care than have the other writers.

Send me the rest of these books.

Farewell, my dear friend."

_ | It is not certain that Eusebius intends to give Hegesippus as his authority for the statements of this chapter, inasmuch as he does not mention his name.

He gives the account, however, upon the authority of some one else, and not as a direct historical statement for the verb is in the infinitive, and it is much more natural to supply 'Hyyourmos igropei, the last words of the preceding chapter than to supply any other phrase, such as Adyos_ Kkaréyer which occurs two chapters earlier.

The translators are divided as to the words that are to be supplied, but it seems to me beyond doubt that this account rests upon the same authority as that of the previous chapter. There is in any case nothing at all unlikely in the report as Vespasian and his successors kept a very close watch non, the Jews, and this would have been a very natural method of endeavo ing to prevent future revolutions.

The same course was pur.

ae by hiner see below, chaps. 19 and 20, es other source of a persecution raised agai and we may therefore conclude ra es ne Jove by ole much, if indeed it deserves to be call 1 61 or 62 A.D.

See above, Bk. II. chap, 23.

2 See 752d. note 40.

The date of Symeon's accession (assuming that he did take charge of the Jerusalem church as James had done) cannot be fixed.

Eusebius himself, as he informs us in Bk.

IV. chap. 5, although he had a list of the Jerusalem bishops, had no information as to the dates of their accession, or the length of their incumbency.

He puts Symeon's accession after the destruction of Jerusalem, but he evidently does that only because he supposed that it followed immediately upon the death of James.

Some (e.g. Lightfoot) think it probable that Symeon was appointed immediately after James' death, therefore before the destruction of Jerusalem; others

(e.g. Renan) suppose that in Pella the had no bishop and appointed Symeon only after the return of the church to Jerusalem.

3 Adyos Karéxer.

Hegesippus (quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, beJow) says that " Symeon was appointed the second bishop, whom all

Proposed as the cousin of our Lord,"

Upon what authority EuseSpasian t it cannot have amounted to ed a persecution at all,

↑ Back to top