Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

earlier, i.e. in 60 a.d. , the date fixed by Wieseler. The widest possible margin for his accession is from 59–61. Upon this whole question, see Wieseler, p. 66 sqq. Festus died while in office. He seems to have been a just and capable governor,—in this quite a contrast to his predecessor.

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 Cæsarea the previous autumn, therefore as early as the autumn of 61. If Festus became procurator in 61, this must have been the date. But if, as is probable, Festus became procurator in 60, then Paul was sent to Rome in the autumn of the same year, and reached Rome in the spring of 61. This is now the commonly accepted date; but the year 62 cannot be shut out (cf. Wieseler, ibid. ). Wieseler shows conclusively that Festus cannot have become procurator before 60 a.d. , and hence Paul cannot have been taken to Rome before the fall of that year.

Col. iv. 10 .

See below, Bk. III. chap. 4.

See Acts xxviii. 30 .

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

See below, chap. 25, note 6.

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 Die Pastoralbriefe, kritisch und exegetisch behandelt (1880), and to his Einleitung (1886), for the most complete presentation of the case against the genuineness; and to Weiss’ Einleitung in das N. T. (1886), p. 286 sqq., and to his Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, in the fifth edition of the Meyer Series, for a defense of their genuineness, and also to Woodruff’s article in the Andover Review, October, 1886, for a brief and somewhat popular discussion of the subject. The second epistle must have been written latest of all Paul’s epistles, just before his death,—at the termination of his second captivity, or of his first, if his second be denied.

2 Tim. iv. 16, 17 .

2 Tim. iv. 18 .

Ibid. iv. 6 .

See 2 Tim. iv. 11 .

See 2 Tim. iv. 16 .

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

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 Paul reached Rome.

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

See above, chap. 1, note 11.

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

See the preceding chapter, note 1, and below, note 40.

See chap. 1, above.

On Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22.

As the Memoirs of Hegesippus consisted of but five books, this account of James occurred in the last book, and this shows how entirely lacking the work was in all chronological arrangement (cf. Book IV. chap. 22). This fragment is given by Routh, Rel. Sac. I. p. 208 sqq., with a valuable discussion on p. 228 sqq.

μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων , “with the apostles”; as Rufinus rightly translates, cum apostolis. Jerome, on the contrary, reads post apostolos, “after the apostles,” as if the Greek were μετὰ τοὺς ἀποστόλους . 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.

See chap. 1, note 6.

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

᾽Ωβλίας : probably a corruption of the Heb. אֹפֶל עַם , which signifies “bulwark of the people.” The same name is given to James by Epiphanius, by Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. See Suicer, Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, s.v.

περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ δικαιοσύνη

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

See Bk. IV. chap. 22.

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

Rufinus translates non crediderunt neque surrexisse eum, &c., and he is followed by Fabricius ( Cod. Apoc. N. T. II. p. 603). This rendering suits the context excellently, and seems to be the only rendering which gives any meaning to the following sentence. And yet, as our Greek stands, it is impossible to translate thus,