Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

That Troas was the place from which Ignatius wrote to the Philadelphians, to the Smyrnæans, and to Polycarp is clear from indications in the epistles themselves. The chronological order in which the three were written is uncertain. He had visited both churches upon his journey to Troas and had seen Polycarp in Smyrna.

See Ep. ad Polycarp. chap. 7.

Ep. ad Smyr. chap. 3. Jerome, quoting this passage from Ignatius in his de vir. ill. 16, refers it to the gospel which had lately been translated by him (according to de vir. ill. 3), viz.: the Gospel of the Nazarenes (or the Gospel according to the Hebrews ). In his Comment. in Isaiam , Bk. XVIII. introd., Jerome quotes the same passage again, referring it to the same gospel ( Evangelium quod Hebræorum lectitant Nazaræi ). But in Origen de prin. præf. 8, the phrase is quoted as taken from the Teaching of Peter (“ qui Petri doctrina apellatur ”). Eusebius’ various references to the Gospel according to the Hebrews show that he was personally acquainted with it (see above, chap. 25, note 24), and knowing his great thoroughness in going through the books which he had access to, it is impossible to suppose that if this passage quoted from Ignatius were in the Gospel according to the Hebrews he should not have known it. We seem then to be driven to the conclusion that the passage did not originally stand in the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but was later incorporated either from the Teaching of Peter, in which Origen found it, or from some common source or oral tradition.

δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον .

Compare Luke xxiv. 39 .

Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 28. 4.

On Polycarp’s epistle to the Philippians, see Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.

Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 9.

Of these men, Rufus and Zosimus, we know nothing.

Polycarp, Ep. ad Phil. chap. 13. The genuineness of this chapter, which bears such strong testimony to the Ignatian epistles, has been questioned by some scholars, but without good grounds. See below, Bk. IV. chap. 14, note 16.

According to Eusebius’ Chronicle Heros became bishop of Antioch in the tenth year of Trajan (107 a.d. ), and was succeeded by Cornelius in the twelfth year of Hadrian (128 a.d. ). In the History he is mentioned only once more (Bk. IV. chap. 20), and no dates are given. The dates found in the Chronicle are entirely unreliable (see on the dates of all the early Antiochian bishops, Harnack’s Zeit des Ignatius ). Of Heros himself we have no trustworthy information. His name appears in the later martyrologies, and one of the spurious Ignatian epistles is addressed to him.

This Quadratus had considerable reputation as a prophet, as may be gathered from Eusebius’ mention of him here, and also from the reference to him in the anonymous work against the Montanists (see below, Bk. V. chap. 16). We know nothing about this Quadratus except what is told us in these two passages, unless we identify him, as many do, with Quadratus the apologist mentioned below, in Bk. IV. chap. 3. This identification is possible, but by no means certain. See Bk. IV. chap. 3, note 2.

This rhetorical flourish arouses the suspicion that Eusebius, although he says there were “many others” that were well known in those days, was unacquainted with the names of such persons as we, too, are unacquainted with them. None will deny that there may have been some men of prominence in the Church at this time, but Eusebius apparently had no more information to impart in regard to them than he gives us in this chapter, and he makes up for his lack of facts in a way which is not at all uncommon.

That is, an ascetic mode of life. See Bk. VI. chap. 3, note 9.

See Matt. xix. 21 . Eusebius agrees with nearly all the Fathers, and with the Roman Catholic Church of the past and present, in his misinterpretation of this advice given by Christ to the rich young man.

In chap. 36, above.

See above, chap. 16.

On the Epistle to the Hebrews and the various traditions as to its authorship, see above, chap. 3, note 17.

Eusebius is the first one to mention the ascription of a second epistle to Clement, but after the fifth century such an epistle (whether the one to which Eusebius here refers we cannot tell) was in common circulation and was quite widely accepted as genuine. This epistle is still extant, in a mutilated form in the Alexandrian ms. , complete in the ms. discovered by Bryennios in Constantinople in 1875. The publication of the complete work proves, what had long been suspected, that it is not an epistle at all, but a homily. It cannot have been written by the author of the first epistle of Clement, nor can it belong to the first century. It was probably written in Rome about the middle of the second century (see Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 264–283 and 329–364), and is the oldest extant homily, and as such possesses considerable interest. It has always gone by the name of the Second Epistle of Clement, and hence continues to be so called although the title is a misnomer, for neither is it an epistle, nor is it by Clement. It is published in all the editions of the apostolic Fathers, but only those editions that have appeared since the discovery of the complete homily by Bryennios are now of value. Of these, it is necessary to mention only Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn’s Patrum Apost. Opera, 2d ed., 1876, in which Harnack’s prolegomena and notes are especially valuable, and the appendix to Lightfoot’s edition of Clement (1877), which contains the full text, notes, and an English translation. English translation also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. VII. p. 509 sq. Compare the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christian Biography and Harnack’s articles in the Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. referred to above.

There are extant a number of Pseudo-Clementine writings of the third and following centuries, the chief among which purports to contain a record made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, and an account of Clement’s family history and of his travels with Peter, constituting, in fact, a sort of didactico-historical romance. This exists now in three forms (the Homilies, Recognitions, and Epitome ), all of which are closely related; though whether the first two (the last is simply an abridgment of the first) are drawn from a common original, or whether one of them is the original of the other, is not certain. The works are more or less Ebionitic in character, and play an important part in the history of early Christian literature. For a careful discussion of them, see Salmon’s article Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christian Biography; and for the literature of the subject, which is very extensive, see especially Schaff’s Church History, II. p. 435 sq. The fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the Homilies contain extended conversations purporting to have been held between Clement and Apion, the famous antagonist of the Jews (see Bk. II. chap. 5, note 5). It is quite possible that the “wordy and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter and Apion,” which Eusebius refers to here may be identical with the Homilies, in which case we must suppose Eusebius’ language to be somewhat inexact; for the dialogues in the Homilies are between Clement and Apion, not between Peter and Apion. It seems more probable, however, when we realize the vast number of works of a similar character which were in circulation during the third and subsequent centuries, that Eusebius refers here to another work, belonging to the same general class, which is now lost. If such a work existed, it may well have formed a basis for the dialogues between Clement and Apion given in the Homilies. In the absence of all further evidence of such a work, we must leave the matter quite undecided. It is not necessary here to enumerate the other Pseudo-Clementine works which are still extant. Compare Schaff’s Church History, II. 648 sq. Clement’s name was a favorite one with pseudographers of the early Church, and works of all kinds were published under his name. The most complete collection of these spurious works is found in Migne’s Patr. Græc. Vols. I. and II.

In chap. 36, above.

λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεις . This work is no longer extant, but a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Irenæus, Eusebius, and others, which are published in the various editions of the Apostolic Fathers (see especially Gebhardt, Harnack and Zahn’s edition, Vol. I. Appendix), and by Routh in his Rel. Sacræ, I. p. 3–16. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), Vol. I. p. 151 sq. The exact character of the work has been long and sharply disputed. Some contend that it was a record of oral traditions in regard to the Lord which Papias had gathered, together with a commentary upon these traditions, others that it was a complete Gospel, others that it was a commentary upon an already existing Gospel or Gospels. The last is the view which accords best with the language of Eusebius, and it is widely accepted, though there is controversy among those who accept it as to whether the Gospel or Gospels which he used are to be identified with either of our canonical Gospels. But upon this question we cannot dwell at this point. Lightfoot, who believes that a written text lay at the base of Papias’ work, concludes that the work contained, first, the text; secondly, “the interpretations which explained the text, and which were the main object of the work”; and thirdly, the oral traditions, which “were subordinate to the interpretation” ( Contemporary Review, 1875, II. p. 389). This is probably as good a description of the plan of Papias’ work as can be given, whatever decision may be reached as to the identity of the text which he used with any one of our Gospels. Lightfoot has adduced strong arguments for his view, and has discussed at length various other views which it is not necessary to repeat here. On the significance of the word λόγια , see below, note 26. As remarked there, λόγια cannot be confined to words or discourses only, and therefore the “oracles” which Papias expounded in his work may well have included, so far as the title is concerned, a complete Gospel or Gospels. In the absence of the work itself, however, we are left entirely to conjecture, though it must be remarked that in the time of Papias at least some of our Gospels were certainly in existence and already widely accepted. It is difficult, therefore, to suppose that if written documents lay at the basis of Papias’ work, as we have concluded that they did, that they can have been other than one or more of the commonly accepted Gospels. But see Lightfoot’s article already referred to for a discussion of this question. The date of the composition of Papias’ work is now commonly fixed at about the middle of the second century, probably nearer 130 than 150 a.d. The books and articles that have been written upon this work are far too numerous to mention. Besides the article by Lightfoot in the Contemporary Review, which has been already referred to, we should mention also Salmon’s article in the Dict. of Christian Biography, Schleiermacher’s essay in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, p. 735 sq.,—the first critical discussion of Papias’ testimony in regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and still valuable,—dissertations by Weiffenbach, 1874 and 1878, and by Leimbach, 1875, with reviews of the last two in various periodicals, notably the articles by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift für wiss. Theol. 1875, 1877, 1879. See also p. 389, note, below. On the life of Papias, see above, chap. 36, note 2.

ὡς μόνων αὐτῷ γραφέντων . Irenæus does not expressly say that these were the only works written by Papias. He simply says, “For five books have been written by him” ( žστι γὰρ αὐτῷ πέντε βιβλία συντεταγμένα ). Eusebius’ interpretation of Irenæus’ words is not, however, at all unnatural, and probably expresses Irenæus’ meaning.

Irenæus, Adv. Hær. V. 33. 4.

The justice of this criticism, passed by Eusebius upon the statement of Irenæus, has been questioned by many, who have held that, in the passage quoted just below from Papias, the same John is meant in both cases. See the note of Schaff in his Church History, II. p. 697 sq. A careful exegesis of the passage from Papias quoted by Eusebius seems, however, to lead necessarily to the conclusion which Eusebius draws, that Papias refers to two different persons bearing the same name,—John. In fact, no other conclusion can be reached, unless we accuse Papias of the most stupid and illogical method of writing. Certainly, if he knew of but one John, there is no possible excuse for mentioning him twice in the one passage. On the other hand, if we accept Eusebius’ interpretation, we are met by a serious difficulty in the fact that we are obliged to assume that there lived in Asia Minor, early in the second century a man to whom Papias appeals as possessing exceptional authority, but who is mentioned by no other Father; who is, in fact,