Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

against them, and at the same time had given him such an affection for Alexander that he dedicated his work to him.

Literally, “made a spreading” ( κατ€στρωσιν πεποίηται ). Eusebius here plays upon the title of the work ( Στρωματεῖς ).

See note 2.

ἀντιλεγομένων γραφῶν . On the Antilegomena, see Bk. III. chap 25, note 1.

The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach were two Old Testament apocryphal books. The Church of the first three centuries made, on the whole, no essential difference between the books of the Hebrew canon and the Apocrypha. We find the Fathers, almost without exception, quoting from both indiscriminately. It is true that catalogues were made by Melito, Origen, Athanasius, and others, which separated the Apocrypha from the books of the Hebrew canon; but this represented theory simply, not practice, and did not prevent even themselves from using both classes as Scripture. Augustine went so far as to obliterate completely all distinction between the two, in theory as well as in practice. The only one of the early Fathers to make a decided stand against the Apocrypha was Jerome; but he was not able to change the common view, and the Church continued (as the Catholic Church continues still) to use them all (with a few minor exceptions) as Holy Scripture.

On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

The Epistle of Clement, see Bk. III. chap. 16, note 1.

On the Epistle of Jude, see Bk. II. chap. 23, note 47.

On Tatian and his works, see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 1.

This Cassianus is mentioned twice by Clement: once in Strom. I. 21, where Clement engages in a chronological study for the purpose of showing that the wisdom of the Hebrews is older than that of the Greeks, and refers to Cassian’s Exegetica and Tatian’s Address to the Greeks as containing discussions of the same subject; again in Strom. III. 13 sqq., where he is said to have been the founder of the sect of the Docetæ, and to have written a work, De continentia or De castitate ( περὶ ἐγκρατείας ἢ περὶ εὐνουχίας ), in which he condemned marriage. Here, too, he is associated with Tatian. He seems from these references to have been, like Tatian, an apologist for Christianity, and also like him to have gone off into an extreme asceticism, which the Church pronounced heretical (see Bk. IV. chap. 29, note 4). Whether he was personally connected with Tatian, or is mentioned with him by Clement simply because his views were similar, we do not know, nor can we fix the date at which he lived. Neither of his works referred to by Clement is now extant. Jerome ( de vir. ill. chap. 38) mentions the work which Eusebius speaks of here, but says that he had not been able to find a copy of it. It is called by Clement, in the passage referred to here by Eusebius, ᾽Εξηγητικοὶ , and so Eusebius calls it in his Præf. Evang. X. 12, where he quotes from Clement. But here he speaks of it as a χρονογραφία , and Jerome transcribes the word without translating it. We can gather from Clement’s words ( Strom. I. 21) that the work of Cassianus dealt largely with chronology, and hence Eusebius’ reference to it under the name χρονογραφία is quite legitimate.

On Philo and his works, see Bk. II. chaps. 4, 5, 17 and 18.

The Aristobulus referred to here was an Alexandrian Jew and Peripatetic philosopher (see the passages in Clement and Eusebius referred to below), who lived in the second century b.c. , and was the author of Commentaries upon the Mosaic Law, the chief object of which was to prove that Greek philosophy was borrowed from the books of Moses (see Clement, Strom. V. 14, who refers only to Peripatetic philosophy, which is too narrow). The work is referred to by Clement of Alexandria (in his Stromata, I. 15; V. 14; VI. 3, &c.), by Eusebius (in his Præp. Evang. VII. 14; VIII. 9, 10; XIII. 12, &c.), by Anatolius (as quoted by Eusebius below, in Bk. VII. chap. 32), and by other Fathers. The work is no longer extant, but Eusebius gives two considerable fragments of it in his Præp. Evang. VIII. 10, and XIII. 12. See Schürer’s Gesch. d. jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu, II. p. 760 sq. Schürer maintains the authenticity of the work against the attacks of many modern critics.

On Josephus and his works, see Bk. III. chap. 9.

Demetrius was a Grecian Jew, who wrote, toward the close of the third century b.c. , a History of Israel, based upon the Scripture records, and with especial reference to chronology. Demetrius is mentioned by Josephus (who, however, wrongly makes him a heathen; contra Apionem, I. 23), by Clement of Alexandria, and by Eusebius. His work is no longer extant, but fragments of it are preserved by Clement ( Strom. I. 21) and by Eusebius ( Præp. Evang. IX. 21 and 29). See Schürer, ibid. p. 730 sq.

Eupolymus was also a Jewish historian, who wrote about the middle of the second century b.c. , and is possibly to be identified with the Eupolymus mentioned in 1 Macc. viii. 17 . He wrote a History of the Jews, which is referred to under various titles by those that mention it, and which has consequently been resolvent into three separate works by many scholars, but without warrant, as Schürer has shown. The work, like that of Aristobulus, was clearly designed to show the dependence of Greek philosophy upon Hebrew wisdom (see Clement’s Strom. I. 23). It is no longer extant, but fragments have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria ( Strom. I. 21, which gives us data for reckoning the time at which Eupolymus wrote, and I. 23) and by Eusebius ( Præp. Evang. IX. 17, 26, 30–34, and probably 39). See Schürer ibid. p. 732 sq.

Eusebius is apparently still referring to Clement’s Stromata. In saying that Clement ὧν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ δηλοι ὡς žγγιστα τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων γενομένου διαδοχῆς , he was perhaps thinking of the passage in Strom. I. 1, where Clement says, “They [i.e. his teachers], preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine, derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the fathers (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds.” Clement in this passage does not mean to assert that his teachers were immediate disciples of the apostles, but only that they received the traditions of the apostles in direct descent from their immediate disciples. Eusebius’ words are a little ambiguous, but they seem to imply that he thought that Clement was a pupil of immediate disciples of the apostles, which Clement does not assert in this passage, and can hardly have asserted in any passage, for he was in all probability born too late to converse with those who had seen any of the apostles.

In his Stromata (VI. 18) Clement refers to a work on the origin of the world, which was probably to form a part of his work On Principles. This is perhaps the reference of which Eusebius is thinking when he says that Clement in the Stromata promises εἰς τὴν Γένεσιν ὑπομνηματιεῖσθειν . If so, Eusebius’ words, which imply that Clement promised to write a commentary on Genesis, are misleading.

On this work, see note 8.

See the previous chapter, note 3.

On the Antilegomena of Eusebius, and on the New Testament canon in general, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1.

On the Epistle of Barnabas, see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 20.

On the Apocalypse of Peter, see Bk. III. chap. 3, note 9.

On the Epistle to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 3, note 17.

On the composition of the Gospel of Mark, see Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4, and with this statement of Clement as to Peter’s attitude toward its composition, compare the words of Eusebius in §2 of that chapter, and see the note upon the passage (note 5).

τὰ σωματικ€ .

See Bk. III. chap. 24, note 7.

Mentioned already in chaps. 8 and 11.

We see from this sentence that at the time of the writing of this epistle both Pantænus and Clement were dead. The latter was still alive when Alexander wrote to the Antiochenes (see chap. 11), i.e. about the year 211 (see note 5 on that chapter). How much longer he lived we cannot tell. The epistle referred to here must of course have been written at any rate subsequent to the year 211, and hence while Alexander was bishop of Jerusalem. The expression “with whom we shall soon be” ( πρὸς οὕς μετ᾽ ὀλίγον ἐσόμεθα ) seems to imply that the epistle was written when Alexander and Origen were advanced in life, but this cannot be pressed.

It is from this passage that we gather that Alexander was a student of Clement’s and a fellow-pupil of Origen’s (see chap. 8, note 6, and chap. 2, note 1). The epistle does not state this directly, but the conclusion seems sufficiently obvious.

The name Adamantius ( ᾽Αδαμ€ντιος from ἀδ€μας unconquerable, hence hard, adamantine ) is said by Jerome ( Ep. ad Paulam, §3; Migne’s ed. Ep. XXXIII.) to have been given him on account of his untiring industry, by Photius ( Cod. 118) on account of the invincible force of his arguments, and by Epiphanius ( Hær. LXIV. 74) to have been vainly adopted by himself. But Eusebius’ simple statement at this point looks rather as if Adamantius was a second name which belonged to Origen from the beginning, and had no reference to his character. We know that two names were very common in that age. This opinion is adopted by Tillemont, Redepenning, Westcott, and others, although many still hold the opposite view. Another name, Chalcenterus, given to him by Jerome in the epistle already referred to, was undoubtedly, as we can see from the context, applied to him by Jerome, because of his resemblance to Didymus of Alexandria (who bore that surname) in his immense industry as an author.

On Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 5. He was bishop from about 198, or 199, to 217. This gives considerable range for the date of Origen’s visit to Rome, which we have no means of fixing with exactness. There is no reason for supposing that Eusebius is incorrect in putting it among the events occurring during Caracalla’s reign (211–217). On the other hand, it must have taken place before the year 216, for in that year Origen went to Palestine (see chap. 19, note 23) and remained there some time. Whether Origen’s visit was undertaken simply from the desire to see the church of Rome, as Eusebius says, or in connection with matters of business, we cannot tell.

On Demetrius’ relations to Origen, see chap. 8, note 4.

On Heraclas, see chap. 3, note 2.

Origen’s study of the Hebrew, which, according to Jerome ( de vir. ill. chap. 54), was “contrary to the custom of his day and race,” is not at all surprising. He felt that he needed some knowledge of it as a basis for his study of the Scriptures to which he had devoted himself, and also as a means of comparing the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old Testament, a labor which he regarded as very important for polemical purposes. As to his familiarity with the Hebrew it is now universally conceded that it was by no means so great as was formerly supposed. He seems to have learned only about enough to enable him to identify the Hebrew which corresponded with the Greek texts which he used, and even in this he often makes mistakes. He sometimes confesses openly his lack of critical and independent knowledge of the Hebrew (e.g. Hom. in Num. XIV. 1; XVI. 4). He often makes blunders which seem absurd, and yet in many cases he shows considerable knowledge in regard to peculiar forms and idioms. His Hebrew learning was clearly fragmentary and acquired from various sources. Cf. Redepenning, I. p. 365 sq.

On the LXX, see Bk. V. chap. 8, note 31.

Aquila is first mentioned by Irenæus ( Adv. Hær. III. 21. 1, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 8, above), who calls him a Jewish proselyte of Pontus; Epiphanius says of Sinope in Pontus. Tradition is uniform that he was a Jewish proselyte, and that he lived in the time of Hadrian, or in the early part of the second century according to Rabbinic tradition. He produced a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was very slavish in its adherence to the original, sacrificing the Greek idiom to the Hebrew without mercy, and even violating the grammatical structure of the former for the sake of reproducing the exact form of the latter. Because of its faithfulness to the original, it was highly prized by the Rabbinic authorities, and became more popular among the Jews in general than the LXX. (On the causes of the waning popularity of the latter, see note 8, below.) Neither Aquila’s version, nor the two following, are now extant; but numerous fragments have been preserved by those Fathers who saw and used