Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

The use of their cemeteries, both as places of burial and as meeting-places for religious worship, had been denied to the Christians by Valerian. On the origin of the word κοιμητήρια , see chap. 11, note 14.

On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5.

On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7.

On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus from about 233–270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note 1.

On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2.

On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27.

Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of Rome (254–257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed. Eusebius’ words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few months.

The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of Samosata.

On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5.

According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymenæus was bishop of Jerusalem from 265–298. It is expressly stated in the Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been unacquainted, and that Hymenæus was bishop at any rate as early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Mazabanes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.

The martyrdom of Marinus after the promulgation of Gallienus’ edict of toleration and after peace had been, as Eusebius remarks, everywhere restored to the churches, has caused historians some difficulty. It is maintained, however, by Tillemont and others, and with especial force by Görres in the Jahrbücher für prot. Theol., 1877, p. 620 sq., that the martyrdom of Marinus took place while the usurper Macrianus, who was exceedingly hostile to the Christians, was still in power in the East, and at a time, therefore, when the edicts of Gallienus could have no force there. This of course explains the difficulty completely. The martyrdom then must have taken place toward the beginning of Gallienus’ reign, for Macrianus was slain as early as 262. Of the martyr Marinus we know only what Eusebius tells us here.

τὸ κλῆμα . The centurion received as a badge of office a vine-branch or vine-switch, which was called by the Romans Vitis.

Achæus is an otherwise unknown person. That he was governor of Palestine, as Valesius asserts, is apparently a pure assumption, for the term used of him ( δικαστής ) is quite indefinite.

On Theotecnus, see above, chap. 14, note 9.

We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind, and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He probably concluded, from Eusebius’ account of him, that he also suffered martyrdom.

Burton and Crusè close the chapter at this point, throwing the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen, Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.

Cæsarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Cæsarea, the chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally called Paneas by the Greeks,—a name which it retained even after the name Cæsarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p. 409 sq.

Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been sent.

This account of the statue erected by the woman with the issue of blood is repeated by many later writers, and Sozomen ( H. E. V. 21) and Philostorgius ( H. E. VII. 3) inform us that it was destroyed by the Emperor Julian. Gieseler remarks ( Eccles. Hist., Harper’s ed. I. p. 70), “Judging by the analogy of many coins, the memorial had been erected in honor of an emperor (probably Hadrian), and falsely interpreted by the Christians, perhaps on account of a σωτῆρι or θεῷ appearing in the inscription.” There can be no doubt of Eusebius’ honesty in the matter, but no less doubt that the statue commemorated something quite different from that which Christian tradition claimed. Upon this whole chapter, see Heinichen’s Excursus, in Vol. III. p. 698 sq.

See Matt. ix. 20 sq.

οὗ παρὰ τοῖς ποσὶν ἐπὶ τῆς στήλης αὐτῆς . This is commonly translated “at his feet, upon the pedestal ”; but, as Heinichen remarks, in the excursus referred to just above, the plant can hardly have grown upon the pedestal, and what is more, we have no warrant for translating στήλη “pedestal.” Paulus, in his commentary on Matthew in loco, maintains that Eusebius is speaking only of a representation upon the base of the statue, not of an actual plant. But this interpretation, as Heinichen shows, is quite unwarranted. For the use of ἐπὶ in the sense of “near” or “beside,” we have numerous examples (see the instances given by Heinichen, and also Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, s.v. ).

Eusebius himself, as we learn from his letter to the Empress Constantia Augusta (see above, p. 44), did not approve of the use of images or representations of Christ, on the ground that it tended to idolatry. In consequence of this disapproval he fell into great disrepute in the later image-worshiping Church, his epistle being cited by the iconoclasts at the second Council of Nicæa, in 787, and his orthodoxy being in consequence fiercely attacked by the defenders of image-worship, who dominated the council, and won the day.

That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11.

See Gal. i. 19 . On the actual relationship of “James, the Brother of the Lord” to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.

There can be no doubt that a chair ( θρόνος ), said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily remarks: “Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als einen Stuhl!” The beginning of that veneration of relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen’s Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Crusè has unaccountably rendered θρόνος in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is quite unwarranted.

Upon Dionysius of Alexandria, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1, and see that note for references to the various passages in which Eusebius mentions or quotes from his epistles.

Eusebius supposes all of these epistles to have been written in the time of Valerian or Gallienus; but he is mistaken, at least so far as the epistle to Domitius and Didymus is concerned (see above, chap. 11, note 25), and possibly in regard to some of the others also.

τὰς φερομένας ἑορταστικ€ς . It was the custom for the bishops of Alexandria to write every year before Easter a sort of epistle, or homily, and in it to announce the time of the festival. These writings thus received the name Festal or Festival Epistles or Homilies (see Suicer’s Thesaurus s.v. ἑορταστικός , and Valesius’ note ad locum ). This is apparently the earliest mention of such epistles. Others are referred to by Eusebius in chaps. 21 and 22, as written by Dionysius to various persons. Undoubtedly all the Alexandrian bishops during these centuries wrote such epistles, but none are extant, so far as I am aware, except a number by Athanasius (extant only in a Syriac version, published in Syriac and English by Cureton in 1846 and 1848), a few by Theophilus (extant only in Latin), and thirty by Cyril (published in Migne’s Patr. Gr. LXXVII. 391 sq.).

Of this Flavius we know nothing. The epistle addressed to him is no longer extant.

On Domitius and Didymus, and the epistle addressed to them, see above, chap. 11, note 25. Eusebius quotes from the epistle in that chapter.

That is, an eight-year cycle for the purpose of determining the time of the full moon. Hippolytus had employed the old eight-year cycle, but had, as he thought, improved it by combining two in a single sixteen-year cycle (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 22), as was done also by the author of the so-called Cyprianic Chronicle at the middle of the third century. The more accurate nineteen-year Metonic cycle (already in use among the Greeks in the fifth century b.c. ) had not come into general use in the Church until later than this time. The Nicene Council sanctioned it and gave it wide currency, but it had apparently not yet come into use in the Church. In fact, the first Christian to make use of it for the computation of Easter, so far as we know, was Anatolius of Alexandria, later bishop of Laodicea (see below, chap. 32, §14). It was soon adopted in the Alexandrian church, and already in the time of Athanasius had become the basis of all Easter calculations, as we can gather from Athanasius’ Festal Epistles. From about the time of the Nicene Council on, Alexandria was commonly looked to for the reckoning of the date of Easter, and although an older and less accurate cycle remained in use in the West for a long time, the nineteen-year cycle gradually won its way everywhere. See Ideler’s great work on chronology, and cf. Hefele’s Conciliengesch. 2d ed. 1. p. 332, and Lightfoot in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 313 sq.

These various epistles are no longer extant, nor do we know the names of the persons to whom they were addressed. At least a part of them, if not all, were very likely written during the Valerian persecution, as Eusebius states, for the fact that he made a mistake in connection with the epistle to Domitius and Didymus does not prove that he was in error in regard to all the others as well.

This was after the fall of the usurper Macrianus, probably late in the year 261 or early in 262 (see above, chap. 13, note 3).