Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

This epistle written by Dionysius during the civil war to his scattered flock is no longer extant.

Of this Hierax we know no more than is told us here.

cf. Philemon, vers. 12 .

ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου . The adjective is an addition of Dionysius’ own. The LXX of Ex. xvii. 6 has only πέτρα , “rock.”

ἐποζέσας ; the same word which is used in the LXX of Ex. vii. 21 .

Γηὼν ; LXX ( Gen. ii. 13 ), Γεῶν ; Heb. גִּיחֹון ; A.V. and R.V., Gihon.

This letter seems to have been written shortly before Easter of the year 263; for the festal epistle to Hierax, quoted in the last chapter, was written while the war was still in progress (i.e. in 262), this one after its close. It does not seem to have been a regular festal epistle so-called, for in §11, below, we are told that Dionysius wrote a regular festal letter ( ἑορταστικὴν γραφήν ) to the brethren in Egypt, and that apparently in connection with this same Easter of the year 263.

i.e. to the heathen.

i.e. there is no time when heathen can fitly rejoice.

Ex. xii. 30 .

καὶ ὄφελόν γε , with the majority of the mss. , followed by Valesius, Schwegler, and Heinichen. Stroth, Burton, and Zimmermann, upon the authority of two mss. , read καὶ ὄφελόν γε εἷς (“and would that there were but one!”), a reading which Valesius approves in his notes. The weight of ms. authority, however, is with the former, and it alone justifies the γ€ρ of the following sentence.

περίψημα ; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 13 . Valesius suggests that this may have been a humble and complimentary form of salutation among the Alexandrians: ἐγὼ εἰμὶ περίψημ€ σου (cf. our words, “Your humble servant”); or, as he thinks more probable, that the expression had come to be habitually applied to the Christians by the heathen. The former interpretation seems to me the only possible one in view of the words immediately preceding: “which always seems a mere expression of courtesy.” Certainly these words rule out the second interpretation suggested by Valesius.

The connection into which this festal epistle is brought with the letter just quoted would seem to indicate that it was written not a whole year, but very soon after that one. We may, therefore, look upon it as Dionysius’ festal epistle of the year 263 (see above, note 1). Neither this nor the “several others” spoken of just below is now extant.

This and the next epistle are no longer extant, and we know neither the time of their composition nor the persons to whom they were addressed.

On Hermammon and the epistle addressed to him, see above, chap. 1, note 3. An extract from this same epistle is given in that chapter and also in chap. 10.

i.e. Macrianus; see above, chap. 10, note 5.

He is supposed to have betrayed Valerian into the hands of the Persians, or at least, by his treachery, to have brought about the result which took place, and after Valerian’s capture he made war upon Gallienus, the latter’s son and successor. See the note referred to just above.

Isa. xlii. 9 .

Dionysius is evidently somewhat dazzled and blinded by the favor shown by Gallienus to the Christians. For we know from the profane historians of this period that the reign of Gallienus was one of the darkest in all the history of the Roman Empire, on account of the numerous disasters which came upon the empire, and the internal disturbances and calamities it was called upon to endure.

Gallienus is known to us as one of the most abandoned and profligate of emperors, though he was not without ability and courage which he displayed occasionally. Dionysius’ words at this point are not surprising, for the public benefits conferred by Gallienus upon the Christians would far outweigh his private vices in the minds of those who had suffered from the persecutions of his predecessors.

The peculiar form of reckoning employed here (the mention of the seventh and then the ninth year) has caused considerable perplexity. Stroth thinks that “Dionysius speaks here of the time when Gallienus actually ruled in Egypt. For Macrianus had ruled there for a year, and during that time the authority of Gallienus in that country had been interrupted.” The view of Pearson, however, seems to me better. He remarks: “Whoever expressed himself thus, that one after his seven years was passing his ninth year? This septennium ( ἑπταετηρίς ) must designate something peculiar and different from the time following. It is therefore the septennium of imperial power which he had held along with his father. In the eighth year of that empire [the father, Valerian being in captivity in Persia], Macrianus possessed himself of the imperial honor especially in Egypt. After his assumption of the purple, however, Gallienus had still much authority in Egypt. At length in the ninth year of Gallienus, i.e. in 261, Macrianus, the father and the two sons being slain, the sovereignty of Gallienus was recognized also among the Egyptians.” “The ninth year of Gallienus, moreover, began about midsummer of this year; and the time at which this letter was written by Dionysius, as Eusebius observes, may be gathered from that, and falls consequently before the Paschal season of 262 a.d. ” See also chap. 1, note 3, above.

Of this Egyptian bishop Nepos, we know only what is told us in this chapter. Upon chiliasm in the early Church, see above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 19. It is interesting to note, that although chiliasm had long lost its hold wherever the philosophical theology of the third century had made itself felt, it still continued to maintain its sway in other parts of the Church, especially in outlying districts in the East, which were largely isolated from the great centers of thought, and in the greater part of the West. By such Christians it was looked upon, in fact, as the very kernel of Christianity,—they lived as most Christians of the second century had, in the constant hope of a speedy return of Christ to reign in power upon the earth. The gradual exclusion of this remnant of early Christian belief involved the same kind of consequences as the disappearance of the belief in the continued possession by the Church of the spirit of prophecy (see Bk. V. chap. 16, note 1), and marks another step in the progress of the Church from the peculiarly enthusiastic spirit of the first and second, to the more formal spirit of the third and following centuries. Compare the remarks of Harnack in his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 482 sq. It seems, from §6, below, that Dionysius had engaged in an oral discussion of the doctrines taught in the book of Nepos, which had prevailed for a long time in Arsinoë, where the disputation was held. The best spirit was exhibited by both parties in the discussion, and the result was a decided victory for Dionysius. He was evidently afraid, however, that the book of Nepos, which was widely circulated, would still continue to do damage, and therefore he undertook to refute it in a work of his own, entitled On the Promises (see the next note). His work, like his disputation, undoubtedly had considerable effect, but chiliasm still prevailed in some of the outlying districts of Egypt for a number of generations.

περὶ ἐπαγγελιῶν . This work, as we learn from §3, below, contained in the first book Dionysius’ own views on the subject under dispute, in the second a detailed discussion of the Apocalypse upon which Nepos based his chiliastic opinions. The work is no longer extant, though Eusebius gives extracts from the second book in this and in the next chapter; and three brief fragments have been preserved in a Vatican ms. , and are published in the various editions of Dionysius’ works. The Eusebian extracts are translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 81–84. We have no means of ascertaining the date of Dionysius work. Hefele ( Conciliengesch. I. p. 134), Dittrich (p. 69), and others, put the disputation at Arsinoë, in 254 or 255, and the composition of the work of Dionysius of course soon thereafter; but we have no authority for fixing the date of the disputation with such exactness, and must be content to leave it quite undetermined, though it is not improbable that it took place, as Dittrich maintains, between the persecutions of Decius and Valerian. In the preface to the eighteenth book of his commentary on Isaiah, Jerome speaks of a work of Dionysius, On the Promises (evidently referring to this same work), directed against Irenæus. In his de vir ill. 69, however, he follows Eusebius in stating that the work was written against Nepos. There can be no doubt on this score, and Jerome’s statement in his commentary seems to be a direct error. It is possible, however, that Irenæus, as the most illustrious representative of chiliastic views, may have been mentioned, and his positions refuted in the work, and thus Jerome have had some justification for his report.

Evidently directed against Origen and other allegorical interpreters like him, who avoided the materialistic conceptions deduced by so many from the Apocalypse, by spiritualizing and allegorizing its language. This work of Nepos has entirely perished.

The words “I confess that” are not in the original, but the insertion of some clause of the kind is necessary to complete the sentence.

On early Christian hymnody, see above, Bk. V. chap. 28, note 14.

“i.e. dire ante promittunt quam tradunt. The metaphor is taken from the mysteries of the Greeks, who were wont to promise great and marvelous discoveries to the initiated, and then kept them on the rack by daily expectation in order to confirm their judgment and reverence by suspense of knowledge, as Tertullian says in his book Against the Valentinians [chap. 1].” Valesius.

ἐν τῷ ᾽Αρσινοείτῃ . The Arsinoite nome or district (on the nomes of Egypt, see above, Bk. II. chap. 17, note 10) was situated on the western bank of the Nile, between the river and Lake Mœris, southwest of Memphis.

Of this Coracion, we know only what is told us here.

Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon Dionysius’ treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.

A portion of this extract (§§2 and 3) has been already quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.

Rev. xxii. 7, 8 . Dionysius punctuates this passage peculiarly, and thus interprets it quite differently from all our versions of the Book of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with our received text of the Apocalypse; but the words κἀγὼ ᾽Ιω€ννης ὁ ἀκούων καὶ βλέπων ταῦτα , which Dionysius connects with the preceding, should form an independent sentence: “And I, John, am he that heard and saw these things.”

On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and 18.

τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου διεξαγωγῆς λεγομένης . Valesius considers διεξαγωγή equivalent to dispositionem or οἰκονομίαν , “for διεξαγωγεῖν is the same as διοικεῖν , as Suidas says.” He translates ex libelli totius ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be interpreted also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The phrase evidently means the “general disposition” or “form” of the work. Closs translates “aus ihrer ganzen Ausführung”; Salmond, “the whole disposition and execution of the book”; Crusè, “the execution of the whole book.”

i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as “I, John”; nor in the third person, as e.g. “his servant, John.”

Rev. i. 1, 2 .

Rev. i. 4 .

1 John i. 1 .

Matt. xvi. 17 .

See 2 John, ver. 1, and 3 John, ver. 1 .

Rev. i. 9 .

Rev. xxii. 7, 8 . See above, note 3.

See John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20 .

See John xiii. 23, 25 . These words, οὐδὲ τὸν ἀναπεσόντα ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ , are wanting in Heinichen’s edition; but as they are found in all the other editions and versions and Heinichen gives no reason for their omission, it is clear that they have been omitted inadvertently.

In Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5, 13; xv. 37 . On Mark and the second Gospel, see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.

Acts xiii. 5 .

Acts xiii. 13 .

See above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the “presbyter John,” mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter, and on his relation to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note 14.