The History of the Church: A New Translation 9780520964969

Citation preview

The History of the Church

The History of the Church A New Translation

Eusebius of Caesarea Translated by Jeremy M. Schott

UNIVERSIT Y OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu. University of California Press Oakland, California © 2019 by The Regents of the University of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, approximately 260-approximately 340, author. | Schott, Jeremy M., translator. Title: The history of the church : a new translation / Eusebius of Caesarea, translated by Jeremy M. Schott. Other titles: Ecclesiastical history. English (Schott) Description: Oakland, California : University of California Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: lccn 2018043076 (print) | lccn 2018045992 (ebook) | isbn 9780520964969 | isbn 9780520291102 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Church history—Primitive and early church, ca. 30–600. Classification: lcc br160.e5 (ebook) | lcc br160.e5 e5 2019 (print) | ddc 270.1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018043076 Manufactured in the United States of America 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

contents

Acknowledgments Abbreviations General Introduction

vii xi 1

the ecclesiastical history Book 1

33

Book 2

76

Book 3

116

Book 4

168

Book 5

218

Book 6

273

Book 7

335

Book 8

389

Book 9

424

Book 10

453

Appendix A. Maps Appendix B. Eusebius’s Bishop Lists and Chronology Glossary Selected Bibliography Index Nominum (Index of Names) Index Locorum (Eusebius’s Sources)

493 503 509 515 525 531

acknowled gments

I have been approaching this project since reading Eusebius in my first undergraduate course on ancient Christianity. When I was a graduate student, neither Eusebius nor the History of the Church figured centrally in any of my coursework, but were always nearby: in courses on New Testament Apocrypha and the canon, as a source on martyrdom and persecution, as Origen of Alexandria’s biographer, as a source for the history of the Constantinian era. In my first book I addressed Eusebius more directly, as a Christian apologist and historian whose imaginings of ethnicity, history, and empire not only had an impact on the fourth century but helped determine the ways in which “religion” came to be constructed in subsequent centuries. More recently, I’ve come to study Eusebius as a theorist of textuality—that is, as a late ancient thinker who explored innovative ways of thinking and doing the work of reading, writing, and producing books. Translating the History of the Church has helped me to understand how Eusebius’s texts work in ways that writing another monograph or article does not. Having to translate Eusebius’s citation formulas and the dissonance and resonance between Eusebius’s authorial voice and the voices of his sources, for instance, is quite different from analyzing those phenomena. I also wanted to translate because although the work of translation is often positioned as a kind of manual labor that serves the higher intellectual genius embodied in monographs and articles, it is fundamental to furthering scholarship and teaching students and the public. vii

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to Eric Schmidt, Archna Patel, Maeve Cornell-Taylor, Cindy Fulton, Jolene Torr, and Peter Perez at UC Press and Marian Rogers of BiblioGenesis without whose diligence this project would not have been possible. Their collaboration has helped make possible a version of the History of the Church that is well curated: accessible and affordable, without sacrificing detailed notes and introductory materials. I have also benefited from a number of extremely helpful readers. The anonymous reviewers offered many insights and suggestions on the complete translation, while members of the Models of Piety in Late Antiquity seminar group and audiences at Bowdoin College and Indiana University provided helpful feedback on several sections. Thanks to a course release from the College Arts and Humanities Institute at Indiana University, I was able to teach a small seminar that employed portions of the draft translation. Consequently, some of the most salient feedback came from students. Many students, colleagues, and friends were especially gracious with their time and insights. David Brakke, Rowena Galavitz, David Maldonado Rivera, Annette Yoshiko Reed, Gregory Robbins, Nicolò Sassi, Sam Stubblefield, Raymond Van Dam, and Ed Watts offered helpful feedback. Abby Kulisz provided crucial editorial help. Julie Gray’s copyediting saved me from more than a few mistakes. Martin Shedd and Sean Tandy have been indefatigable in working through the delights and infelicities of late ancient Greek. The Christmas after my first semester in graduate school, my grandmother asked if there was anything I needed. I mentioned that there were a few books I could use, but that I didn’t need her to scour local bookstores, where they wouldn’t be in stock. She asked me to list them anyway, and—in a time before online ordering and without a scholarly bookstore in town—went out of her way to find the edition of the History of the Church that I’ve used in making this translation. Her persistence in finding the book was characteristic of her encouragement and care. I had hoped to be able to present her with a copy of this volume, but sadly, she passed away just as the typescript went to the publisher. The translation of HE 6.23.1–2 is dedicated to her memory. The greatest support for this project came at home, from my cats and, most importantly, from Michelle Powell, to whom this book is dedicated. Although she has had to hear much more about Eusebius than she could ever have bargained for, she has encouraged me when

Acknowledgments

ix

I was frustrated, kept me on deadline, helped me learn how to use a GIS program to help create maps, discussed translation issues, and worked with me through innumerable questions and anxieties. Most importantly, I have benefited from her theoretical, philosophical, and pedagogical wisdom.

abbreviations

[] {}

insertions by the translator for the sake of clarity text included in some important manuscripts but not others

Against Heresies ANF

Antiquities Chron. DE Deaths Ecl. Proph. HE LXX Martyrs NPNF

PE PG VC War

Irenaeus, Against Heresies Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, NY: The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885–96) Josephus, Jewish Antiquities Eusebius, Chronological Canons Eusebius, Gospel Demonstration Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors Eusebius, Prophetic Eclogues Ecclesiastical History Septuagint Eusebius, Martyrs of Palestine Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. P. Schaff (New York: The Christian Literature Co., 1890–1900) Eusebius, Gospel Preparation Migne, Patrologia Graeca Eusebius, Life of Constantine Josephus, Jewish War

xi

General Introduction

Eusebius’s history ranks as one of the most significant early Christian texts and has had a formative influence on Western culture. It is, arguably, the most important single source for the history of the first three centuries of Christianity, and it has mediated knowledge of the period since it was first disseminated in the fourth century. If the Acts of the Apostles is the canonical narrative of the first decades of nascent Christianity, the work presented here has enjoyed a similarly privileged status as the canonical account of the centuries between the apostolic age and Constantine. Indeed, the fact that historians often speak so naturally of “the church” as a specific entity with a history is due in no small part to the long shadow cast by Eusebius’s work. By the end of the fourth century, moreover, “ecclesiastical history” had emerged as a genre of Christian literature. The ecclesiastical histories of Rufinus, Gelasius, and, later, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret all began where Eusebius left off. It is only mildly hyperbolic to say that all subsequent histories of early Christianity can be read as footnotes on and responses to his narrative. The title of this volume—History of the Church—is a nod to convention. The more accurate English translation of the Greek title (Ekklēsiastikē historia) is Ecclesiastical History, and that is the rendering in the discussion and translation that follow. To contemporary readers, the History in the text’s title may signal a work of objective scholarly research, designed to provide a precise account of the events of the past. Such was certainly the desire of late nineteenth-century 1

2

General Introduction

historical science, which imagined the historian’s task as reconstructing the past “as it actually happened.”1 Eusebius would also have understood accuracy and truth as incumbent upon a writer of history, but for him and his fourth-century readers, historical writing would have had different conventions. In the translation that follows, the Greek word usually rendered as “history” (historia) is translated as “account” or “narrative.” In the classical Greek historians like Herodotus and Thucydides, historia means “inquiry” and the prose narrative resulting from that inquiry. Like most other prose genres, history had persuasion as its aim. Men of letters were trained first and foremost in the art of rhetoric, and a rhetorical education meant learning how to deploy tropes, topoi, and figures of speech to create beautifully persuasive texts. In a sense, ancient historians took for granted what Hayden White had to teach contemporary historians—that history is in the first instance literature. Histories are carefully crafted narratives that “emplot” the past as tragedy and triumph, decline and fall, comedies of errors, and so forth.2 It is one of the primary goals of this volume to present the Ecclesiastical History in a way that helps contemporary readers understand and appreciate its literary dimensions. The first term in the title, the adjective Ecclesiastical, represents what Eusebius took to be the innovative contribution of his work. The title is sometimes translated as History of the Church, as though we are about to read a history of an institution. This is not wholly inaccurate, as the church and churches (individual Christian communities) are protagonists in Eusebius’s narrative. Historia was an inquiry, and by using the adjective “ecclesiastical” Eusebius signals the mode of that inquiry. For Eusebius, the inquiry is “ecclesiastical” because it is a normative practice guided by the orthodox rule of faith. But “ecclesiastical” also points to a way of writing that is the iceberg-tip of a way of knowing and thinking. 1. The phrase is used by Leopold von Ranke and is often cited as a kind of motto for nineteenth-century historical science; Ranke, “Vorrede,” in Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514 (Leipzig, 1885). On the influence of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Continental historiography on the study of early Christianity, see E. Clark, History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), 9–28. 2. On historical writing as the “emplotment” of material in various types of narrative, see the classic essay of Hayden White, “Interpretation in History,” New Literary History 2 (1973): 281–314.

General Introduction

3

It is, to use the Foucauldian term Averil Cameron so usefully borrowed to describe the power of early Christian rhetoric, a “totalizing discourse.”3 The first sentence of the Ecclesiastical History runs to 166 words as Eusebius summarizes the vastness of his inquiry: from apostles to bishops to heretics to books to martyrdoms. It claims to be, in effect, nothing less than a “handbook to the truth.”4 E U SE B I U S : L I F E A N D W R I T I N G S

Any account of Eusebius must acknowledge how little we really know of his life. Eusebius provides very few autobiographical details in his extant works. He wrote a Life of Pamphilus, about his beloved teacher, in which he probably included some autobiographical material, but this text has not survived. His successor as bishop of Caesarea, Acacius, wrote a Life of Eusebius, but, thanks in part to the fact that both Acacius and Eusebius came to be considered “Arian” heretics, this work has been lost. Nevertheless, a basic sketch of his career and a chronology of his works are possible. Before the Episcopacy: Eusebius’s Intellectual Pedigree Eusebius was born in the first half of the 260s c.e., and he is usually assumed to have been a native of Caesarea Maritima, the city of which he would later become bishop. Caesarea, as its name suggests, was a Roman city. It had been the site of a Hellenistic port town, Strato’s Tower, and when the town was granted to Herod the Great, he renamed the city in honor of his patron, Caesar Augustus, and enlarged the harbor. The new Caesarea became a major intermodal transportation center and, beginning in 6 c.e., the provincial capital of the province of Judaea (reorganized subsequently as Syria-Palaestina and later, Palaestina Prima). The Christian community in Caesarea was a minority—a visible minority, but a minority nonetheless—within a diverse population of Hellenes, Romans, Jews, and Samaritans. Eusebius was well educated, and one can reasonably assume that he had had a traditional education in grammar and rhetoric. Caesarea 3. A. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) 220–22. 4. Cameron, 220.

4

General Introduction

would have been an easy place to find an education in classical rhetoric. Eusebius offers some additional hints about his earlier life in the eighth book of the History, which he wrote when he was a bishop in his fifties. Consequently, the autobiographical glimpses Eusebius does permit reveal how the middle-aged bishop wished readers to view his earlier life. That life is presented in terms of a common trope: the young philosopher’s “hearing” of philosophical masters. The trope served the important social function of establishing one’s intellectual pedigree. This pedigree consisted of diachronic and synchronic relationships. One established connections across time by reading the works of ancient masters and training in specific traditions of interpretation (e.g., establishing one’s bona fides as a Platonist through Platonist readings of Plato, or as a rabbi by studying Torah and mastering the art of halakhic interpretation). Relationships with immediate predecessors and contemporaries (not to mention dissociation from rival intellectuals) also mattered. The trope of the “philosophical pedigree” would have been familiar to Eusebius in several texts he is known to have read, such as Justin Martyr’s description of his studies with Hellene philosophers in the Dialogue with Trypho. A more direct parallel to Eusebius’s work can be found in Porphyry of Tyre’s Life of Plotinus, a philosophical biography in which Porphyry tells a story of his teachers, fellow students, friends, and enemies. The Ecclesiastical History, then, functions in part as Eusebius’s pedigree as an intellectual. Eusebius connects himself across time to his intellectual progenitors by quoting and cataloguing their works. He repeatedly displays himself not only as a student and reader of the ecclesiastical tradition, but as its physical custodian. Although Eusebius seems to offer a comprehensive or globalizing account of early Christian writers and writings, the texts he quotes and the progenitors with whom he would establish his pedigree are those he possesses in his library. His collection was large and significant, but certainly not comprehensive or universal: Eusebius knows of almost no writings and writers from the West, he possesses more writings from Alexandria, Palestine, and Syria than other locales, and certain writers predominate (e.g., Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, Philo, Josephus). Eusebius’s pedigree also reflects particular contemporary concerns— disputes over the legacy of Origen, for instance, and the emergent “Arian” controversy.

General Introduction

5

In the eighth book of the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius offers a portrait of the intellectual landscape of his youth and early career. He describes a number of intellectual circles—or what are often termed schools—in the cities of Syria, Phoenicia, and Egypt. A late ancient philosophical or rhetorical “school” is best imagined as a set of relationships. A “school” was centered around a master philosopher or rhetor. His or her inner circle, the gnorimoi, consisted of the master’s closest followers; apprentices or a modern professor’s research and teaching assistants provide a loose analogy. A master’s lectures were often open for others to attend—one might, before deciding to become an intimate follower of a particular teacher, attend these lectures as an akoustēs, or “hearer.”5 The first intellectual progenitor Eusebius mentions in the History is Dorotheus, a “learned man” and presbyter of Antioch during the episcopacy of Cyril (280s–290s c.e.). According to Eusebius, Dorotheus had received traditional instruction in grammar and rhetoric and had learned to read biblical Hebrew. A eunuch, he entered the imperial bureaucracy as the director of the imperial dye-works in Tyre. Eusebius says that he heard Dorotheus delivering homilies. The verb Eusebius uses to describe his relationship with Dorotheus (egnōmen, “we came to know”) is the same as that used to describe his “coming to know” his master, Pamphilus. During the years of the Diocletianic persecution, other Christian intellectuals passed through Caesarea as well. This is how Eusebius “came to know” Meletius, a bishop of Pontus known for his erudition and rhetorical skill who resided in Caesarea for seven years during the persecution. Eusebius’s most important intellectual “father,” however, was the polymath Pamphilus of Caesarea. Eusebius describes Pamphilus as a “philosopher.” For Eusebius, a true (i.e., Christian) philosopher was an ascetic intellectual. In the Martyrs of Palestine, Eusebius describes Pamphilus’s circle of students. The core group of followers, including Eusebius, may have resided together in Pamphilus’s home (Martyrs

5. For an excellent account of philosophical and rhetorical “schools” in late antiquity, see E. Watts, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008). For an account of traditional introductory education and grammatical training, see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).

6

General Introduction

4.8). Eusebius names some of his fellows. Apphianus, a young native of Lycia, had left legal studies in Berytus, against his family’s wishes, to study with Pamphilus. Eusebius also mentions Porphyry, a slave who worked as a scribe in Pamphilus’s household and who was executed along with his master when he spoke out at Pamphilus’s trial (11.1, 15). Pamphilus himself came from Berytus, present-day Beirut, where he began his education (Martyrs 11.3). Pamphilus appears to have been a man of means—we hear of no patrons. A Byzantine source claims that Pamphilus then moved to Alexandria to study scripture with the teacher Pierius.6 He then—perhaps in conscious imitation of his hero, Origen, or to be closer to family interests in Berytus—relocated to Caesarea where he was made presbyter by Bishop Agapius, Eusebius’s immediate predecessor (HE 7.32.24–25). In Caesarea, Pamphilus came to possess (exactly how is unknown) portions of Origen’s personal library—including autograph copies of the Hexapla. Again, in imitation of Origen, Pamphilus made a career of studying biblical texts and editing biblical manuscripts. He also worked on collecting and copying additional works of Origen. As a member of Pamphilus’s circle, Eusebius thus considered himself an intellectual descendant of Origen: hence, Eusebius’s long biography of the Alexandrian in book 6 and his keen interests in Alexandria and Alexandrian materials throughout the History. The Diocletianic Persecution Eusebius would have been in his late thirties or early forties when Diocletian’s persecution began in 303 c.e. Eusebius’s accounts of the persecution in books 8 and 9 of the History and in the Martyrs of Palestine, and the works of his contemporary, the Latin rhetorician Lactantius, are the key sources and continue to serve as a kind of “canonical” account of the persecution. From Lactantius, we learn that the first anti-Christian measures were promulgated on 23 February 303. According to Eusebius, these orders included the demolition and confiscation of church buildings and property, the burning of Christian writings, loss of social rank, and the enslavement of members of the imperial household who persisted in their profession of Christian-

6. Photius, Library 118.

General Introduction

7

ity (HE 8.2.4). This was followed by orders to arrest clergy and direct them to sacrifice (8.2.5). In book 8 of the History, Eusebius recounts martyrdoms throughout the Eastern provinces. According to Eusebius, the persecution ended abruptly in 311, when Galerius issued a deathbed recantation (8.16–17). Maximinus Daia, Galerius’s junior imperial colleague and ruler of the diocese of Oriens (e.g., Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, Egypt), feigned obedience to Galerius’s orders, but quickly resumed the persecution in his territory. It ended only when Licinius defeated Maximinus to become sole imperial colleague in the East in 313 c.e. Eusebius preserves a version of the joint order issued by Constantine and Licinius in 313 c.e. (a.k.a. the Edict of Milan) that reiterated Galerius’s rescinding of the persecuting orders and decreed the restitution of church property—in effect, a return to the status quo ante. Eusebius had direct experience of the persecution; several members of his intellectual circle were martyred, including Pamphilus (see Martyrs 7, 11). He visited the confessors who had been condemned to the mines at Phaeno (present-day Wadi Faynan in Jordan; Martyrs 13), and spent time with confessors and martyrs in the Thebaid. During Eusebius’s conflicts with Athanasius, the confessor Paphnutius claimed to have been with Eusebius in prison, and accused him of having lapsed—that is, capitulating to the persecutors’ demand to offer traditional sacrifice—while in the Thebaid. Eusebius’s Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, a compendium of second- and third-century martyrdom texts, was probably compiled during the persecution. He draws upon it in the History several times. Eusebius also wrote the General Elementary Introduction in this period. The work is a collection of biblical “proof texts,” which would have functioned both as an introduction for students to specific traditions of biblical interpretation and as a source for other works, like the Gospel Demonstration and the runs of biblical proof-texting we see in book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History. Eusebius, together with Pamphilus, probably composed the Apology for Origen, a six-book defense of Origen’s orthodoxy, between 307 and early 310 c.e. Origen’s orthodoxy was under attack from a number of directions at the end of the fourth century, but the immediate goad may have been the arrival in Caesarea of anti-Origenist Egyptians who had been brought from the mines in Phaeno to the provincial

8

General Introduction

capital for execution.7 Eusebius helped his mentor, Pamphilus, compose the Apology while the latter was in prison. Eusebius added the sixth book on his own after Pamphilus’s death.8 Finally, several marginal notes in later biblical manuscripts show that Pamphilus and his circle continued an ongoing project—the collation of biblical manuscripts against Origen’s Hexapla—during the persecution. In the famous Codex Sinaiticus, for example, a note to 2 Esdras reads: “Collated against a very old copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus. At the end of his copy appears an autograph attestation, which reads as follows: ‘Copied and corrected from the Hexapla of Origen. Antoninus collated; I, Pamphilus, corrected.’” The text of Esther in Sinaiticus was also collated against a copy prepared by Pamphilus and his students; a note reads: “Copied and corrected from the Hexapla of Origen, as corrected by his own hand. Antoninus, the confessor, collated; I, Pamphilus, corrected the volume in prison.”9 Eusebius as Bishop of Caesarea Eusebius appears to have become bishop of Caesarea almost immediately after the cessation of the persecution; he was in his early to midfifties. He gives no indication that his predecessor, Agapius, had died as a martyr. Eusebius’s status as a “confessor,” someone who had suffered under the persecuting ordinances but survived, might have also helped his election. The decade or so after he became a bishop (i.e., the mid-310s to the mid-320s) was a particularly productive time for Eusebius. It was during this period that he wrote his great apologetic diptych, the Gospel Preparation and the Gospel Demonstration. The Gospel Preparation runs to fifteen books and treats a number of classic themes of early Christian apologetic (e.g., critique of traditional mythologies and ritual practices; the chronological priority of Moses over Greek philosophers; demonology; critiques of the Hellenistic philosophical schools).

7. Martyrs 7–8; Apology for Origen 12–17; Photius, Library 118. 8. Photius, Library 118; Jerome, Illustrious Men 75.4. 9. Text in Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), 322–23; translation and discussion in Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006), 184–85.

General Introduction

9

The Gospel Demonstration aimed to show that not only had Jesus fulfilled biblical prophecies, but, in Eusebius’s own time, once the Diocletianic persecution had ended, biblical prophecies were continuing to be fulfilled.10 As bishop, Eusebius was well networked. In Laodicea, Theodotus became a fast friend. Eusebius dedicated the Gospel Preparation to him. In 325, when Eusebius was placed on “theological probation”11 at the Council of Antioch preceding the famous Council of Nicaea, Theodotus was one of two bishops—the other was Narcissus of Neronias—to side with Eusebius. Eusebius was also aligned with several “Lucianists”—that is, bishops who had formerly been students of the scholar Lucian of Antioch.12 The most famous of these was Eusebius’s namesake, Eusebius of Nicomedia, or Eusebius the Great, as the bishop of Caesarea termed him. Eusebius of Nicomedia was a relative of Constantia, sister of Constantine and wife of the eastern emperor Licinius. After the persecution, he was first bishop of Berytus, but was soon promoted to Nicomedia. Eusebius’s most durable ally was Paulinus, another Antiochene, who became bishop of Tyre at around the same time that Eusebius became bishop of Caesarea. To him Eusebius dedicated the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History, the Onomasticon, and the panegyric on the dedication of a new basilica in Tyre that appears in book 10 of the History. These alignments and friendships became significant in the flurry of alliance building and ecclesiastical politicking surrounding the dispute between Arius and Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius’s Theology and the “Arian” Controversy The Ecclesiastical History was conceived and written between 313 and 324,13 before the Council of Nicaea. To understand Eusebius’s theology in this context some background is necessary. The Council of Nicaea had been prompted by a dispute between Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, one of his presbyters. The primary theological issue at stake was how to conceptualize the relationship between the 10. 11. 12. 13.

DE, pr. The apt phrase is Aaron Johnson’s in Eusebius (London: I.B. Tauris, 2014), 21. Philostrogius, Ecclesiastical History 2.14–15. On the date of the HE, see the excursus on “editions” below.

10

General Introduction

Father and the Son. Arius emphasized the ontological distinction between the Father and the Son. If the Father is truly and essentially God, then, Arius held, he must be uniquely unbegotten, ungenerated, and without beginning. The Son has nothing “proper to God,” but is God because the Father has made him as a perfect image of himself. The Father and Son exist on different ontological levels and as distinct, bounded beings (hypostases).14 Alexander’s theology emphasized the eternal co-relation of Father and Son: if the Son is the Father’s Son, Wisdom, and Logos, then the eternal and unchanging Father must always exist in relation to an eternal Son, Wisdom, and Logos. Alexander agreed that the Son was “begotten” and the Father “unbegotten,” but argued that this difference must not be understood temporally or spatially: “Always the Father, so always the Son,” was Alexander’s watchword.15 Alexander excommunicated Arius around 318 or 319, and Arius appealed in person and by letter to other bishops in the East. Eusebius’s reputation as an “Arian” derived, first, from the fact he had written to Alexander and others in support of Arius when Alexander excommunicated the presbyter. Moreover, after the Council of Nicaea, he became an influential part of the “Eusebian alliance” that succeeded in deposing Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Marcellus of Ancyra. Although the alliance takes its name not from Eusebius of Caesarea, but Eusebius of Nicomedia, the former was critical in orchestrating Eustathius’s demise in 327 or 328, took a leading role in the Synod of Tyre in 335, which deposed Athanasius, and contributed two theological tracts that helped in deposing Marcellus of Ancyra in 336.16 Eusebius of Nicomedia was portrayed by Athanasius as the leader of an Arian cabal (he terms them Eusebians and Ariomaniacs). In fact, the “Eusebians” did not share identical theologies, and none, in fact, seem to have taken any theological cues from Arius. The 14. On Arius’s theology as described here, see the fragments of his theological poem the Thalia and the summary in Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 54–56. 15. On Alexander’s theology as described here, see his Encyclical Letter to All Bishops (Opitz, Urk. 4b) and Letter to Alexander (Opitz, Urk. 14) and discussion in Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 43–52. 16. On Eusebius’s roles in these events, see the important study by S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy, 325–345 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

General Introduction

11

“Eusebians” found common cause with Arius because, even before his conflict with Alexander, their own theologies likewise emphasized an ontological distinction between the Father and Son. The “Eusebians,” like Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, all expressed consternation at Alexander’s seeming desire to compromise God the Father’s unique divinity by positing a second unbegotten being.17 So, then, when Eusebius states that the Ecclesiastical History “shall begin from nowhere else than the beginning of the divine economy relating to our Savior and Lord Jesus, God’s Christ” (1.1.1), he is hanging his narrative on a theology that was being contested at the time of writing. Eusebius shared with Alexander and others a tendency to emphasize the close relation of Father and Son by stating that the Son is something “from” the same something the Father also is. In the letter Eusebius sent to Caesarea on his way home from the Council of Nicaea, for example, he quotes the creed of Caesarea, which emphasized “God from God,” “Light from Light,” “Life from Life.” Arius posited such a great ontological difference between the Son and Father that he asserted the Son could not comprehend the Father’s essence. Eusebius, by contrast, emphasizes the reciprocal comprehension of the Father and Son (see, e.g., 1.2.2). At the same time, though, Eusebius has no problem describing the Son as a “second cause” of creation after the Father (1.2.3) and “second after Him” (1.2.5) and uses metaphors that suggest a hierarchical distinction between Father and Son (e.g., “servant of the unspoken will of the Father,” “commander” of the army in heaven”; 1.2.3). In the texts Eusebius was writing in the period before the Council of Nicaea, which included the Ecclesiastical History, the Gospel Preparation, and the Gospel Demonstration, he appears most concerned about theologies that he feels suggest division, change, or “parts” in

17. On the Eusebian alliance and the theologies of its members, see D. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemics of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the “Arian controversy” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); M. DelCogliano, “Eusebius of Caesarea on Asterius of Cappadocia in the Anti-Marcellan Writings: A Case Study of Mutual Defense within the Eusebian Alliance,” in Aaron P. Johnson and Jeremy Schott, Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations, Hellenic Studies 60, Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013), 263–87.

12

General Introduction

the divine essence. Thus, whenever Eusebius asserts the sameness and close relation between Father and Son, he often follows with a caveat; in the Gospel Demonstration, for instance, he writes that the Son is “God from God, put forth from the being of the Father, not by a partaking or a cutting or a division, but unspeakably.”18 Even after the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius’s greatest objection to the introduction of the term homoousios (the same in being/essence) was his fear that it could be taken as implying that the Son was somehow a “piece” of the Father’s essence.19 Eusebius also emphasized the mediating role of the Logos. In Eusebius’s thought, God the Father is ontologically distant from creation. The Logos mediates between the transcendent Father and creation. The Logos served as the demiurge in the creation of the cosmos, and, in turn, has revealed God to humanity throughout history. The incarnation is the mediating act par excellence. Salvation is possible because the incarnate Logos helps to bridge the ontological gap between the Father and creation. Because “the kind of being that pertains to him is twofold” (HE 1.2.1), as Eusebius puts it—that is, because the incarnate Christ is both like humans and like the Father—he is able to “show” God to humans and elevate humans toward the divine. Hence, Eusebius has a predilection for “image” language—the Logos is repeatedly described as “showing” and “revealing” and as a likeness or image of the Father.20 Eusebius, Constantine, and Empire Eusebius is known for certain to have been in Constantine’s presence on only two occasions. The first was at the Council of Nicaea in May– June 325. Over a decade later, Eusebius delivered an oration in Constantinople on the occasion of the emperor’s tircennalia, the thirtieth anniversary of his reign, in 336. Eusebius does claim to have spoken in Constantine’s presence on other occasions, but, all told, he cannot

18. DE 4.3.13 (trans. in Colm Luibhéid, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis [Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1981], 36–37). 19. Eusebius, Letter to the Caesareans 5; English translation available in NPNF 4:74–76. 20. On the mediating role of the Logos in Eusebius’s theology, and its relationships to other theologies of mediation, see J. Robertson, Christ as Mediator: A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

General Introduction

13

have spent a great deal of time with the man. Anyone reading the Life of Constantine, however, would have the impression that Eusebius was close to Constantine—that he was perhaps even, as he has sometimes been called, a kind of “court theologian” or Constantine’s “official biographer.” This is as Eusebius intended it: the Life consistently overemphasizes his relationship to the emperor and the court, and his strategic deployment and framing of documents make it appear that he had unique access to and insight about Constantine. But the Life of Constantine was written near the end of Eusebius’s own life—it may have been left unfinished when he died in 339/40, in his mid- to late seventies. By contrast, when the Ecclesiastical History was being written—between the end of the persecution in 313 and late 324,21 when Constantine had eliminated Licinius to take control of the Eastern provinces—it could not have been clear to Eusebius exactly how the “Constantinian Revolution” would turn out. Recent scholarship, however, has been helpful in showing that most of Eusebius’s writing is not focused myopically on Constantine and his dynasty. This is true of the History. Even though the work ends, chronologically, in the reign of Constantine, “Constantine” is certainly not the central subject of the narrative, nor is he its climax or resolution.22 In laying out the plan of his work, Eusebius says that he will conclude with “the gracious and kind relief of our Savior that came at last”—that is, the providential end of the persecution (HE 1.1.1). Constantine enters the story in books 8 and 9, where he and Licinius serve in parallel as God’s chosen instruments for the ultimate punishment of the tyrant-persecutors Maxentius and Maximinus, respectively. In book 10, of course, Constantine eradicates Licinius after he, too, becomes a persecuting tyrant. The architect of all this action, however, is God’s providence and the divine economy, as they have been the driving force behind events throughout the entire narrative. In sum, Constantine is significant, and Eusebius praises him in no uncertain terms, but the History is not itself an encomium of Constantine or the Neo-Flavian dynasty. The History is, however, a story about the progress of the church within the context of the Roman Empire. Before he wrote the History, 21. On the complexities concerning the date of the HE and its various “editions,” see the excursus below. 22. Johnson, Eusebius, 104.

14

General Introduction

Eusebius had composed the Chronological Canons, which presented a synoptic comparison of the timelines of various empires. The text made a visual argument; as time and the Canons progress, the number of timelines decreases, until one remains—that of the Roman Empire.23 For Eusebius, the story of the church and the story of Rome did not just “happen to” overlap. The peace and security brought by Roman domination was part of the divine economy.24 The fates of individual emperors, moreover, hinge on not disturbing this providential arrangement. In the History, good emperors take a laissez-faire attitude toward the church and show respect toward ecclesiastical men. Bad emperors persecute. Here, too, the divine economy makes use of the empire for the benefit of the church, as Eusebius contends that God permitted persecutions to chastise and correct his flock (e.g., HE 8.1.7–9). Focusing on “Constantine” and “Rome” may, however, obscure just how important the political economy of empire is to Eusebius’s work. Eusebius’s works are imperial texts. By this I do not mean that his writing always has the emperor or imperial politics in view. Rather, I mean that we must recognize that Eusebius’s writing was suspended within—“textured by”—the material realities of empire. To call Eusebius’s writing imperial is, then, to say that it has a particular “feel,” a particular poetics. This poetics includes a set of figures of speech grounded in the geopolitics of empire. Eusebius repeatedly uses the language of invasion and colonization, for instance, and his spatial imagination divides the world into province and metropolis. The space of empire, in turn, made possible the transnational literary culture(s) within which the Ecclesiastical History was produced. The scribal labor force, concentrated in major metropolises, produced volumes that then circulated through networks of friendship and patronage, via the same roads and waterways as other resources in the empire. The history of the Ecclesiastical History can be told as a story of the social relations of production (relations embodied in roads, harbors, and so forth) that bound Caesarea to the towns and villages of Palestine and other urban centers, such as Tyre, Laodicea, Alexan23. On the use of specific book forms and page layouts in the Chronological Canons, see Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 133–77. 24. See HE 1.2.23, argued even more forcefully in Gospel Demonstration 3.7 [139d-141b].

General Introduction

15

dria, and Antioch. Such a narrative would include the “transnational” travels of Origen, Origen’s intercity and interprovince patronage relationship with Ambrose; Pamphilus’s efforts to acquire manuscripts of Origen’s works from other locales; the migration of Anatolius, the Aristotelian philosopher and mathematician, from Alexandria to Caesarea after the demise of Zenobia’s Palmyrene kingdom (HE 7.32.6–21), and, of course, Eusebius’s drawing together of sources for his literary projects, his sending of dedication copies of texts to friends and patrons such as Paulinus of Tyre (10.1.1; 10.4 ff.) and Theodotus of Laodicea,25 and the dossier of missives so integral to the Life of Constantine. All of Eusebius’s sources could be plotted as vectors within, and constitutive of, the space of imperial power and economy. Death Eusebius was probably dead by 341. Caesarea was represented by his successor, Acacius, at the “Dedication” Council of Antioch in that year. The fifth-century historian Socrates places Eusebius’s death after Constantius II banished Athanasius of Alexandria in 339 and just before the death of Constantine II in 340 (Socrates, HE 2.4–5). He probably died, then, in late 339 or early 340. BA SIC S T RU C T U R E O F T H E E C C L E S IAST I C A L H I ST ORY

Chronology Eusebius acknowledges that the basic chronological framework for the Ecclesiastical History comes from his previous work, the Chronici Canones (“Chronological Canons” or “Time Tables”; HE 1.1.6). A first version of the Chronological Canons was probably completed ca. 308–ca. 311. Richard Burgess, whose studies of Eusebian chronography remain absolutely fundamental, describes the work as “set[ting] forth all known world history from the birth of Abraham . . . to Constantine’s vicennalia, celebrated in Nicomedia on 25 July 325.”26 The work presented, 25. PE 1.1.1. 26. R. Burgess, “The Dates and Editions of Eusebius’ Chronici canones and Historia ecclesiastica,” JTS 48 (1997): 471–504; the quotation here is from Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1999), 21.

16

General Introduction

synoptically in vertical columns, the chronologies of the reigns of a variety of Mediterranean and Near Eastern kingdoms. As one moved forward in time, the number of columns decreased, until one column remained—that of the Roman Empire. This was a visual argument: Eusebius wished to show that all of history had providentially arrived at a synchrony of the Roman Empire and the advent of Christ. Unfortunately, the Canons have not survived in Greek, and the precise structure and original mise-en-page of the work must be inferred from the extant Armenian version and Jerome’s Latin version (which also extends the Canons to 379 c.e.). The portion of the Canons that corresponds to the period covered by the History reads like a kind of annotated timeline, with brief references to key events and major figures.27 At the beginning of the History, Eusebius says that he aims to “preserve, if not all the successions, at least those of the most especially renowned of our Savior’s apostles in each of the churches which are even now thought prominent” (HE 1.1.4). He then states he has done this in the Canons, but that the History will provide a “fuller narration” (HE 1.1.6). In other words, Eusebius uses the Canons as a sort of outline for the writing of the History. He structures the History, like the Canons, on the regnal years of Roman emperors, with which he synchronizes the tenures of the bishops of key sees: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The “flesh” that Eusebius places on these chronological “bones” are the words he has gleaned from “ecclesiastical men.” As he puts it, “Whatever they have mentioned here and there that we think is profitable for the subject at hand, we have collected, picking the words that are useful from the ancient writers themselves, like the flowers of verbal fields, and we shall try by means of a historical composition to make of them a single body” (HE 1.1.4). The Themes Announced in Book 1 The History opens with a single long sentence stating the themes that Eusebius will cover in his narrative. They are the apostolic succession/ episcopal successions, ecclesiastical literature and men of letters, heresiology, the fate of the Jews/supersessionist theology, persecution and martyrdom, and ultimate triumph. 27. On the significance of the format of the Chronological Canons, see Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 133–77.

General Introduction

17

T H E A P O S T O L IC SU C C E S SIO N / E P I S C O PA L SU C C E S SIO N S The successions of the holy apostles along with [an account of] the times extending from our Savior to our own day; . . . how many governed and presided over [ecclesiastical] affairs with distinction in the most famous communities . . .

Eusebius understood bishops to be the successors to the apostles. The bishop’s authority was sovereign in his see. Eusebius’s account of episcopal successions played an important role in helping to construct and perpetuate an orthodox ideology of apostolic succession and the monarchical episcopate. The notion of “apostolic succession”—the idea that authority is transmitted from the immediate disciples and apostles of Jesus to their providentially chosen successors—is present in texts as early as the canonical book of Acts (late first–early second c. c.e.). In the second book of the History, Eusebius quotes and references those sections of Acts that articulate the notion of apostolic succession. Eusebius also highlights the Ignatian corpus and the Martyrdom of Polycarp. For modern scholars, these “proto-orthodox” texts provide evidence for the emergence (not without contention and contestation) of a monarchical episcopate—that is, the concept that the apostolic succession is embodied by a single apostolic successor in each Christian community, the bishop. Eusebius’s selection and presentation of his sources have the effect of making the monarchical episcopate seem a natural and linear development. E C C L E SIA S T IC A L L I T E R AT U R E AND MEN OF LET TERS . . . how many in each generation served as ambassadors of the Divine Logos, either in unwritten form or through written compositions . . .

The Ecclesiastical History is above all a story of Christian writers and their writings. In his introduction, Eusebius states that he is interested in famous ecclesiastical men who have written and those who have not. This distinction can be found in accounts of other traditions. The late third-century philosopher Longinus, for example, divided philosophers into two groups: those who wrote and those who did not

18

General Introduction

(Life of Plotinus 20). By writing the history of the church as a story about writers and writings, Eusebius, in effect, constructs that history as the history of a literature. When Eusebius mentions those whose contributions are unwritten, he does so in a way that nonetheless folds them into this literature. Perhaps the best case in point is Jesus. After offering a basic account of Christology and a synopsis of the gospel narratives in book 1, Eusebius closes the book by quoting in full an apocryphal letter exchange between Jesus and the king of Edessa. In the History, Jesus, too, is an ecclesiastical writer. H E R E SIO L O G Y . . . the identities, number, and dates of those who, thanks to a yearning for innovation, drove on to the heights of error and proclaimed themselves the introducers of what is falsely called knowledge and mercilessly attacked Christ’s flock like vicious wolves . . .

“Heresy” and “orthodoxy” are mutually produced; put simply, in constructing a story of the church, Eusebius must also tell the story of its others. Eusebius inherited an already developed heresiological tradition. His most important source and influence is Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (fl. 170s–190s c.e.). His Against Heresies is Eusebius’s main source for his accounts of second-century heresies and heretics in the first five books of the History. (The other is a dossier of anti-Montanist treatises; see the discussion of these in the introduction to book 5.) The full title of Irenaeus’s work was Refutation and Overthrow of What Is Falsely Named Knowledge (Gnōsis). The work presented a variety of second-century thinkers and traditions as belonging to a single heretical trajectory—usually termed Gnosticism in modern scholarship. Irenaeus was not the only influential heresiologist of the second century. Tertullian and the author of the Ps.-Hippolytus, Against Heresies, for example, also produced important treatises against many of the same figures and traditions that Irenaeus identified/attacked. The representation of heresy in these texts has remained extremely durable. Recent scholarship has worked to denaturalize second-century heresiological rhetorics and disaggregate the variety of figures and ideas that orthodox heresiology presents as monolithic. The result is a much more nuanced portrait of second-century “Christianities.” These “heresies” are now seen as a variety of theological and exegetical trajecto-

General Introduction

19

ries whose relationships are much more complex than the binarism suggested by orthodox heresiologists. Nonetheless, Irenaeus and his heritors unavoidably haunt the study of early Christianity. Eusebius reiterates several key features of Irenaeus’s heresiology. First, orthodoxy is original and precedes heresy. Heresies are understood to consist of ever-multiplying deviations from an orthodoxy that, while progressing through time, nonetheless remains singular and fixed. Second, heresies originate with specific founders/authors. While orthodoxy is transmitted whole and unaltered from Christ to the apostles to their legitimate apostolic successors, heresies have their origins in the jealousies, innovative thinking, trickery, and confusion of specific individuals. The distinction between heresy and orthodoxy is also defined in terms of the different sorts of agency that apostolic authorities and heresiarchs are described as having. Orthodoxy, the truth authored by God, is handed down and preserved by apostolic tradents; heresy is made up and introduced by heretics who would arrogate authorship for themselves. Third, heresies proliferate and can be traced genealogically from one heresiarch to the next. Orthodoxy, embodied in the apostolic succession, could be represented as a single, unbroken line; heresy, embodied in the entropy of an ever-growing list of heresies, could be represented as a rhizomic growth. The Irenaean model of heresiology served Eusebius’s globalizing narrative well because it was so adaptable. Earlier heresiology constructed heresy as both singular and identifiable, a shadow succession to orthodoxy that could be traced genealogically, and that which is fundamentally variegated and changing. It was easy, therefore, to extend the heresy/orthodox binary to categorize and manage new varieties of Christianity in the centuries after Irenaeus. This is precisely what Eusebius does in the History. FAT E O F T H E J EWS / SU P E R SE S SIO N I ST IDEOLOGY . . . what befell the whole Jewish people right after their plot against our Savior . . .

Eusebius propounds a supersessionist, or “replacement,” ideology; that is, he understands the Christian church to have “replaced” Israel as God’s people, and the “new covenant” of the gospel to have superseded

20

General Introduction

and abrogated the “old covenant” of Mosaic law. Supersessionist ideology antedates Eusebius, and he would have been familiar with supersessionist thought in several sources he is known to have possessed, including the Letter of Barnabas and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Eusebius is noteworthy for the intensity of his insistence that Roman rule in Judaea and, in particular, the effects of the Jewish War of 66–73 and the Bar Kochba revolt of 132–36 were divine vengeance for the death of Jesus and the persecution of the apostles. He presses this argument in book 2 and especially in book 3, where he quotes vivid passages from Josephus describing starvation and cannibalism during Titus’s siege of Jerusalem. Eusebius lived in a multiethnic city and was metropolitan bishop of Palestine, a territory that included the ancestral land of the Jews and a sizable Jewish population. During Eusebius’s lifetime, Caesarea was an important center of rabbinic Judaism. The great Caesarean rabbi Abbahu was a contemporary of Eusebius’s teacher, Pamphilus. Given the prominence of Caesarea’s Jewish intellectuals, it might be surprising that contemporary Jews appear so infrequently in Eusebius’s works. Contemporary Jewish exegetes and exegeses do sometimes appear in Eusebius’s writings.28 Eusebius’s Jews, though, are “textual Jews” or, as Andrew Jacobs puts it, “biblical Jews”—carefully historicized constructions of Jews placed conveniently in the past that serve as foils for supersessionist ideology.29 But Eusebius’s supersessionism was not an intellectual abstraction. Proprietorial claims that Christians were the true Israel and the genuine inheritors of God’s promises had “real” Jews and a “real” Judaea in view. Eusebius’s supersessionist ideology buttressed claims about territory. Eusebius was instrumental in helping to construct Roman Palestine as a Christian Holy Land. God had promised the land to the people of Israel; that territory, like the Hebrew Bible, was now overwritten and reterritorialized as Christian. 28. Perhaps in particular when he refers to Jewish exegeses as deuterōseis, by which he might be aiming to translate the Hebrew word Mishnah, which means “teaching,” but its root can also form the word for “repetition” (i.e., of traditions), which is what Eusebius seems to have in mind in passages like Commentary on Isaiah 1.21–22 and Gospel Preparation 12.4. 29. Andrew Jacobs, Remains of the Jews: The Holy Land and Christian Empire in Late Antiquity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004).

General Introduction

21

P E R SE C U T IO N A N D M A RT Y R D OM . . . how many times and in what ways war was waged against the Divine Logos by the Gentiles during each time period; how great were the contests fought in each period on Its behalf, through blood and torture, and in addition the martyrdoms of our very own day . . .

The word “martyr” in classical Greek refers to a “witness,” the witness giving testimony in a trial, for example. For Eusebius, a “martyr” is someone who publicly testifies to being Christian and thereby suffers harm, usually execution. Eusebius did not invent the early Christian ideology of martyrdom. He was, however, an aficionado of martyrdom texts, and he refers several times to his compendium of martyr acts (e.g., HE 5.pr.2). His archive included texts like the Martyrdom of Polycarp and the letter on the Gallic martyrs, in which one can already see a set of standard elements: a hostile populace; a trial in which the defendant must decide whether to testify to being a Christian; and vivid descriptions of execution. Eusebius’s sources also show that martyrs and martyrdom were contested categories in early centuries. Sources such as the letter recounting the suffering/history of the Gallic martyrs show early Christians negotiating the question of whether death is required for martyrdom, while in texts like the anonymous anti-Montanist quoted in book 5, we see that opposing groups claimed the authority conferred by the martyrs (5.16.20–22). Even though Eusebius did not invent the early Christian ideology of martyrdom, by weaving earlier martyrologies into a universalizing narrative he was crucial in making a “martyrial consciousness” a central component of Christian self-understanding. By carefully cutting and pasting his source text within the narrative, he was able to use martyrs to supply supporting evidence for other ideological claims. Bishop-martyrs like Ignatius and Polycarp, for instance, serve to support Eusebius’s claims about the apostolic succession and the monarchical episcopate.30 Perhaps more powerful is the way in which Eusebius takes specific local and regional texts—martyr acts from Lyons and Smyrna, for instance—

30. For a very accessible introduction to Eusebius’s role in the construction of early Christian martyrdom, see C. Moss, The Myth of Persecution (New York: Harper One, 2013), 215–31.

22

General Introduction

and uses them to portray persecution and martyrdom as universal and essential to Christian identity. By contrast, modern scholars of early Christianity read Eusebius’s sources and other similar sources as evidence that persecution (at least before the mid-second-century persecution under Decius) was sporadic and local. Even the “empire-wide” persecutions under Decius and later, under the Tetrarchs, occurred sporadically and in different locations. In his introduction, Eusebius describes persecution as a “war” waged by one of Christianity’s “others”—the Gentiles. By terming nonChristians and non-Jews Gentiles (ethnē), Eusebius, like other early Christian writers of his day, was transposing distinctions drawn in the Hebrew Bible between Israel and its others to map the present. In this transposition, the church becomes Israel, and the Romans become another in a long line of persecuting Gentile empires. Of course, as noted in the previous section, Eusebius simultaneously sees Roman power as God’s chosen instrument for punishing the Jews. Moreover, it should be kept in mind that, in Eusebius’s worldview, demons and other malignant superterrestrial powers are active agents. Persecutions are battles fought on two planes, or two fronts: against the persecutors, but also against the demonic forces that instigate them.31 U LT I M AT E T R I UM P H . . . the gracious and kind relief of our Savior that came at last . . .

The Ecclesiastical History is usually, and correctly, described as a triumphalist narrative, and even as a story of manifest destiny. As noted above, however, the work is often read primarily as a triumphalist account of the Constantinian empire. It is more correct to describe the Ecclesiastical History as the story of an ultimate conflict between piety and impiety. To understand the triumphalism of Eusebius’s narrative, it is first necessary to understand his account of theological anthropology and human civilization. “Piety” (eusebeia) consists of theological concepts about God and the cosmos (e.g., the God of the Universe created

31. On the importance of demonology in Eusebius’s thought, see H. Johannessen, The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius of Caesarea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

General Introduction

23

the universe through his Son, the Logos) and the praxis entailed by those concepts (e.g., true worship [thrēskeia] is owed exclusively to the Logos and the God of the Universe). Piety and thrēskeia also embrace what moderns might term ethics—the proper way to live as a human being in a community with other humans. This is clear in the opening of Eusebius’s narrative, where he lays out his theological anthropology. Humans, he argues, were created innately pious, but after Adam disobeyed God, human civilization became increasingly impious, to the extent that knowledge of true piety was all but lost (HE 1.2.20). By manifesting itself “to one or two ancient men beloved by God”—that is, to the Jewish patriarchs—the Logos provided knowledge of true piety. Moses, moreover, composed writings that enshrined true piety in the form of an allegorical text, the Torah. Other peoples of the world learned what little they knew of piety from reading the Hebrew writings (1.2.22–23). Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos, brought knowledge of true piety to all humanity during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (HE 1.2.23). A new nation was then established, grounded in the teaching of true piety. In the Ecclesiastical History, Christ’s main soteriological function is to found a pious polity. “After the presence of our Savior Jesus Christ recently illuminated all humanity,” Eusebius writes, “it is admittedly a new nation [ethnos] that has come to light” (1.4.2). Though the Christian people or nation is “new” in the eyes of its human critics, it is, in fact, nothing other than the embodiment of the piety practiced by all rational and truly God-fearing people throughout human history; as Eusebius puts it, “one and the same way of life and mode of piety belongs both to us and to the ancient god-beloved men” (1.4.15). The forces of evil, human and demonic, continued to resist and combat piety and its near synonym, the “fear of god” (theosebeia). Throughout history, demons have inspired heretics and Gentile persecutors to harass the church and pervert piety. For Eusebius, the Diocletianic persecution represented a culmination of centuries of cosmic warfare. God chose two pious men, Constantine and Licinius, to defeat these enemies once and for all. In the Life of Constantine, written at least a decade after the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius draws parallels between Constantine’s monarchy on earth and God’s monarchy in heaven. In the History, however, Eusebius records their triumphs as liberators over the tyrants, but the ultimate victor is the

24

General Introduction

pious mode of life they modeled and supported in their legislation. As Eusebius puts it in the final lines of book 10, once Constantine and his sons “had cleansed life of the hatred of God, sensing the good things supplied to them by God, they manifested love of virtue, love of God, and piety and thanks to the divine, for all humanity to see” (HE 10.9.9). Eusebius’s Use of Sources Eusebius’s works are a strongbox full of quotations from and references to a multitude of other texts, some of which are extant only in the fragments quoted in his works. Eusebius quotes a wide range of Jewish, Christian, and “pagan” literature. Because of his heavy use of quotations, he has often been censured as a “mere” compiler, a writer without originality, who is valuable only for the accidents of preservation that his works represent. Contemporary scholarship, however, has come to recognize the art and craft of these highly citational compositions. The kind of quotation that Eusebius practices is never an “accident” of preservation. When Eusebius quotes, he does so with care and purpose. This does not mean that Eusebius’s citational and quotation habits are unique; the ways in which he selects, frames, and interprets his sources—today we might call it curation—belong to historically specific practices of reading, writing, and book production.32 When Eusebius references authors and works, he is often relying directly on the pinakes of his library. Pinakes (singular pinax, or “wooden board”) were tables listing the holdings of a collection by author and work. Furthermore, the manner in which he lists authors and works suggests that he possessed these works in corpora transmitted to him as collections and in codex form. The seven works of Justin Martyr listed at 4.18 in the Ecclesiastical History may represent a single codex; so too, might the works of Theophilus of Antioch (4.24.1), Melito of Sardis (4.26.1–2), and Apollinaris of Hierapolis (4.27.1). The letters of Dionysius of Corinth at 4.23.1–13 almost certainly come from a single codex; Eusebius lists each, in sequence, offering a short summary. These “annotated bibliographies” show the 32. See Andrew J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003); Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book,; and S. Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors: His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

General Introduction

25

extent to which Eusebius’s library shapes the structure and narrative flow of the History. Eusebius introduces and closes his quotations using several set formulas. These formulas, incidentally, would have aided readers in noticing the beginning and end of quotations in manuscripts written in scriptio continua (i.e., without spaces between words) and with little punctuation.33 He usually frames quotations with an opening formula such as “he writes thus,” or “he says, verbatim.” If he is quoting one passage after another from the same work he usually indicates this with phrases such as “next, after other matters, he writes.” In addition, if Eusebius begins quoting a different work by the same author, he always indicates this. When he has finished quoting a work, especially if he is concluding a theme or topic, he will end with a closing formula—“Such writes Irenaeus,” or “Such writes Josephus,” for example. On several occasions, Eusebius uses a more vivid citation formula in the second person: “Take and read.” The most vivid formula appears in book 3, where, when he is about to quote Josephus, he writes: “Come, then, take in hand again the fifth book of the Histories of Josephus and recount the tragedy of what happened at that time” (HE 3.6.1). Outside Eusebius, the phrase “take and read” (labōn anagnōthi) and similar phrases appear with greatest frequency in the orations of Demosthenes, with other Attic orators running a close second. These phrases may, in other words, be a deliberate classicizing gesture on Eusebius’s part. Demosthenes uses the phrase when asking Athenian court reporters to read aloud from the texts of laws or evidentiary documents. It is probably not accidental that the vivid citation formula for Josephus, for instance, comes when Eusebius is adducing Josephus to prove that the Jews deserved divine punishment. When Eusebius uses the phrase, he is similarly asking that the reader “perform” the act of reading the document into the “record.” Eusebius does not always quote his sources directly. On several occasions, most notably in his summaries of Josephus in books 1, 2, and 3, and when quoting the Martyrdom of Polycarp in book 5, he will 33. The oldest extant Greek manuscripts of the Ecclesiastical History are minuscules dating to the early tenth century. In these manuscripts, quoted text, including quotations from the Bible, is usually marked in the margins with a > next to each line containing quoted text.

26

General Introduction

summarize his source in indirect discourse. In addition, there is one example of speech in character in the Ecclesiastical History, at 7.32.9 (when Anatolius of Laodicea gives a short rousing speech to the besieged Alexandrians ). Inventing speeches in character to suit dramatic circumstances is characteristic of classical historiography in the tradition of Thucydides. This is the only time it occurs in Eusebius’s History. Finally, Eusebius also uses the formula “word has it” or “the story is.” He does so when introducing the miracles of Narcissus of Jerusalem (HE 6.9.1–8) and his account of the statues at Paneas (7.16.1), for example. In some cases, it is probably correct to assume that Eusebius is adducing an oral tradition. In other instances, it is not clear if he might be summarizing a written tradition—for instance, when he recounts a local Caesarean legend about the soldier-martyr Marinus and Bishop Theotecnus (7.15.1–5). T H E DAT E A N D “E D I T IO N S” O F T H E E C C L E S IAST I C A L H I ST ORY

This volume takes the context of the writing and initial dissemination of the Ecclesiastical History to be the period between ca. 313 (the end of the Diocletianic persecution) and ca. 324 c.e. (Constantine’s defeat of Licinius). Richard Burgess’s work on the Chronological Canons shows that that work was completed after 306. Eusebius used the earlier work when writing the History. Taken together with the statement in 1.1.2 that his narrative will run through the end of the persecutions of his own day, it is highly likely that he began the project shortly after Maximinus Daia’s demise in 313. The work as it has been transmitted also seems to have been completed after Constantine’s victory over Licinius, but before the Council of Nicaea (which is not mentioned in the History)—that is, late 324 to early 325. Since the publication of the critical edition of the History by Schwartz in the first decade of the twentieth century, scholars have often argued that Eusebius produced different “editions” of the work in response to changing political events around him. These arguments are too complex for a general introduction; interested readers can consult the detailed discussion in the accompanying commentary. All of these arguments are, in fact, ways of explaining the manuscript tradition. In sum, one set of key manuscripts, known as ATE and R,

General Introduction

27

include passages not present in the other key family of manuscripts, BD and M (nor in the Syriac version, nor the Latin version of Rufinus). The most notable of these differences is a long passage included after the end of book 8 in AE and R. These manuscripts note that the passage is found in “some other copies” of the work. This, combined with the fact that many manuscripts also include the “short recension” of the Martyrs of Palestine after book 8, has led to the hypothesis of an early “edition” that ended with an earlier version of book 8 that included the short version of the Martyrs and the extra passage. Moreover, the ATER family of manuscripts also includes some passages referencing Licinius that are not present in the BDM family. Some have argued that these omissions represent a deliberate damnatio memoriae of Licinius, after his elimination by Constantine. In this volume, I have marked key differences between the ATER and BDM families with {brackets} and accompanying textual notes so that readers new to the text can get a sense of the passages at stake in the scholarship on the “editions” of the History. It should be emphasized, however, that current scholarship is much more reticent about arguing for a sequence of “editions.” Much of the scholarship on the question assumes that Eusebius was making editorial decisions and issuing new “editions” in direct response to changes in the imperial college. The arguments about the damnatio memoriae of Licinius, in particular, depend on the assumption that Eusebius was keenly invested in making his texts reflect the propaganda of the court. Instead, recent scholarship has returned to the manuscript evidence. Most, if not all, of the differences between the two manuscript families can be accounted for, for instance, as the result of scribal insertions and collations of differing manuscripts in the Byzantine era. Moreover, the manuscript evidence can even be read cogently as indicating a single version, completed in 324. More importantly, the very term edition reflects modern assumptions about book production and publication, not late ancient practices. This does not mean that Eusebius might not have made additions, corrections, and so forth to his work. Indeed, late ancient writers often revised their work, and it was characteristic to add to or “continue” annalistic works, adding new historical data points. It was also not unusual to add further sources to florilegia as they came into a compiler’s possession. But these modes of altering and adding to a text are not to be thought of as creating new “editions.” Eusebius did not produce “editions” of the History, or of any

28

General Introduction

other work, if by “edition” we mean a controlled, uniform text deliberately and systematically disseminated to supersede or correct an earlier one. The processes of scribal production and the social networks through which texts circulated in antiquity were simply not the kind of infrastructure that could support the issuing of “editions” in the way in which an author today might revise a successful work and publish a second “revised edition.” We can have a fuller, more nuanced appreciation of the genesis of the History if we set aside the notion that every authorial move responded to the politics of Constantine. Instead, we may imagine a text being produced over the course of a dynamic decade that saw the end of persecution, intense theological controversy, and political uncertainty. A WO R D O N C HA P T E R S A N D H E A D I N G S

In modern critical editions of the Ecclesiastical History, each book is divided into chapters. These modern chapter divisions, as well as modern line numbers, are reproduced in this translation. In ancient manuscripts of the text, each book was also divided into sections, marked by headings (kephalaia). In the manuscripts, the headings appear at the front of each book, as they do in this translation. Within the text of each book, the headings appear either before the section of material they head (as in this translation), in the margin at the point where the section of material they head begins, or, in some manuscripts, only the Greek numeral appears, keying back to the list of headings at the opening of the book. For the most part, the divisions of the ancient text are consistent across the manuscript tradition, with the most variation in final three books. The headings probably go back to Eusebius himself, though later scribal interventions led to the variations seen in the manuscripts.34 The headings translated in this volume are those published in the standard critical edition; for the sake of clarity and economy, the variants are not presented here. 34. See the discussions in E. Schwartz, “Überschriften und Kephalaia,” in idem., Eusebius Werke II.3 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999), CXLVII–CLIII and G. Bardy, “Introduction,” in Eusèbe de Césarée: Histoire Ecclésiastique, Source Chrétiennes 73 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1960).

General Introduction

29

In ancient manuscripts, the headings would have made large, complex texts such as the Ecclesiastical History more user friendly. They allowed a reader to locate relevant passages quickly, for example, but they also supported thematic and topical reading. In other words, the headings facilitated “random access”: a reader could, for example, forego a fixed, chronological reading of the text and tab directly to passages related to say, martyrdom or bishops. The practice of using headings as an aid to navigation is imitated in many modern versions of the Ecclesiastical History, where headings created by modern translators are intended to aid modern readers in navigating an otherwise difficult text.35 This translation does not insert modern headings, and instead translates the ancient version, in the hope that this will provide readers the opportunity to engage with the ways Eusebius and his early readers would have imagined to be the key themes and divisions of material in the text. U SE S O F T H I S VO LUM E

This volume has been designed with students and the public in mind. It’s my hope that it will encourage new readers and prompt readers familiar with the History to read it anew. Since my ultimate goal is to help readers ask new questions and revisit classic problems, I have tried to avoid framing the Ecclesiastical History as a singular text. Instead of contextualizing the History as either history, theology, or heresiology, and so forth (it is, as readers will find, all of these), I have tried to curate the text so that students can read and understand it from a variety of perspectives. I have also worked with two kinds of readers in mind: students whose teachers will use the paratexts in this volume as props and foils for their teaching, and readers without access to teachers who would benefit from explanatory notes and bibliographic suggestions. Like any project with these kinds of broad, interdisciplinary goals, this will inevitably mean that much is left out. Rather than a traditional comprehensive narrative introduction, I have opted for one aimed at guiding readers to the questions, themes, and topics that classicists, historians, and religious studies scholars 35. See P. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999) for an example of a text that makes ample use of modern headings.

30

General Introduction

often consider most salient in the Ecclesiastical History. The individual books are each also preceded by an overview that directs readers to specific themes and points of interest within each book. A list of parallel and related primary sources is also provided in each book. My hope is that these lists may offer students and nonspecialists entry points into early Christian and other late ancient literatures.

The History of the Church

Book 1

OV E RV I EW

Eusebius opens with the overall plan of his project. This is followed by a summary treatment of Christology and a response to the criticism, which Eusebius claims is leveled by both Jews and Hellenes, that Christianity is something new and strange, lacking a solid grounding in the ancestral tradition of any recognized people. He then proceeds with the narrative, bringing his account up to the crucifixion and its immediate aftermath, ca. 30 c.e. SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

A Cumulative Aesthetic Eusebius makes several gestures that situate his writing in relation to existing genres of literature. In the first few lines, he uses the word historia, the same word used by classical Greek historians like Herodotus and Thucydides to describe their projects. Historia means “inquiry” and, by extension, the written narrative that presents the results of that inquiry. When Eusebius goes on to say that his narrative will include accounts of cultural heroes (apostles, Christian writers, etc.) and the “wars” they have fought, he sounds like he is describing a “national” history like Manetho’s History of Egypt or Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities. This genre of historical writing emerged in the Hellenistic period, as subject peoples adopted and adapted the techniques of 33

34

the ecclesiastical history

classical Greek historiography (and the Greek language) to present the origins and development of their own peoples. When Eusebius concludes his long opening statement, however, he sounds like he is about to begin a Christological treatise. Next, Eusebius claims that his project is uniquely innovative—“we are the first who have taken in hand to tread this subject, as if traveling a deserted and untrodden road” (1.1.3). When he acknowledges that predecessors have left behind “partial narratives” of their own times, he is referring to works like Hegesippus’s Hypomnemata, Julius Africanus’s Cestoi, and Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis. As their titles suggest (hypomnēmata means “memoirs,” cestoi “embroideries,” and stromateis “patchworks”), these were compilations of brief narratives and learned philosophical and ethnographic observations. As it is a stitching together of (mostly) written traditions, biographical notes, and brief narratives, the Ecclesiastical History can be read as a development of this sort of writing. Finally, when he likens the process of collecting and arranging sources to gathering “flowers of verbal fields” (1.1.4) Eusebius is describing the text as a florilegium—a beautiful and useful bouquet of literature—something akin to, for example, Aulus Gellius’s Attic Nights. Thus the Ecclesiastical History has what has been termed a “cumulative aesthetic.” This is a historia, the written account of Eusebius’s inquiries into the past, but this inquiry is presented using a variety of generic conventions. The Ecclesiastical History is built by accretion, as Eusebius places literary stone next to literary stone, found textual object next to found textual object. His technique has been likened to a phenomenon more familiar in the architecture of late antiquity: spoliation, the reuse of older building materials in new structures.1 To risk anachronism for the sake of analogy, the aesthetic effect bears some kinship with techniques that involve the appropriation and arrangement of found objects, such as remixes and sampling. Compendia of Prophecies Eusebius does what is often called proof-texting—quoting biblical passages in support of particular claims. In 1.2.24–4.14, for example, he brings forward passages from the Pentateuch and the Prophets to 1. See Aaron Johnson, “Introduction,” in A. Johnson and J. Schott, Eusebius of Caesarea: Tradition and Innovations (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2013).

book 1

35

prove that the Hebrew prophets predicted Christ’s coming and the rise of the church, and to argue that the Prophets supported orthodox (i.e., Eusebius’s) Christology. Eusebius did not put these chains of quotation together out of whole cloth. Collections of “proof texts” were a useful pedagogical genre among early Christians, and Eusebius had composed his own collection, the General Elementary Introduction.2 He mentions this work at 1.2.26 and puts it to use here in book 1. He also draws from this collection in his panegyric for the dedication of the basilica in Tyre, included in book 10 (10.4.1–72). In short, what may to modern readers seem like random, run-on quotations would have been recognized by Eusebius’s readers as a carefully honed argumentative technique. The Jewish Patriarchs as Christians “before the Fact” and Eusebius’s Ethnological Imagination Eusebius argues that the Jewish patriarchs were, in effect, Christians before the advent of Christ. He makes this argument here in book 1 (esp. 1.4 ff.), and at greater length in books 7–10 of the Gospel Preparation. Eusebius distinguishes between “Hebrews” (the patriarchs like Abraham and Moses) and the “Jews” (the nation founded upon the Torah of Moses). The Hebrews, he argues, had proper theologies of God and the Logos and maintained a “Christian” way of life; Eusebius claims, for example: “The same way of life and mode of piety belong both to us and to the ancient god-beloved men” (1.4.14). In the Gospel Preparation, he argues that the Jewish nation lived merely according to the literal interpretation of their founding document, the law of Moses. They were superseded by the Christian people, which represents a return to the ancient “Christianity” of the patriarchs. Eusebius’s arguments about “Hebrews,” “Jews,” and “Christians” show that he conceptualizes difference and belonging in ethnological terms. His narrative is not about the history of different “religions,” but about “ethnogenesis”—that is, the origins and development of the Christian people/ethnic group (ethnos), and the relationship of the Christian people to other peoples. Here again, Eusebius’s history reads like other “national” histories, especially Josephus’s Jewish Antiquities.

2. On the pedagogical aspects of Eusebius’s works, see Johnson, Eusebius, 51–83.

36

the ecclesiastical history

The Abgar Legend At the end of book 1, Eusebius includes the earliest extant version of an apocryphal correspondence between Jesus and Abgar, the king of Osrhoëne, and an account of Abgar’s conversion by the apostle Thaddaeus. A more expansive version of the tradition is found in the late fourth-/early fifth-century Syriac text, the Teaching of Addai, which includes a much longer and more detailed narrative (including the story of the “Mandylion,” an icon of Christ that according to Byzantine tradition was a portrait of the living Jesus commissioned by Abgar). The Abgar Legend included here is also significant because it is an example of another genre emerging in this period: collections of letters and traditions about the apostles. The best-known example of this genre are the texts scholars term the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and PseudoClementine Recognitiones. These popular texts represent another sort of literature, contemporary with Eusebius, in which early Christians were constructing pasts for present use. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S • •

•

•

Acts of the Apostles Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitiones; English translation of Syriac version: J. Gebhardt, trans., The Syriac Clementine Recognitions and Homilies; English translation of selections of extant Greek and Latin: J. Irmscher and G. Strecker, “The PseudoClementines,” in New Testament Apocrypha (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2:483–541 Josephus — Relevant portions of Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities cited in notes; English translation: Loeb Classical Library Other examples of early fourth-century theology contemporary with Eusebius — Alexander of Alexandria + Letter to All Bishops (a.k.a. Henos Somatos), preserved in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.6; English translation: NPNF 2:3–5 + Letter to Alexander of Byzantium, preserved in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.4.1–61; English translation: NPNF 3:35–41

book 1

Arius, Thalia, preserved in Athanasius, On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia 15; English translation: B. Ehrman and A. Jacobs, eds., Christianity in Late Antiquity, 300–450 CE (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 158–59 — Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation; English translation: R. Thomson, Athanasius: Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) The Teaching of Addai; English translation: G. Howard, The Teaching of Addai (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981) —

•

37

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 1

The promised subject [of this work] Summary of key points concerning the preexistence of and theology relating to our Savior and Lord, God’s Christ That both the name Jesus and the very name Christ were known from the beginning and were honored by the divinely inspired prophets That the kind of piety he proclaimed to all the Gentiles was not newfangled or foreign On the times of his epiphany among humans That in his time, in accordance with the prophecies about him, the previous ancestral succession of rulers of the Jewish nation ended, and Herod reigned over them as their first foreign king On the supposed disagreement in the Gospels concerning the genealogy of Christ On Herod’s plot against the children and the final catastrophe that ended his life On the times of Pilate On the high priests of the Jews in whose time Christ gave his teaching The testimonies given about John the Baptist and Christ 38

book 1

39

On the disciples of our Savior A narrative about the ruler of the Edessenes T H E P R OM I SE D SU B J E C T [ O F T H I S WO R K ]

chapter 1. The successions of the holy apostles along with [an account of] the times extending from our Savior to our own day; the magnitude and significance of the deeds said to have been accomplished throughout the ecclesiastical narrative, how many governed and presided over these affairs with distinction in the most famous communities;3 how many in each generation served as ambassadors of the Divine Logos, either in unwritten form or through written compositions; the identities, number, and dates of those who, thanks to a yearning for innovation, drove on to the heights of error and proclaimed themselves the introducers of what is falsely called knowledge4 and mercilessly attacked Christ’s flock like vicious wolves; 2 and in addition, what befell the whole Jewish people right after their plot against our Savior; how many times and in what ways war was waged against the Divine Logos5 by the Gentiles during each time period; how great were the contests fought in each period on Its behalf, through blood and torture, and in addition the martyrdoms of our very own day, and the gracious and kind relief of our Savior that came at last—intending as I do to present all this in writing, I shall begin from nowhere else than the beginning of the divine economy relating to our Savior and Lord Jesus, God’s Christ.6 3 My discourse, therefore, begs the indulgence of the considerate, for it admits that to deliver on our promise perfectly and completely is 3. See “community” in the glossary. 4. Eusebius uses the phrase “what is falsely called knowledge” to refer to “heresy” generally, but the phrase antedated him as referring in particular to “gnostic” heresies; it is, for instance, part of the title of Irenaeus’s heresiology, Against What Is Falsely Called Knowledge, a work well known to Eusebius (see, e.g., 2.13.5). 5. See “logos/word” in the glossary. 6. The translation preserves the flow of the original—a long sequence of dependent clauses that hinge on the main clause about Christ and the divine economy. The grammar reinforces the idea that all of ecclesiastical history has its beginning and end in the larger operation of the divine economy.

40

the ecclesiastical history

beyond our power, since we are the first who have taken in hand to tread this subject, as if traveling a deserted and untrodden road. We pray that God will be our guide and that we will have the power of the Lord as our fellow worker. In fact, we cannot even find the bare traces of any who have already traveled the same road as we, except only a few small pretexts,7 by means of which they have in different ways left behind partial narratives of the times during which they lived. Far off in the distance, they hold forth their words like torches, calling to us and urging us on from above as though from a conspicuous overlook, toward which we must proceed and steer our discourse inerrantly and safely.8 4 Whatever they have mentioned here and there that we think is profitable for the subject at hand we have collected, picking the words that are useful from the ancient writers themselves, like the flowers of verbal fields,9 and we shall try by means of a historical composition to make of them a single body.10 And we will be content if we preserve, if not all the successions, at least those of the most especially renowned of our Savior’s apostles in each of the churches still to this day considered prominent. 5 I consider it most incumbent upon me to labor at this subject because I am aware of no ecclesiastical writer who has yet made a serious effort at this type of writing, and I hope that it will show itself to be most helpful for those who are earnest about the useful learning [to be gleaned from] historical inquiry. 6 I have already set out these things in the Chronological Canons that I inscribed previously, but I was keen in the present work that a fuller narration of them be given.11

7. “Pretexts” translates prophaseis, preceding utterances and utterances that provoke or cause subsequent discourse. Eusebius uses the word in both senses here: the works of his predecessors precede his text and are also causes of his writing. 8. An echo of Matt. 3:3 (Isa. 40:3). 9. A common metaphor for ancient literary collections, or florilegia. 10. Sōmatopoiēsai: literally, to make them a body, or “embody” them. The word also suggests a specific book form, the codex (see, e.g., Constantine’s famous letter to Eusebius requesting fifty “parchment codices” (sōmatia en diphtherais; VC 4.36.2). Thus Eusebius buttresses his theological claim that disparate authors and texts together constitute “orthodox writing” by highlighting that this unity is embodied in a specific material form; in short, Eusebius accents the unity of orthodox writing by showing that it can all be brought together in a single codex. 11. On the Chronological Canons, see “General Introduction,” pp. 15–16.

book 1

41

7 My discourse begins, as I said, from the divine economy and theology relating to Christ,12 the conceptualization of which is above and beyond human ability. 8 One who is going to provide a narrative account of the direction of the church must begin at the start from the beginning of the divine economy concerning Christ himself, which is more divine than it seems to the many.13 SUM M A RY O F K EY P O I N T S C O N C E R N I N G THE PREEXISTENCE OF AND THEOLOGY R E L AT I N G T O OU R S AV IO R A N D L O R D, G O D’ S C H R I S T

chapter 2. Because the manner of being that pertains to him is twofold14—on the one hand, like the head of the body,15 whereby he is known as God, and on the other hand, comparable to the feet, whereby he put on a human being subject to the same passions as us, for the sake of our salvation—our discussion of what follows will be complete if we direct the whole narrative pertaining to him based on the most capital and principal points.16 By this means, we shall demonstrate both the great antiquity and divine sanction of the Christians to those who assume it is something new and outlandish17 that appeared just yesterday and not before. 12. See “divine economy” in the glossary. 13. “The many” translates hoi polloi, which has classist connotations; one might translate it “the vulgar” or “the common people.” 14. Dittou de ontos tou kat’ auton tropou; Williamson translates “his nature being twofold” and Lake has “his nature was twofold,” but Eusebius uses the word tropos (manner), not physis (nature). Here, Eusebius is not so much making a statement defining Christ’s “nature” as he is saying one must take account of two ontological modes or manners of existence when discussing Christ, and that this awareness is what differentiates one from the ignorant “many” he disparages in the previous sentence. Debates over the precise use of terms like “nature,” “person,” and “hypostasis” to describe the human and divine in Christ emerged in the late fourth and throughout the fifth century, but theologians of Eusebius’s day were not yet concerned to be so precise. 15. An echo of 1 Cor. 11:3. 16. A very complicated sentence. Eusebius means to say that he is not going to provide a complete Christological account, but rather a more succinct narrative based on key Christological points. 17. Ektetopismene, “insane,” but also “out of place”; thus, “strange and bizarre because foreign.”

42

the ecclesiastical history

2 Now, then, no discourse is capable of providing a complete description18 of the species and glory, and the very essence and nature of the Christ.19 For this reason the Divine Spirit in prophecies says: “Who will describe his generation?”20 For indeed, no one knows the Father except the Son, nor again does anyone know the Son in his glory, except only the Father who begot him.21 3 And who besides the Father could have a pure understanding of the precosmic Light and the noetic and essential Wisdom that was before the ages,22 the living God the Logos that was in the beginning alongside the Father,23 the first and only offspring of God before every creature and made thing, both visible and invisible,24 the commander of the rational and immortal army in heaven, the angel of great counsel,25 the servant of the unspoken will of the Father, the demiurge26 of all things with the Father, the second cause of the Universe after the Father,27 the legitimate and OnlyBegotten Child of God, the Lord, God and King of all creatures, who

18. Ekphrasis: in classical rhetoric an ekphrasis was a vivid description, especially of works of art or architecture. The goal of such rhetoric was to engage the senses of the audience fully, particularly sight. Eusebius wants to emphasize that humans, who are limited by their reliance on sense perception, cannot fully comprehend the essence of Christ, which transcends all sense perception. 19. Genos (species), ousia (essence/being), physis (nature); on Eusebius’s theology of the Son and his place in the “Arian” controversy, see “General Introduction.” 20. Isa. 53:8. 21. Matt. 11:27. 22. Prov. 8:23. Eusebius describes the Son as precosmic (existing before the creation of the cosmos), noetic (existing at the ontological level of that which is comprehended by the intellect, not the senses), and essential (existing really and with an essence, rather than simply existing by virtue of or in something else—such as the wisdom that can exist in a person). 23. Compare John 1:1, where the preposition is pros (with), while here Eusebius uses para (alongside). Para suggests simultaneous difference and sameness (as in “parallel lines”), which is in keeping with Eusebius’s emphasis on co-relational language in what follows (“God from God,” etc.). 24. Col. 1:15–16. 25. Isa. 9:6. 26. In the Platonic tradition, the demiurge (craftsman) is the being who constructs the cosmos (Timaeus 40c). 27. Here Eusebius describes the Son as having a relationship of “secondness” in relation to the Father; such phrases would contribute to his being accused of subordinationism.

book 1

43

received both authority and power by means of the very divinity, power, and honor that comes from the Father, because, according to the mystical theologies contained in the writings about him, “in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being.”28 4 This is also what Moses, as the most ancient of the prophets, teaches, when by the inspiration of the Divine Spirit he writes about the coming-into-being and ordering of everything and states that the cosmos maker and demiurge of the universe handed over the creation of subordinate beings to Christ himself and clearly to none other than his own Divine Logos, and spoke together with him at the time of the creation of humanity; he says: “For God said, ‘Let us make the human being according to our image and likeness.’”29 5 Another of the prophets makes this declaration, theologizing at one point in hymns: “He spoke, and they came into being; he commanded, and they were created,”30 thereby introducing the Father and Maker as a universal ruler who orders things by means of a kingly nod, and the Divine Logos who comes second after him (who is none other than he whom we proclaim) as serving the Father’s commands. 6 All people from the time of the creation of humanity who are said to have been conspicuous in justice and the virtue of piety—those around the time of Moses, the great worshipper [of God], and before him, Abraham, the first [worshipper], and his children and as many just people and prophets as have appeared since then—have pictured him through the pure eyes of the understanding and known him and given him the pious honor appropriate for a child of God, 7 and he himself, being not at all fainthearted in piety toward the Father, has been a teacher to all people of knowledge relating to the Father.31 The Lord God, therefore, is said to have appeared like a common human being to Abraham as he sat by the Oak of Mambre.32 But he immediately fell down, and although he saw a human with his eyes, he worshipped him as God, supplicated him as Lord, and confessed that

28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

John 1:1–3. Gen. 1:26. Ps. 32:9; 148:5. Compare Matt. 11:27. Gen. 18:1–3.

44

the ecclesiastical history

he was not ignorant as to who he was, saying in these very words: “Lord, who judges the whole earth, will you not make a judgment?”33 8 For, if reason does not allow [one to think] that the unoriginated and unchangeable essence of the All-Powerful God changed into the form of a human being or deceived the eyes of those who saw him by taking on the appearance of something originated, and it is also not right to think that the text has fabricated this falsely, then who else could be designated here as God and the “Lord who judges the whole earth”34 and makes judgment and who is seen in the form of a human being, other than his preexistent Logos, given that it is not right to say that it is the first cause of the universe?35 About him it is also said in Psalms: “He sent his Logos, and healed them, and rescued them from their destruction.”36 9 Moses most clearly designates him a second Lord, after the Father, when he says, “The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord upon Sodom and Gomorrah.”37 The text applies the name God to him when he appeared again in the form of a man to Jacob, and said to Jacob, “No longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name, because you prevailed with God,”38 and again when “Jacob called the name of that place Vision of God,” saying, “For I saw God face to face, and my soul was saved.”39 10 And it is certainly not right to surmise that the theophanies40 that have been recorded are about God’s subordinate angels and ministers, since when one of them appears to humans the text does not hide it, but says so and uses the word “angels,” not “God” or even “Lord,” as can easily be proved by myriad testimonies. 11 Moses’s successor Joshua, too, as though he is the leader of the heavenly angels, archangels, and hypercosmic powers and as if he is

33. Gen. 18:25. 34. Gen. 18:25. 35. This passage illustrates the role of the Son as a mediator in Eusebius’s theology— the Son is a bridge between creation and the transcendent essence of the Father. This is another example of a passage that can be read as implying ontological hierarchy in the Trinity. 36. Ps. 106:20. 37. Gen. 19:24. 38. Gen. 32:28. 39. Gen. 32:30. 40. “Theophanies,” manifestations of the divine in human history; see also “epiphany” in the glossary.

book 1

45

the Power and Wisdom of the Father and entrusted with the second rank in his universal kingdom and rule, names him the supreme commander of the Lord’s Power, though he again saw him in no other way than in the form and shape of a human being. 12 And so it has been written: “And when Joshua was in Jericho it came to pass that he looked up and saw a human being standing opposite him, and his sword was drawn in his hand, and Joshua approached him and said, ‘Are you from our side or the opponents’?’ And he said to him, ‘I am the supreme commander of the Lord’s Power, and now I have come.’ And Joshua fell upon his face upon the ground and said to him, ‘Master, what do you command your servant?’ And the supreme commander of the Lord said to Joshua, ‘Take off the shoes from your feet, for the place upon which you stand is a holy place.’ ” 13 Here, you will understand from these very words that this is none other than he who had interacted with Moses, because the text uses the very same words for that moment: “But as the Lord saw that he was approaching to see, the Lord called out to him from the bush, saying, ‘Moses! Moses!’ And he said, ‘What is it?’ And he said, ‘Do not draw near here. Take off the shoes from your feet, for the place upon which you are standing is holy ground.’ And he said to him, ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ ”41 14 That he is a precosmic essence, living and subsisting, that serves God the Father of the Universe in the creation of all generated beings, and is called the Logos and Wisdom of God, one can, in addition to the proofs that have been given, hear from Wisdom herself, in her own person, as she in one place teaches mysteries about herself in a very clear way through Solomon: “I, Wisdom, took residence in counsel and I summoned knowledge and thought. Through me kings reign, and princes inscribe justice. Through me the great are made great, and through me rulers hold power over the earth.”42 15 To this she adds: The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works; before the ages he established me. In the beginning before the making of the earth, before the fonts of the waters went forth, before the founding of the mountains, before every hill, he begat me. When he prepared the

41. Josh. 5:13–15; Gen. 3:4–6. 42. Prov. 8:12, 15, 16.

46

the ecclesiastical history heaven, I was present together with him, and when he set the fonts firmly under heaven I was with him endowing it with order. I was she in whom he daily took delight, and I rejoiced before him at all times, when he rejoiced after he perfected the inhabited world.43

16 So then, let this suffice as our brief demonstration that the Divine Logos preexisted and appeared to some, even if not to everyone. 17 Now, here we should clarify why he was not proclaimed long ago among all humans and to all peoples, the way he is now. The ancient mode of human life was not of a sort to be able to welcome gladly the completely wise and completely virtuous teaching of the Christ.44 18 For in the beginning, immediately after first living in blessedness, the first human being thought little of the divine commandment, and thus fell into this mortal and perishable life and exchanged his ancient Godinspired luxury for this cursed earth. Those who came after him filled our whole world and acted much worse, except for one or two here and there, and took up savage ways and an unlivable life. 19 And they took no thought for city or society, arts or sciences, and when it came to laws and duties, not to mention virtue and philosophy, they did not even know the words. Nomads in uninhabited regions, they lived like wild and untamed animals, and by the excess of their freely chosen wickedness were destroying the reasoning with which humans are endowed by nature, as well as the rational and gentle seeds of the human soul. They abandoned themselves completely to every sort of impiety, so that at one time they corrupted one another, at another killed each other, and at still another were cannibals. They dared to engage in battles against God, and fight those gigantomachies that are celebrated among all [peoples],45 and came up with the idea to wall up the earth all the way to heaven, and with the madness of insane thought plotted to make war

43. Prov. 8:22–25, 27, 28, 30, 31. 44. In what follows, Eusebius recounts the Fall (i.e., Gen. 3:1–23), which he conceptualizes as the beginning of a process of descent into an uncivilized period of human history. His account of uncivilized humanity is informed by Paul’s account of human error in Rom 1:18–32 and has antecedents in “decline theories,” especially Stoic, of human civilization. 45. Literally, “battles of the giants”; in Greek mythology, the Giants were superhuman beings who fought against the Olympian gods (see, e.g., Hesiod, Theogony 185); the Nephilim in Gen. 6:4 were also interpreted as a reference to Giants.

book 1

47

upon the very God who is over everything. 20 Consequent upon their introducing among themselves this manner of life, God, the guardian of everything, went after them with floods and fires, just like a savage forest that had spread throughout the earth. He cut them down with successive famines and plagues, and with wars and even with thunderbolts from above, just as though holding back a terrible and harsh disease [infecting] souls by means of these bitter correctives. 21 And then, when the torpor of wickedness was spread wide over almost everyone, like a terrible intoxication that overshadowed and obscured the souls of nearly every person, the First-Born and First-Created Wisdom of God, the preexistent Logos himself, in the superabundance of his love of humanity, appeared to his subjects—sometimes through visions of angels, while at other times as himself, as a salvific power of God, to one or two of the ancient god-fearing men, in no other way than through the form of a human being, because it was not otherwise possible for them [to experience him]. 22 Then, when through them the seeds of piety had been planted within the majority of men, and an entire people devoted to piety, descended from the earlier Hebrews, was established upon the earth, through the prophet Moses he bequeathed to them, as to a population still luxuriating in their old ways, images and symbols of a mystical Sabbath and circumcision and elementary prompts for other intellectual objects of contemplation, but not the actual mystical doctrines themselves. 23 But when the legislation that existed among them became famous and had spread among all humanity like a fresh breeze, then indeed the attitudes of the greater part of the Gentiles were tamed by it, through the lawgivers and philosophers who were everywhere.46 Because their wild and vicious savagery was turned toward gentleness, there was deep peace and friendship and socializing with one another. At that very moment, that teacher of the virtues himself, the servant of the Father in all good things, the divine and heavenly Logos of God, through a human body differing in no way in essence from our nature, appeared to the rest of humanity and the Gentiles throughout the inhabited world just as the Roman Empire was beginning, since they 46. Eusebius claims obliquely what he argues in detail in the Gospel Preparation (e.g., PE 10.1–2), that all that was good in the legislation of the Gentiles was due to their plagiarism of Moses; this argument can be found in Philo (Life of Moses 2.25–44) and the Christian apologists of the second century, notably Justin Martyr (1 Apol. 44–46).

48

the ecclesiastical history

had been helped and in fact adapted to receive the knowledge of the Father. He both did and suffered what was in accordance with the prophecies that predict that one who is at once a human being and God will take up this life, and be revealed a doer of miraculous deeds and teacher to all the Gentiles of the piety of the Father, as well as the paradox of his birth, the new teaching and the wonders of his deeds, and in addition to this his manner of death, his resurrection from the dead, and finally his divinely inspired return to heaven. 24 The prophet Daniel, for example, having seen his Final Kingdom47 by means of the Divine Spirit, was inspired to record the vision in a more human way:48 For they looked up where thrones had been set up, and the ancient of days was seated. And his garment was white as snow, and the hair on his head was as clean wool. His throne was a flame of fire, and its wheels were a burning fire. A river of fire went out before him. A thousand thousands were serving him, and myriad myriads stood before him. A court of judgment stood there, and books lay open.

And subsequently he says:49 They looked, and behold! One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven, and he came before the Ancient of Days, and presented himself before him. And by him he was given the first place, the honor, and the kingdom, and all the peoples, tribes, tongues, will serve him. His authority is an eternal authority, which will not be undone. And his kingdom will not be destroyed.

26 These [passages] clearly refer to none other than our Savior, the Logos that was in the beginning with God and who is called Son of Man on account of his later becoming human. 27 But since we have gathered selections of prophecies that concern our Savior Jesus Christ in written records suited to the task, and in others given a fuller demonstration of the [passages] that reveal things about him, we shall be satisfied with what has been said here.50 47. I.e., the final, eschatological kingdom. 48. Dan. 7:9–10. “In a more human way”: i.e., not a description of its ineffable reality, but in images and terms conceivable by humans. 49. Dan. 7:13–14. 50. Eusebius is referencing his General Elementary Introduction and, possibly, the Gospel Demonstration.

book 1

49

T HAT B O T H T H E NA M E J E SU S A N D T H E V E RY NA M E C H R I ST W E R E K N OW N F R OM T H E B E G I N N I N G A N D W E R E HO N O R E D B Y T H E D I V I N E LY I N SP I R E D P R O P H E T S

chapter 3. Now is the right time to demonstrate the fact that even the name “Jesus” itself and, indeed, “Christ” were honored by their ancient god-beloved prophets. 2 Moses himself, being the first to gain knowledge, as far as it is possible, of the august and magnificently glorious name of Christ, and providing types and symbols of heavenly things and mystic images in accordance with the oracle that said to him, “See, you will make everything according to the type shown to you on the mountain,”51 describes the High Priest of God as being an especially powerful human, and names him Christ. And he applies the title Christ to indicate the honor and glory that pertains to the high priesthood, and which in him exceeds every position of authority that there is among humanity. In this way, then, Moses well knew that Christ was a divine thing. 3 By means of the Divine Spirit, he also indeed foresaw the title “Jesus,” and again deemed it worthy of a special status. Before Moses learned of it, it had never before been spoken among humanity, and he applied the name of Jesus first and only to that man that he knew, again according to type and symbol, would receive rule over all after his death.52 4 His successor, in fact, had not used the name Jesus before, but was called by another name, Ause, which those who had given birth to him had given, but Moses named him Jesus, as a mark of honor far greater than any kingly diadem.53 He gave him this name because, indeed, Jesus the son of Nave himself provided the image of our Savior, who alone after Moses and the conclusion of the symbolic ritual services handed down through him became successor in the leadership54 of the true and purest piety. 5 In this way, Moses applies the name of our Savior Jesus Christ as a great honor to the two men of his time among the entire people who excelled in virtue and honor: 51. Heb. 8:5 ( = Exod. 25:40). 52. I.e., to Joshua; the names Jesus and Joshua are the same in Hebrew and Greek. 53. Num. 13:16. 54. The phrase used here for “succeed in the leadership” is identical to the phrase Eusebius uses to refer to the succession of emperors and the succession of bishops.

50

the ecclesiastical history

the high priest and the man who would become leader after Moses himself. 6 But the prophets after these times, too, clearly announced Christ beforehand by name, along with the plot the Jewish people were going to foment against him. At the same time they also bore testimony beforehand to the call of the Gentiles that came through him. At one point Jeremiah says:55 The spirit of the face of our Lord Christ was captured by their corruptions, of whom we said, “In his shadow we shall live among the Gentiles.”

At another point David expresses frustration in these words:56 Why do the nations grow insolent and peoples contemplate vain things? The kings of the earth stood side by side, and the rulers gathered together in the same place, against the Lord and against his Christ.

After this he continues, in fact, [speaking] in the person of Christ himself:57 The Lord said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will give you nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession.”

7 Those honored with the high priesthood and anointed with prepared oil for the sake of the symbol were not, however, the only ones among the Hebrews adorned with the name of Christ.58 So were the kings, whom by divine nod the prophets anointed, thereby providing certain iconic Christs, because, in fact, they bore in themselves types of the kingly and ruling authority of the sole and true Christ, the Divine Logos that is King over All. 8 And, in fact, we have received [the tradition] that some of the prophets themselves became Christs in type,59 through the process of anointing, since they all refer back to 55. Lam. 4:20. 56. Ps. 2:1–2. 57. Ps. 2:7–8. 58. The Greek word christos (“Christ” in English) translated the Hebrew term “messiah” in the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament; both “messiah” and christos mean “anointed one.” 59. Eusebius is using “typology,” a common exegetical technique in which narratives and prophecies in the Hebrew Bible are read as types or prefigurations of an antitype

book 1

51

the true Christ, the inspired and heavenly Logos, who is the only high priest of the Universe, the only King of All Creation, and only Chief Prophet of the Father among the prophets. 9 The proof of this is that not a single one of those anointed in antiquity by the symbol—not among the priests, the kings, nor indeed among the prophets— possessed such great power of divinely inspired virtue as that which our Savior and Lord Jesus, the only and true Christ, has displayed. 10 None of them, even though they were conspicuous in honor and virtue for many generations among their own people, ever gave to their followers the name “Christians,” based on the iconic designation Christ applied to them.60 Nor were august honors initiated for any of them by their followers. Nor was there so great an attitude after their death that people willingly died on behalf of those so honored. Nor was there such great revolution among all the peoples throughout the inhabited world in response to any of them in the past, since the power of the symbol did not have the same effect on them as the display of truth exhibited through our Savior. 11 He did not receive the symbols and types of the high priesthood from anyone, nor was he descended (as respects the body) from a priestly family, nor was he elevated to a kingdom by a bodyguard comprised of men, nor, moreover, did he become a prophet in the same way as the ancient ones, nor did he obtain any honors or privileges from the Jews. Nevertheless, he has been adorned with everything—not with the symbols, but indeed with the truth itself—by the Father. 12 He did not obtain things like those we mentioned previously, but is called Christ more properly than all of them. And since he is God’s one and true Christ, he has filled the entire cosmos with Christians, so named from what is truly his august and holy name. To initiates he no longer bequeathed types or icons, but, by means of true doctrines, the virtues themselves, uncovered, and the heavenly life. 13 And he has received the chrism, not the one prepared with spices, but that very one that is appropriate

that fulfills and/or supersedes them. Here, the anointing of prophets is interpreted as a type that prefigures Jesus as the paradigmatic and true anointed; compare Heb. 4:14–5:10. 60. I.e., when the name Christ was applied to prophets, kings, and priests in the Hebrew Bible, it functioned like an eikon (icon, or “image”) that pointed to the reality (Jesus the Christ) of which they were merely images.

52

the ecclesiastical history

for a god, with the Divine Spirit, by participation in the unbegotten and paternal Divinity. This very thing Isaiah once again teaches, crying out as though it were coming from Christ himself:61 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for which sake he has anointed me. He has sent me to evangelize to the poor, to proclaim release for prisoners and sight for the blind.

14 And not only Isaiah, but David, too, speaks about his person, saying:62 Your throne, God, lasts forever and ever. The rod of your kingdom is a rod of righteousness. You love justice and hate lawlessness. For this reason God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness more than others.

Here, the passage calls him God in the first verse, in the second honors him with a royal scepter, 15 and continuing on, after mentioning inspired and royal power, in the third part establishes that he has become Christ, anointed not with oil taken from material bodies, but with the inspired “oil of gladness.” Besides this, it indicates his distinctiveness, surpassing greatness, and difference from those ancients who had been anointed in a more corporeal way as images. 16 And elsewhere the same [David] indicates things about him, saying:63 The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, while I set your enemies beneath your feet.”

And64 Before the morning-star I begat you from the womb. The Lord swore and will not repent of it. You are high priest forever according to the order of Melchisedek.

17 This Melchisedek is introduced in the sacred writings as priest of the Most High God, marked not by a chrism prepared by human art, nor the hereditary succession that characterized the Hebrew priest61. 62. 63. 64.

Isa. 61:1 ( = Luke 4:18–19). Ps. 44:7–8. Ps. 109:1. Ps. 109:3–4.

book 1

53

hood. And on this account, our Savior is called Christ and priest with the receiving of an oath, according to Melchisedek’s order, but not according to that of the others who had received symbols and types.65 18 Hence, the narrative conveys that he was not anointed corporeally, as is done among the Jews, and neither that he came from the tribe of the priests, but rather that he has essence from God himself before the morning-star—that is, before the constitution of the cosmos—and holds an immortal and ageless priesthood for an infinite time. 19 The great and manifest sign of the incorporeal and inspired anointing given to him is that fact that he is the only one ever, even to the present, to be named “Christ” by all people throughout the whole cosmos, and to be confessed and witnessed by this title by absolutely all [peoples], and is mentioned [by this name] among Hellenes and barbarians. Even now, among his initiates throughout the inhabited world he is honored as king, is an object of wonder even greater than a prophet, and is glorified as the only and true high priest of God, and in addition to all this, [is glorified] as the preexisting Logos of God, who has his essence before all ages and has received august honor from the Father, and is worshipped as God. 20 Most paradoxical of all, though, is that we who are dedicated to him do not honor him with voices and the sound of words alone, but even by the total disposition of the soul, and thus we honor testimony to him66 above our very own lives. T HAT T H E K I N D O F P I E T Y H E P R O C L A I M E D T O A L L T H E G E N T I L E S WA S N O T N EW FA N G L E D O R F O R E IG N

chapter 4. Let the foregoing, then, be enough on what I needed to state before the narrative, so that no one would think that our Savior and Lord Jesus, the Christ, is some radical new thing on account of the date of his incarnate life. But, in case anyone might think that his teaching is new and strange, as though established by a newcomer no different from the rest of humanity, come, let us also offer brief remarks about this. 65. Heb. 5:10. 66. I.e., the testimony of martyrdom.

54

the ecclesiastical history

2 After the presence of our Savior Jesus Christ recently illuminated all humanity, it is admittedly a new people that has come to light, suddenly and in accordance with the ineffable prophecies about the timing. It is not a people small or weak or established in some corner of the earth somewhere, but one that is more populous and more pious than all peoples, both indestructible and unconquerable for this reason—the fact that it always finds help from God—a people that has been honored among all by the name of Christ. 3 One of the prophets was so struck by this when he foresaw by the eye of the Divine Spirit what was going to occur that he exclaimed: “Who has [ever] heard such a thing? And who has spoken in this way? Was the earth in labor pains for a single day, and was a people ever born in a single moment?”67 The same [prophet] in a way even indicates the name they were going to have, saying: “A new name shall be given to those who serve me, a name that will be blessed upon the earth.”68 4 But, even if we are clearly new and this truly new name of Christians has only just now become known among all nations, we will demonstrate here that our mode of life and the manner of discipline contained in the doctrines of piety themselves have, nevertheless, not been fabricated by us recently, but were, so to speak, properly maintained in the innate notions69 of the ancient god-beloved men from the first creation of human beings. 5 The nation of the Hebrews is not new, but is honored among all humanity for its antiquity. The utterances and writings of this nation concern ancient men, scant and few in number but nevertheless distinguished in piety, justice, and every other virtue, both various men before the great flood and others after it, especially among the children and progeny of Noah, and indeed Abraham, whom the children of the Hebrews take pride in as their own origin and forefather. 6 One

67. Isa. 66:8. 68. Isa. 65:15–16. 69. Compare Justin Martyr’s notion that all wise people are inspired by the “seed of reason/logos” (2 Apol. 8, 10), a concept with roots in the Stoic notion that all rational beings are endowed with the capacity to live a life of virtue in accord with the principles of nature.

book 1

55

would not shoot wide of the truth, then, to call all who have received testimony of their virtue, going back from Abraham himself to the first human being, Christians, in fact even if not in name. 7 For the name aims to indicate that the Christian man, through the knowledge and teaching of Christ, is conspicuous in both self-control and justice, both the patience of his life and manliness of virtue, and in the confession of piety for the one and only God who is over All—and in this they were no less earnest than us. 8 They, therefore, were not concerned with circumcision of the body, as neither are we; or keeping Sabbaths, as neither are we. Nor again were they concerned with the precautions against certain foods nor the separation of others, which Moses first handed down to posterity to be followed as symbols, as neither are Christians concerned with such things now. But they certainly knew God’s Christ himself, for as we have shown above he appeared to Abraham, conversed with Isaac, talked to Israel, and spoke to Moses and the prophets after them. 9 Indeed, that those God-loving men were deemed worthy of the name of Christ you may discover here, according to the utterance that says of them: “Do not touch my Christs, and do not be wicked to my prophets.”70 10 Consequently, one clearly must deem that first, most ancient, and archaic discovery of piety by those same god-beloved men of Abraham’s circle to be [the same as] the proclamation that has recently come to all nations through the teaching of Christ. 11 Now, even if they say that Abraham much later received the command of circumcision, before this, however, he received righteousness through the testimony of faith; as the divine word says, “Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.”71 12 And it was to him who was so disposed before circumcision that the oracle—given by God who showed himself to him (for this was Christ himself, the Logos of God)—made the promise concerning those who were going to be made righteous in later times in the same manner as Abraham, in these very words: “And all the tribes of the earth shall be

70. Ps. 104:15. 71. Gen. 15:6, as interpreted by Paul in Rom. 4.

56

the ecclesiastical history

blessed in you”72 and “It will be a great and numerous nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in it.”73 13 One can readily understand that this has been fulfilled in us. For that man was made righteous by faith in the Logos of God, the Christ, whom he saw, and he abandoned ancestral superstition and his previous errant way of life, confessed that the God who is over All is one, and served him with works of virtue and not with the worship of the law of Moses that came after. It was to him who was so disposed that it was indeed said that all the tribes of the earth and all the nations would be blessed in him. 14 That very same mode of piety that was Abraham’s has reappeared, practiced in the present only by Christians, throughout the whole inhabited world, in actions that are more effective than words. What impediment remains, then, to confessing that one and the same way of life and mode of piety belong both to us and to the ancient god-beloved men? Thus we have demonstrated that what was handed down through the teaching of Christ is not new or strange,74 but, truth be told, is the first, only, and true form of piety. Let this suffice here. O N T H E T I M E S O F H I S E P I P HA N Y A M O N G H UM A N S

chapter 5. But come, it remains for us to set off, as though on a journey, beginning from the incarnate epiphany of our Savior, calling upon God, the Father of the Logos, and the very one who was just mentioned, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, the heavenly Logos of God, as our helper and collaborator in the truth of the narrative. 2 It was, then, in the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth year of the subjugation and death of Antony and Cleopatra, with whom the Ptolemaic dynasty came to an end in Egypt, at the time of the first census, when Quirinius was governor of Syria, when our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ was born, according

72. Gen. 12:3. 73. Gen. 18:18, as interpreted by Paul in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3:6–9. 74. Or “foreign.”

book 1

57

to the prophecies about him, in Bethlehem of Judaea.75 3 The most famous of historians among the Hebrews, Flavius Josephus, also mentions this census during the time of Quirinius, and adds another story about the sect of Galileans that arose in the same period.76 Among our [writers], Luke has also mentioned this in the Acts, saying:77 After this, Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census, and led the people after him. And this man was killed and all who were duped by him were scattered.

4 Now, in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities the aforementioned [writer] agrees with this, and adds this verbatim:78 But Quirinius, a member of the Senate and a man who had served in other offices and had passed through all of them, and became consul and was in other respects greatly honored, came to Syria with a few [troops], having been sent by Caesar as legate of the nation and assessor of property.

5 And shortly afterward he says:79 But Judas, a Gaulanite from a city by the name of Gamala, with Saddok the Pharisee as his partner, encouraged rebellion by saying that the assessment was nothing other than outright slavery and called the nation to the defense of freedom.

6 And in the second book of the Jewish War he writes this about the same person:80 At this time a Galilean by the name of Judas led the people of the country into rebellion, reproaching them as cowards if they endured paying the Romans tribute and after God tolerated mortal masters.

So writes Josephus. 75. The forty-second year of Augustus’s reign = 2/1 b.c.e. P Sulpicius Quirinius: governor of Syria beginning ca. 3 c.e.; his census of Judaea would most likely have taken place ca. 6 c.e., when Judaea was placed under the authority of the governor of Syria. 76. Antiquities 18.1. 77. Acts 5:37. 78. Antiquities 18.1. 79. Antiquities 18.4. 80. War 2.118.

58

the ecclesiastical history T HAT I N H I S T I M E , I N AC C O R DA N C E W I T H T H E P R O P H E C I E S A B OU T H I M , T H E P R EV IOU S A N C E S T R A L SU C C E S SIO N O F RU L E R S O F T H E J EW I SH NAT IO N E N D E D, A N D H E R O D R E IG N E D OV E R T H E M A S T H E I R F I R S T F O R E IG N K I N G

chapter 6. At that time, when Herod had become the first foreigner to receive the kingship of the Jewish nation, the prophecy of Moses took on definition, which says: “A ruler will not be lacking from Judah nor a leader from his loins, until the one comes to whom it is reserved,”81 who it also shows will be the expectation of the Gentiles. 2 Of course, then, the matters of the prophecy were unfulfilled during the time when it was possible for the Jews to live under native rulers of the nation, those who from the time of Moses himself first began to rule and who lasted until the reign of Augustus, in whose reign Herod became the first foreigner granted rule over the Jews by the Romans.82 As Josephus recounts, he was by race Idumaean on his father’s side and Arab on his mother’s, while, as Africanus reports (who happens to be no average writer), those who are accurate about him say that Antipater was the son of a certain Herod of Ascalon, who was one of the so-called “sacred slaves” associated with the temple of Apollo, 3 and when Antipater was taken captive by Idumaean brigands as a boy he stayed with them, on account of the fact that his father, being poor, was unable to ransom him, and that after he had been brought up in their customs he later befriended Hyrcanus the high priest of the Jews.83 The Herod of our Savior’s time was this man’s son. 4 When, therefore, the kingdom of the Jews had come under a man such as this, the fulfillment of the Gentiles’ expectation in accordance with the prophecy was already at the gates, since their succession of rulers and leaders that began with Moses himself was interrupted by him. 5 Before their captivity and migration to Babylon they were ruled by kings, beginning with Saul and David, and before the kings the rul81. Gen. 49:10. 82. Herod was named a client king by the Roman Senate in 40 b.c.e.; Augustus confirmed Herod and enlarged his territory in 30 b.c.e. 83. A summary of a story taken from Julius Africanus, and quoted in full below, 1.7.11–13.

book 1

59

ers named “judges” governed them, beginning after Moses and his successor Joshua. 6 But after the return from Babylon they experienced no gap, but had an aristocratic polity with an oligarchy (for the priests had control over affairs), until the time when Pompey the Roman general attacked and besieged Jerusalem by force, and polluted the holy places even to the point of entering the innermost sanctuaries of the temple.84 But the one who was continuing in the ancestral succession at that point in time (his name was Aristobulus), Pompey sent as a captive to Rome along with his children, and conveyed the high priesthood to his brother, Hyrcanus; from that point the whole nation of the Jews became tributaries to the Romans.85 7 But, then, when Hyrcanus, the last to have control over the affairs of the priestly succession, was immediately taken prisoner by the Persians, Herod, as I said, the first foreigner, was entrusted with the Jewish people by the Roman Senate and emperor Augustus. 8 Because, then, the advent of Christ manifestly occurred during his time, the expected salvation and call of the Gentiles followed, according to the prophecy. And naturally, from the time those ruling and governing Judaea was interrupted—I mean those from among the Jewish people—the affairs of the ancestral high priesthood, which had been passed steadfastly to successors of the next generation, were confounded. 9 On these matters you have Josephus as a trustworthy witness, pointing out that Herod, once he had been entrusted with the kingdom by the Romans, no longer appointed high priests from the ancient lineage, but granted the honor to certain undistinguished men, and that Archelaeus, his son, and the Romans after him, once they assumed governance over the Jews, did the same as Herod.86 10 The same writer shows that, furthermore, Herod was the first to lock up the sacred vestments of the high priest and place them under his own seal, no longer allowing the high priests to have them under their own control, and that after him Archelaeus and after him the Romans did the same.87 11 Let what we have said also serve as a

84. In 63 b.c.e. 85. A summary of Antiquities 11.111–12. 86. A summary of Antiquities 20.247, 249; compare Ecl. Proph. 160.7–21 and DE 8.2.93, 94. 87. Antiquities 18.92–93.

60

the ecclesiastical history

demonstration of another prophecy that has been fulfilled concerning the epiphany of our Savior Jesus Christ. Now, then, in the book of Daniel, after including a number of some weeks, namely, until “Christ reigns,” which we have discussed elsewhere,88 the text very clearly prophesies that after the completion of these weeks the anointing that exists among the Jews will be utterly destroyed. And this is clearly shown to have been fulfilled during the time of our Savior Jesus Christ’s birth. Of necessity,89 these observations of ours must serve as evidence of the truth of the timing. O N T H E SU P P O SE D D I S AG R E E M E N T I N T H E G O SP E L S C O N C E R N I N G T H E G E N E A L O G Y OF CHRIST

chapter 7. But since Matthew and Luke, in proclaiming the gospel, have handed down to us the genealogy of Christ differently and are thought by many to disagree, and since in ignorance of the truth each of the faithful strives eagerly to find an ingenious solution to these passages, come, let us set out the account that has come down to us concerning them, and which Africanus, whom we mentioned shortly before, explained when he wrote a letter, To Aristides: On the Agreement of the Genealogies in the Gospels. After refuting the opinions of the rest as forced and mistaken, he set out the account he himself received in these very words:90 2 Since the names of generations in Israel were counted either by nature or by law—by nature, according to the succession of legitimate offspring, but by law, when another fathered children in the name of a deceased brother who was childless (for, because no clear hope for resurrection had been provided yet, they imitated the promise that was to come in the form of a mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the departed would continue uninterrupted). According to this mode of

88. In Ecl. Proph. 153.12–165.7 and DE 8.2.55–129. 89. I.e., because he is presenting only a brief, prefatory account here. 90. These are the only extant fragments of this letter of Africanus. The genealogies are found in Matt. 1 and Luke 3. Africanus argues that the discrepancies in the genealogies can be explained by the principle of levirate marriage, in which a brother fathers children with the wife of his deceased brother (see Deut. 25:5).

book 1 genealogy, then, some followed the legitimate succession of father to son, while others were born to one [father], but took their family name from another, and both [fathers] were remembered, both those who had begotten them and those who were considered to be as though they had begotten them. In this way, neither of the Gospels is false, for they count both by nature and by law. 4 The generations were intertwined with one another—the one descended from Solomon and the other from Nathan—through the “resurrections” of the childless and second marriages and the “resurrection” of offspring. As a result, the same people are legitimately considered the children of different people at different times—sometimes of those considered to be their fathers, and at other times of those who had actually fathered them. And so both accounts accurately trace things down to Joseph, circuitously, but accurately. 5 But that what I said may be clearer, I will explain the variations of the genealogies in detail. Counting the generations from David through Solomon, the third from the end is found to be Matthan, who fathered Jacob, the father of Joseph. But according to Luke, the third from Nathan, son of David, the third from the end is Melchi, for Joseph was the son of Eli, son of Melchi. 6 Therefore, keeping our attention on Joseph, it must be demonstrated how each is recounted to have been his father, each lineage being traced down, Jacob from Solomon and Eli from Nathan, and first, how the two—Jacob and Eli—were brothers, and even prior to that, how their fathers, Matthan and Melchi, though being of different lineages, are portrayed as Joseph’s grandfathers. 7 Now, then, Matthan and Melchi each, in turn, took the same wife and fathered brothers from the same mother, since the law does not prevent a woman who loses a husband, either because he has divorced her or because the man has died, from being married to another. 8 From Estha, then (for the tradition is that this was the woman’s name), first Matthan, who was descended from the lineage of Solomon, fathered Jacob, and after Matthan died, Melchi, who traced his lineage back to Nathan, took the widow as his wife, since he was from the same tribe, but of another lineage, as I said before, and had a son, Eli. 9 Thus we will find that Jacob and Eli, being of two different lineages, were brothers from the same mother, and that the one, Jacob, took Eli’s wife after his brother Eli died childless, and fathered from her the third, Joseph, who was his son according to nature (and in accordance with reason,91 which is why

91. Or “in accordance with the Logos” or “in accordance with the text.”

61

62

the ecclesiastical history it is written that “Jacob fathered Joseph”92), but he was the son of Eli according to the law, for it was for him that Jacob, being his brother, raised up offspring. This is why the genealogy traced through him should also not be rejected. 10 The evangelist Matthew counts the genealogy: “Jacob fathered Joseph,” but Luke, in turn, “who was, as it was thought” (for he adds this, too), “the son of Joseph, son of Eli, the son of Melchi.”93 For descent according to the law could not be spoken of any more conspicuously, and he never applies the term “fathered” to this form of begetting children, right to the end, writing his list in reverse, back to “of Adam, of God.” 11 This is not without evidence nor an invention. Those who are relatives of the Savior according to the flesh also hand down the following information, and whether this is because they want to show off, or simply provide instruction, they clearly tell the truth. Idumaean brigands sacked the city of Ascalon in Palestine, and along with the other booty took Antipater, the child of a certain sacred slave named Herod, from the temple of Apollo, which was built near the walls. When the priest was unable to pay his son’s ransom, Antipater was raised in the customs of the Idumaeans. Later, he became friends with Hyrcanus the high priest of Judaea. 12 When he was sent as an ambassador to Pompey on behalf of Hyrcanus he gained freedom for Hyrcanus’s kingdom from his brother Aristobulus, who had stolen it, and he himself became fortunate, and was named overseer of Palestine. Antipater, who was killed out of envy because he was so fortunate, was succeeded by his son Herod, who was later made king of the Jews by a decree of Antony and the august Senate. His children were Herod and the other Tetrarchs. All of this is shared with the Hellenes’ narratives. 13 But up until then the lineages of the Hebrews and those that went back to proselytes (such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabite, and those of mixed descent who had also come out from Egypt) had been recorded in the archives. Herod, conscious that he had no claim to Israelite lineage and was of suspect family origins, burned the record of the lineages, with the idea that he would appear wellborn because no one else would be able to use the public records to trace a lineage back to the patriarchs, proselytes, and those that are called gers, or those of “mixed” lineage. 14 A few careful people, though, prided themselves on preserving the memory of their good breeding and had private records of their own, by either remembering the names or oth92. Matt. 1:16. 93. Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23–24.

book 1

63

erwise getting copies. Among them were those mentioned above, called those of the Lord because of their connection to the salvific lineage,94 and they traveled from Nazareth and Kochaba, Jewish villages, through the rest of the land, using the Book of Days to expound the genealogy in question, wherever they went. 15 Whether this is so or it is otherwise, I think, and so would any reasonable person, that no one would be able to find a clearer interpretation, and we should pay attention to this account, even if it is unsupported by evidence, when one can offer nothing any better or more true. Regardless, the Gospel is completely accurate.

16 And at the end of the same letter he adds this: Matthan the son of Solomon begat Jacob. When Matthan died, Melchi the son of Nathan from the same woman begat Eli. Eli and Jacob are, in fact then, brothers with the same mother. When Eli died without a son, Jacob raised up a seed for him, and begat Joseph, who was his son according to nature, but Eli’s according to the law. And so Joseph was the son of both of them.

17 So writes Africanus. And, moreover, once Joseph’s genealogy has been traced in this way, Mary is seen to be of the same tribe along with him, if, in fact, according to the law of Moses it is not permitted to intermarry with other tribes. For it commands one to be yoked in marriage with someone from the same lineage and family, so that inheritance of the family will not be passed from tribe to tribe.95 Let this be enough on this point. O N H E R O D’ S P L O T AG A I N ST T H E C H I L D R E N A N D T H E F I NA L C ATA ST R O P H E T HAT E N D E D H I S L I F E

chapter 8. Now, after the Christ had been born in Bethlehem of Judaea at the times indicated, in accordance with the prophecies, Herod heard the question of the magi who had come from the East inquiring as to the whereabouts of the King of the Jews who had just

94. Or “the Savior’s lineage”; the reference is to the “relatives of the Savior” mentioned at 1.7.11. 95. Num. 36:8–9.

64

the ecclesiastical history

been born—for they had seen his star, and it had prompted their great journey, eager as they were to worship the one who had been born as God—and he was troubled in no small way by the matter, for his reign was, as he thought, being threatened. He questioned the legal scholars among the nation as to where they thought the Christ was going to be born. Once he knew of the prophecy of Micha, which predicted Bethlehem,96 with a single decree he commanded all male children in Bethlehem and its environs who were still at the breast, those two years old and younger to be killed (based on the time that had been precisely indicated by the magi), thinking that Jesus would certainly enjoy the same misfortune as those who were his age. 2 The child, however, escaped the plot, having been taken to Egypt when his parents learned ahead of time what was going to happen, through the epiphany of an angel. This, then, is what the sacred text of the Gospel teaches.97 3 But in addition to this it is worth noting the punishment for Herod’s audacity against Christ and other boys his age. Divine judgment overtook him immediately, with little delay, while he was still in this life, showing him a prelude of what he would receive after departing hence. 4 The fact that anything about his reign that was considered successful was darkened by the calamities that befell his house one after another, the murders of his wife and sons, and those who were his most closely related and dearest blood relatives, we cannot discuss in detail here, for they overshadow every tragedy performed on the stage, but Josephus recounts this at length in his accounts of Herod’s reign. 5 But, concerning the god-sent lash that seized him as soon as he plotted against our Savior and the other children, and drove him on to death, one can do no worse than listen to the statements of this writer, when he writes verbatim in the seventeenth book of the Jewish Antiquities of the catastrophe of his life, in this manner:98 But Herod’s illness kept getting increasingly acute, for God was exacting judgment for Herod’s crimes. 6 He had a mild fever, which gave but little indication to those who touched him of the fire within him that was causing his suffering, and he had a desperate desire to eat something, but it could not be assuaged. He had an ulcer in his bowels, and 96. Mic. 5:2. 97. Matt. 2:1–19. 98. Antiquities 17.168–70.

book 1

65

horrible pain in his colon, and a moist, translucent humor in his feet. 7 In conjunction with this he had a problem with his bladder, and, yes, indeed, even his shameful parts were infected, and they produced worms. His breathing was also increasingly strained, and this was particularly disgusting because of the amount of discharge and the sharp smell of his breath. Every limb convulsed, which added an unbearable intensity [to the suffering]. 8 It was said by the diviners and those to whom the wisdom was granted to make such statements that God was inflicting this on the king as punishment for great impiety.

The aforementioned [Josephus] states this in the writing indicated above. 9 And in the second book of his Histories he hands down parallel accounts about him, writing thus:99 Then the disease seized his whole body and gave him all sorts of suffering. For he had a burning fever and unbearable itching over the whole surface of his body, continual pain in his colon, swelling in his feet, an enflamed edema in his bladder, and his shameful parts were necrotic, and growing worms. In addition, he could breathe only when upright, had shortness of breath, and spasms shook every limb, and thus the diviners said that the ailments were punishment. 10 But he wrestled with this suffering and hung on to life all the same. He hoped for salvation and had his mind set on being cured. Thus he crossed the Jordan and took the baths at the hot springs at Callrhoë; these flow into the Dead Sea, but the water is sweet and potable. 11 There, his physicians were of the opinion that he should warm his whοle body in warm oil by relaxing in a tub full of oil; [when he did this] he fainted, and his eyes rolled back in his head. When his attendants screamed in alarm, he returned to consciousness and his suffering, putting salvation out of his mind for the time being, and ordered fifty drachmas to be distributed to each soldier and that a great deal of money be given to the governors and his friends. 12 He set out on his return and reached Jericho, and was already suffering from such melancholy that he all but threatened to kill himself, but he got well enough hatch a lawless plot. He gathered the renowned men from every village in Judaea and ordered them locked in what is called the Hippodrome, 13 then he summoned his sister Salome and her husband Alexas. “I know,” he said, “that the Jews will celebrate my death as a festival, but others will mourn me and I can have a splendid epitaph if you are

99. War 1.656–60.

66

the ecclesiastical history willing to carry out my orders. When I expire, quickly station soldiers and kill these men that have been locked up here, so that all Judaea and every house will cry about me, even if by compulsion.”

14 Then after a few things, Josephus says:100 Then, worn down by the lack of food and coughing spasms, he gave in to the sufferings and took it upon himself to anticipate fate. Taking an apple, he asked for a knife, for it was his habit to cut it up before eating it. Then, looking around to make sure that no one would stop him, raised his right hand to stab himself.

15 In addition to this, the same writer recounts that another of his legitimate children, a third in addition to the two who had already been destroyed, was killed on his orders before the final end of his life, and that immediately thereafter had his life cut short after no small agony.101 16 Such, then, was Herod’s final end; he paid a just price for the children he killed around Bethlehem as part of his plot against our Savior. After this, an angel appeared in a dream to Joseph who was living in Egypt, encouraging him to depart together with the child and the child’s mother into Judaea, indicating that those who were seeking the child’s life had died.102 To this the evangelist adds:103 But upon hearing that Archelaeus had become king in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there, but he was told in a dream to depart into the region of Galilee.

O N T H E T I M E S O F P I L AT E

chapter 9. The aforementioned historian confirms that Archelaeus was appointed to rule after Herod, recording the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews based on Herod’s will and the confirmation of Caesar Augustus, and that ten years later after he fell from power his brothers Philipp and Herod the Younger, along with Lysa-

100. 101. 102. 103.

War 1.662. The son is Antipater; see Antiquities 17.187, 191; War 1.664–65. Matt. 2:19–20. Matt. 2:22.

book 1

67

nias, governed their own tetrarchies.104 2 The same writer shows in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities that Pontius Pilate was entrusted with Judaea in the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius (for Tiberius received the rule of the whole world after Augustus had held the imperium for fifty-seven years), and he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius.105 3 Consequently, the forgery of those who quite recently circulated court documents against our Savior is proven, for the date noted in them proves the falsehood of those who have fabricated them.106 4 What they dare to say about the Savior’s Passion they place in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which was the seventh year of his reign, but at this time Pilate is seen to not yet have been appointed to Judaea, and if there is need to use Josephus as a witness, he clearly indicates in the writing of his just mentioned that Pilate was in fact appointed procurator of Judaea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of Tiberius’s reign.107 O N T H E H IG H P R I E S T S O F T H E J EWS I N W HO SE T I M E C H R I S T G AV E H I S T E AC H I N G

chapter 10. During their time, then, according to the evangelist in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar and the fourth of Pontius Pilate’s governorship, and when Herod, Lysanias, and Philipp were ruling as tetrarchs over the rest of Judaea, our Savior and Lord Jesus, the Christ of God, “beginning to be about thirty years old,”108 came to be baptized by John, and the Preaching109 that is according to the Gospel began

104. Antiquities 1.17.188–89, 195, 317–19, 342–44; Wars 1.668–69; 2.93–94, 111, 167. Archelaeus ruled Judaea, Philipp Batanaea and Trachonitis, Herod the Younger (Antipas) Galilee and Perea. Lk 3:1 mentions Lysanias as ruling Abilene (a territory north of Batanaea on the eastern slopes of the Lebanon mountains), but Josephus does not mention Lysanias as a tetrarch contemporary with Herod’s heirs. 105. Tiberius succeeded Augustus 14 c.e.; Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judaea 26–36 c.e. 106. The Acts of Pilate, a forgery circulated in the 310s c.e.; see 9.5.1–2 for more details. 107. The fourth consulship of Tiberius ended 21 c.e. Josephus dates Pilate’s appointment as prefect to the twelfth year of Tiberius, 26 c.e. (Antiquities 18.2.2). 108. Luke 3:2 and 3:23, 30 c.e. according to Eusebius’s dating. 109. See “preaching” in the glossary.

68

the ecclesiastical history

from that point. 2 But the divine text says that he completed the whole period of teaching between the high priesthoods of Annas and Caiaphas, indicating that the whole period of teaching was concluded by him between the years of their service. Now, since he began in the high priesthood of Annas, and continued up to the rule of Caiaphas, the whole period did not last longer than four years. 3 Because the ordinances based on the law were already in a way being destroyed, the one according to which the duties of the worship of God were held for life and passed through hereditary succession had been undone, and various men were appointed to the high priesthood at various times by the Roman governors, 4 and they did not serve in the office more than one year. Josephus, then, recounts that there were four high priests in the succession before Caiaphas and after Annas, saying in the same book of the Antiquities:110 Valerius Gratus deposed Ananus from serving as priest, and appointed Ismael the son of Phabi high priest, but not long after he removed him and assigned Eleazer, son of the high priest Ananus, as high priest. 5 But, after lasting one year, Gratus deposed him, and handed the high priesthood to Simon, son of Camithus. He held the honor for no longer than a year, and Josephus, also known as Caiaphas, was his successor.

6 Therefore, the entire period of our Savior’s teaching is shown to have lasted not all of four years, since four high priests in four years served one-year terms of service from Annas up to the appointment of Caiaphas. The text of the Gospel, at least, remarks accordingly that Caiaphas was high priest for the year during which the events of the salvific Passion occurred,111 and from this the period of Christ’s teaching is shown not to be out of sync with the preceding observation. 7 Our Savior and Lord, though, summoned the twelve apostles not long after the beginning of his preaching, who alone among the rest of his disciples were named “apostles” as a special honor, and in turn he appointed “seventy others, and sent them two by two ahead of him into every region and city to which he planned to go.”112

110. Antiquities 18.34–35. 111. Matt. 26:3. 112. Luke 10:1.

book 1

69

T H E T E S T I M O N I E S G I V E N A B OU T J O H N T H E BA P T I S T A N D C H R I ST

chapter 11. The divine text of the Gospels mentions that John the Baptist was beheaded not long after by Herod the Younger.113 Josephus, moreover, joins in recounting this, making mention by name of Herodias and that although she was his brother’s wife Herod took her in marriage, divorcing the woman he had legally married previously (she was the daughter of Aretas, the king of the Petraeans) and separating Herodias from her still-living husband, and that [Herod] killed John because of her and on her account went to war against Aretas, 2 after he had dishonored his daughter. He also says that in this war, when there was a great battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this because of the treachery against John.114 3 The same Josephus is a supporting witness, confessing in records about him that are in accordance with the text of the Gospels that John was especially just and a baptizer, but he also recounts that Herod lost his kingdom because of this same Herodias, with whom he was driven away into exile, and sentenced to live in the city of Vienne in Gaul. 4 This he has indicated in the same eighteenth book of the Antiquities, in which he writes this about John in these very syllables:115 But to some of the Jews it seemed that Herod’s army was destroyed by God, and that he quite justly paid the penalty for his punishment of John, called the Baptist. 5 For Herod killed him, a good man who called upon the Jews to practice virtue, employ justice with one another, have piety toward God, and to come be baptized. For baptism seemed to him acceptable not for those who use it as a pardon for certain sins but for the purity of the body, when, in fact, the soul has already been cleansed by justice. 6 And when others flocked (for they were roused to the highest degree at hearing his words), Herod feared his ability to persuade people in so great a way, in case he might lead them to some kind of rebellion (for they seemed to do everything on that man’s counsel), and thought it much better to go ahead and destroy him before he

113. Matt. 10:1 ff. and parallels; Herod “the Younger” is Herod Antipas. 114. A summary of Antiquities 18.109–14. Mark 6:17–28 says Herodias orchestrated the death of John the Baptist because he criticized the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias. 115. Antiquities 18.116–19.

70

the ecclesiastical history incited any revolt, rather than stumble into one unawares and realize things too late once the reversal came. And so, on Herod’s suspicion he was sent as a prisoner to Machaerus, the fortress mentioned earlier, and was killed there.

7 These are the details he goes through about John, and he mentions our Savior in the course of the same narrative in this work, just so:116 At this time Jesus appeared, a wise man, if one ought to say he is a man. For he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and many from the Hellenes. 8 This one was the Christ, and although Pilate had sentenced him to the cross on the indictment of our leading men, those who first loved him did not cease. For he appeared to them alive again after three days, since the divine prophets had spoken of these and myriad other marvels about him. And even into the present the tribe of the Christians, taking their name from him, has not faded away.

9 Given that a writer from among the Hebrews themselves has transmitted the information above concerning both John the Baptist and our Savior, is there still any excuse for not accusing those who have fabricated documents against them of being shameless?117 Let this be sufficient on this subject. O N T H E D I S C I P L E S O F OU R S AV IO R

chapter 12. Now, the names of the Savior’s apostles are clear to all from the Gospels. No one, however, has anywhere handed down a list of the seventy disciples.118 It is said, though, that one of them was Barnabas, of whom the Acts of the Apostles makes special mention, and no less so does Paul when he writes to the Galatians. They say that another of them was Sosthenes, who wrote together with Paul to the

116. Antiquities 18.63–64; this is the “Testimonium Flavianum,” a passage that most scholars agree is either a complete fabrication inserted into the text of Josephus or a genuine Josephan reference to Jesus of Nazareth that was subsequently riddled with pro-Christian interpolations. 117. Eusebius again has the polemical Acts of Pilate in view. 118. See lists of the twelve apostles in Matt. 10:1–4, Mark 3:13–19, and Luke 6:12–16. The seventy disciples are the group of unnamed apostles in Luke 10:1–24.

book 1

71

Corinthians.119 2 This account is from Clement in the fifth book of Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas, about whom Paul says, “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him face-to-face,” was one of the seventy disciples, and having the same name as the apostle Peter.120 3 Word has it that Matthias, too, who was enlisted with the apostles in place of Judas, and the other man who was honored along with him in the same vote, were deemed worthy of the same call of the seventy.121 And Thaddaeus, they say, was one of them; in just a moment I will set down a narrative about him that has come to us.122 4 And, looking closely, you will find that there were more than seventy disciples of the Savior, when you consult Paul as a witness, when he says that after [the Savior’s] rise from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to more than five hundred brothers at one time, some of whom he said had fallen asleep, but that most were still alive at the time he was writing. 5 Then, he says that he appeared to James; he was also one of those referred to as brothers of the Savior. Then, since there were many besides these who were considered apostles in imitation of the twelve, as Paul himself was, he continues, saying: “Then he appeared to all the apostles.”123 That, then, is enough on this subject. A NA R R AT I V E A B OU T T H E RU L E R O F T H E E D E S SE N E S

chapter 13. This is how the narrative about Thaddaeus goes. The divinity of our Savior Jesus Christ was being proclaimed among all people because of his incredible power, and it won over myriad people from lands far from Judaea who hoped for treatment for diseases and all sorts of ailments. 119. 1 Cor. 1:1. 120. Gal. 2:11; Paul describes a conflict with “Cephas” as to whether circumcision should be required of male Gentile converts. Most interpreters, ancient and modern, identify this Cephas with the apostle Peter (Cephas and Peter mean “rock” in Aramaic and Greek, respectively). Claiming that the Cephas of Gal. 2:11 is distinct from Peter was an exegesis that mitigated what could otherwise be read as an embarrassing and unresolved conflict between Peter and Paul. 121. Acts 1:23–26. The other man was named Joseph Bar Sabbas, a.k.a. Justus. 122. See below, 1.13.1 ff. 123. 1 Cor. 15:5–7.

72

the ecclesiastical history

2 One was King Abgar, a distinguished ruler of the nations beyond the Euphrates. His body was being wracked by a fearsome ailment that could not be cured by any human power, and since he had heard the mighty name of Jesus and the powers about which all were unanimously testifying, he became his suppliant by sending a letter carrier, asking for deliverance from the disease. 3 Jesus, however, did not answer the supplicant’s request at that time, but rather deemed him worthy of a personal letter and undertook to send one of his disciples to cure the disease and to offer salvation both to him and to all who belonged to him. 4 Indeed, the promise made to him was fulfilled not long afterward. After Christ’s resurrection from the dead and his return to the heavens, Thomas, one of the twelve apostles, by divine prompt sent Thaddaeus, who was listed in the number of the seventy disciples of Christ, to Edessa as herald and evangelist of the teaching concerning Christ, and through him124 the entirety of our Savior’s promise came to pass. 5 And you have a written testimony of this, taken from the archive in Edessa, which was at that time an independent kingdom. This is even found today, preserved in the public papers there, which contain records of what happened in ancient times and the time of Abgar. But nothing is like hearing the letters themselves, taken by us from the archives and translated word for word from the language of the Syrians in this manner:125 copy of a letter written by abgar the toparch to jesus and sent to him in jerusalem via the courier ananias 6 Abgar Ouchama,126 toparch, to Jesus the good savior who has appeared in the region of Jerusalem, greetings. I have heard about you and your cures, that you effect them without drugs or herbs. For word has it that you make the blind see, the lame walk, cleanse lepers, and 124. I.e., Thaddaeus. 125. Eusebius is claiming that the letters are preserved in the archives of Edessa. Whether he is asserting that he obtained his own copy directly from Edessa, or simply that the manuscript in his possession indicated this provenance is unclear (the latter seems more likely). Also unclear is whether Eusebius is claiming to have made this translation himself, or is stating that his copy indicates that it is a translation from Syriac (again, the latter is more likely). 126. Ouchama is the Greek transliteration of the Syriac ‘ukkāmā, “the black.” The Abgar of this legend is putatively Abgar V, who ruled ca. 4 b.c.e–ca. 50 c.e.

book 1

73

cast out unclean spirits and demons, and that you cure those suffering from great illness and raise [people] from the dead. 7 And having heard all of this about you, I can conceive one of two possibilities: either that you are God and having come down from heaven you do all this, or that you who do this are Son of God.127 8 On account of this, therefore, I write, asking that you take the trouble to come to me and cure the ailment I have. I have heard, moreover, that the Jews murmur against you and plan to do you harm. My city is small, yet honorable, and enough for both of us.

{He wrote this though divine light had just barely illuminated him. But it is also worth hearing the letter sent by Jesus to him via the same letter carrier; it is only a few lines long, but very powerful, and goes this way:}128 the reply of jesus to the toparch abgar, via the courier ananias 10 Blessed are you129 who have believed in me, without having seen me. For it is written about me that those who have seen me will not believe in me, even in order that those who have not seen me will believe and shall live. But about what you wrote me, that I come to you—it is necessary to fulfill everything for which I was sent here, and after fulfilling it thus to be taken up to the one who sent me. Yet, once I am taken up, I will send one of my disciples to you, in order to cure your ailment and to offer life to you and those with you.

11 To these letters this is added further, in the language of the Syrians: After Jesus was taken up, Judas, also called Thomas, sent Thaddaeus the apostle, one of the seventy, to him. He came and stayed with Tobias the son of Tobias. When word spread about him, it was revealed to Abgar that an apostle had come there from Jesus, just as he had written him. 12 Now, Thaddaeus began to cure every disease and infirmity by the power of God, so that all marveled. But when Abgar heard the great and wondrous things he did, and that he was curing [people], it came to him in a dream that he was the one about whom Jesus had written, saying, “Once I am taken up, I will send one of my disciples to you, in

127. Or “a son of God”; that is, a holy man empowered by God, though Eusebius would certainly have read the passage as a Christological declaration. 128. The text in brackets is found in manuscripts ERBD. 129. “You” (sing.).

74

the ecclesiastical history order to cure your ailment.” 13 He then summoned Tobias, with whom he was staying, and said, “I have heard that a powerful man has come and is staying in your house. Bring him to me.” Tobias went to Thaddaeus and said to him, “The toparch Abgar summoned me and said to bring you to him, that you may cure him.” And Thaddaeus said, “I will go, since with power I am sent to him.” Then, Tobias got up the next day and bringing Thaddaeus came to Abgar. When they arrived, with his dignitaries present and standing by, a great vision appeared to Abgar in the face of the apostle Thaddaeus as soon as he entered. Seeing it, Abgar prostrated himself before Thaddaeus, and wonder seized everyone present. For they had not seen the vision, which appeared only to Abgar. 15 And he asked Thaddaeus, “Are you in truth the disciple of Jesus, the Son of God, about whom he said to me, ‘I will send you one of my disciples, who will cure you and offer you life’?” And Thaddaeus said, “Since you have believed greatly in the one who sent me, on account of this I have been sent to you. And again, if you believe in him, as you believe so shall you have your heart’s request.” 16 And Abgar said to him, “I believed in him so much that I planned to take a force and massacre the Jews who crucified him, if I had not been held back from it on account of the Roman Empire.” And Thaddaeus said, “Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and having fulfilled it has been taken up to the Father.” 17 Abgar said to him, “I have indeed believed in him and in his Father.” And Thaddaeus said, “On account of this, I place my hand upon you in his name.” And as he did this, he was immediately cured of the disease and ailment he had. Abgar marveled that what he had heard about Jesus was in very fact what he received through his disciple Thaddaeus, who cured him without drugs or herbs—and not only him, but also Abdus the son of Abdus, whose feet suffered from gout. He also came and fell at Thaddaeus’s feet, and prayed holding out his hands to be cured, and he cured many others of their fellow citizens. 19 After this Abgar said, “Thaddaeus, you do this by the power of God and we ourselves marvel. But in addition to this I ask you, explain to me about the advent of Jesus, how it happened, and about his power, and with what kind of power he did the things that have been reported to me.” 20 And Thaddaeus said, “For now I will be silent, but since I have been sent to preach the story,130 gather all your citizens for me tomorrow, and I will preach to them and sow in them the life-giving account:131 about the advent of Jesus, how it happened; 130. Or “Word/Logos.” 131. Or “Word/Logos of life.”

book 1

75

and about his mission, and for what reason he was sent by the Father; and about his power, his works, and the mysteries about which he spoke when he was in the cosmos, and by what kind of power he did these things; and about his new preaching; and about his abasement and humbling, and how he humbled himself and died and belittled his divinity, and was crucified, and descended into Hades, and broke the gates that had stood unbroken for eternity, and raised the dead and went down alone, but went back up to his Father with a great crowd.” 21 Then Abgar commanded his citizens to gather in the morning to hear Thaddaeus’s preaching, and afterward he ordered that he be given gold and silver. But he did not accept, saying, “If we have given up what is ours, how can we take what is others?” 22 These events happened in the 340th year.132

And let this, translated word for word from the language of the Syrians, be placed here at the appropriate chronological point, and not without profit.

132. I.e., of the Seleucid era, or 29/30 c.e.

Book 2

OV E RV I EW

Book 2 covers the roughly thirty-five-year period between the death of Jesus and the eve of the Jewish War in 66 c.e. Eusebius describes these as “apostolic times” (see, e.g., 2.14.3). This historical periodization, still found in many histories of Christianity, stems in no small part from Eusebius’s construction of it in this text. Eusebius takes the Acts of the Apostles as the scaffolding for his narrative. Eusebius’s narrative begins after the ascension (2.1.2) and ends with Paul and Peter in Rome (2.25.5–8). The Acts narrative, though, is “nested” within, or refracted through, the narrative trajectories announced in the prooimion in book 1 (1.1.1–2). A note accompanying the pinax of book 2 states that “the book was compiled by us from Clement, Tertullian, Josephus, Philo.” These writers are Eusebius’s principal sources in the book, though he also relies on Irenaeus’s Against Heresies and Hegesippus’s Hypomnēmata. On several occasions, Eusebius also reports traditions for which he does not name a specific source; his citation formula in such cases is “word has it” (e.g., 2.1.13). SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

Christians and Rome Eusebius traces the theme of Rome’s relationship to Christianity throughout the History. In book 2, he portrays the emperor Tiberius as 76

book 2

77

welcoming toward Christianity, in contrast to the Senate’s reticence and resistance (2.2.1–6). Nero appears as the quintessential persecuting emperor at the close of the book (2.25.1–5). Meanwhile the Roman people, like the Senate, are portrayed as antagonists of God; in this context Eusebius repeats a story from Justin Martyr about the Romans’ dedication of a statue to the heresiarch Simon Magus (2.13.1–4). Heresiology Book 2 develops the heresiological theme announced at the outset of the work (1.1.1). Eusebius’s heresiology is greatly influenced by Irenaeus, a debt he acknowledges (2.13.5). Irenaeus constructed “heresy” as a genealogy of successive heresiarchs, and so in the middle of book 2, Simon Magus emerges as “the first founder of all heresy” (2.13.6; compare Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.2). Eusebius’s innovation is to braid this heresiological genealogy with a narrative of apostolic succession. Eusebius inaugurates the genre of ecclesiastical history as the interconnected story of orthodoxy and heresy, of “genuine” and “false” traditions. Philo of Alexandria and Josephus Eusebius makes extensive use of the works of the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus in book 2 and again in book 3. These writers were read and preserved almost exclusively by Christians, and their preservation is due in no small part to the importance Eusebius accorded them (albeit for the construction of a decidedly anti-Jewish ideology). In the case of Philo, Eusebius’s collection may have had its origins in the library that Origen brought with him to Caesarea in the 230s c.e. The extant Greek manuscript tradition of Philo, moreover, probably derives from the collection of his works in Caesarea. See further D. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), especially the schematic on p. 18; and A. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 164–77. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S • •

Acts of the Apostles The works of Josephus, especially the following:

78

the ecclesiastical history

Jewish War 2.9–14 (from the reign of Tiberius to the procuratorship of Florus) — Jewish Antiquities 18.8; 19; 20 (from Philo’s embassy to Gaius to the procuratorship of Florus) — Against Apion The works of Philo, especially the following: — Embassy to Gaius — Against Flaccus — On the Contemplative Life Suetonius — Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Lives of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; see especially Nero 16 (Nero and Christians) Tacitus — Annals (covers the period from Tiberius through Nero, but see especially 15.44, on Nero and the Christians); English translation: Loeb Classical Library Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitiones — Eusebius knows at least some version of this corpus of texts, but rejects it as straying from orthodoxy (see 3.38.5). The Pseudo-Clementines cover the same period as Eusebius’s books 2 and 3, but offers different accounts of some of the same traditions as well as other traditions that Eusebius does not know (or chooses to omit). —

•

•

•

•

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 2

On the doings of the apostles after Christ’s ascension How Tiberius was moved after being informed by Pilate about the matters relating to Christ How in a short span of time the story about Christ spread into the whole world That, after Tiberius, Gaius appointed Agrippa King of the Jews, punishing Herod with eternal banishment That Philo was sent to Gaius as an ambassador on behalf of the Jews How many evils poured down upon the Jews after what they dared do against the Christ That Pilate also did away with himself On the famine in the time of Claudius Martyrdom of James the apostle That Agrippa, also called Herod, persecuted the apostles and immediately experienced divine justice On Theudas the sorcerer On Helene the queen of Adiabene On Simon the sorcerer On the preaching of the apostle Peter in Rome 79

80

the ecclesiastical history

On the Gospel According to Mark That Mark was the first who preached knowledge of Christ in Egypt What Philo recounts about the ascetics in Egypt What works of Philo have come down to us What sorts of calamities befell the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of the Pascha What happened in Jerusalem in the time of Nero On the Egyptian who is also mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles That Paul was sent as a prisoner from Judaea to Rome, presented a defense, and all charges were dismissed That James, who was called the brother of the Lord, was martyred That, after Mark, Annianus was appointed the first bishop of the church of the Alexandrians On the persecution under Nero, during which Paul and Peter were adorned with martyrdom for the sake of piety in Rome That the Jews were harassed by myriad evils and that they instigated the final war against the Romans The book was compiled by us from Clement, Tertullian, Josephus, Philo. [ P R O O I M IO N ] 1

Whatever pertains to ecclesiastical history that needed to be defined as though in a prooimion2—both the theology concerning the salvific Logos and the ancient accounts of the doctrines belonging to our

1. Books 2, 5, and 8 begin with short introductory sections marked as prooimia (prefaces, proems) in the critical edition, though there is no such heading in the manuscripts; therefore, “prooimion” is placed in brackets as an insertion for the sake of clarity. 2. In classical historical writing, the prooimion presented the background and context of the main narrative (see, e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 1.2–5; Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 1.1), but Eusebius’s book 1 is more closely related to Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Prol. 1–21, which lays out a definition and universal history of philosophy.

book 2

81

teaching, as well as the antiquity of the evangelical polity that exists among Christians, and not only that but everything that pertains to his recent epiphany, both the affairs before the Passion and those relating to his selection of the apostles—we have treated in the previous book, offering abbreviated demonstrations.3 2 But come, in the present book let us also consider affairs after his ascension—gleaning some things from the divine writings and recounting other things as well from the memoranda that we will mention at the appropriate times. O N T H E D O I N G S O F T H E A P O ST L E S A F T E R C H R I S T ’ S A S C E N SIO N

chapter 1. Matthias, then, the same one who was, as has been shown,4 one of the Lord’s disciples, was the first to be called to the apostolate, in place of the traitor Judas.5 Then, through prayer and the laying on of hands, men who had been tested were appointed to the diaconate for the purpose of communal service.6 They were seven in number and constituted those associated with Stephen, who, as soon as he had been appointed was also the first after the Lord to be put to death at the hands of the Lord’s murderers—by stoning—just as though he had been put forward for this very purpose.7 And by virtue of this he was the first to bear the “crown” of the victorious martyrs of Christ that bears his name.8 2 They then report that James, who was called the Lord’s brother, was also, in fact, named Son of Joseph, [the Joseph] to whom the virgin was betrothed who was found to be pregnant from the Holy Spirit, as the sacred scripture in the Gospels teaches.9 This same James, in fact, to whom the ancients used to give the sobriquet “Just” on account of his excellence in virtue, was the first person chosen for the episcopal throne of the church in Jerusalem. 3. Eusebius offers extensive demonstrations in the Gospel Preparation and Gospel Demonstration. 4. See 1.1.12. 5. Acts 1:23–26. 6. See “deacon/diaconate” in the glossary. 7. Acts 6:1–6; 7:58–59. 8. In Greek, Stephen (Stephanos) means “crown.” 9. Matt. 1:18.

82

the ecclesiastical history

3 Clement, in the sixth book of the Hypotyposes, states this:10 Peter, James, and John, though they were esteemed by the Savior, did not contend for honor after the Savior’s ascension, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem.

4 The same writer in the seventh book of the same work also says this about him:11 The Lord handed down the knowledge to James the Just, John, and Peter after the resurrection. They passed it on to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles passed it on to the seventy—one of whom was Barnabas. 5 But there were two Jameses, one called the Just who was thrown from the corner [of the Temple] and beaten to death with clubs, while the other was beheaded.

In fact, Paul also mentions James the Just, writing: “I saw none of the other apostles, except James the Lord’s brother.”12 6 In this period, too, the matter of the Savior’s promise to the king of Osrhoëne was accomplished. For Thomas, thanks to a most divine prompting, sent Thaddaeus to Edessa as herald and evangelist of the teachings of Christ, as we demonstrated just above from that writing we discovered.13 7 And Thaddaeus, once he arrived in that territory, healed Abgar by the word of Christ and astounded everyone there with wondrous miracles. And by making them kindly disposed through his deeds and leading them to reverence the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Savior’s teaching, and from that time up through the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ, which is no trivial proof of our Savior’s kindness toward them. 8 Let this be enough from the ancient accounts, but let us go back once again to the divine writing.14 So then, when the first and greatest persecution by the Jews themselves against the church in Jerusalem began at the time of Stephen’s martyrdom, and when all of the disci10. Fragment of Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes. Hypotyposes means “outlines”; the work was a miscellany of topics, like Clement’s extant Stromateis. 11. Fragment of Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes. 12. Gal. 1:19. 13. See 1.13. 14. The “divine writing” is Acts, the source of the account that follows.

book 2

83

ples except the twelve were spread throughout Judaea and Samaria, some, as the divine writing says, went as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch. But they did not yet dare communicate the word of faith to the Gentiles, but only proclaimed it to Jews.15 9 At this time, too, Paul was still harassing the church, entering houses of believers and dragging out men and women and handing them over to prison.16 10 But Philipp, one of those who had been appointed to the diaconate along with Stephen, was among those who were dispersed. He went down into Samaria full of divine power, and was the first to preach the word to those there.17 Divine grace worked in him to such an extent that even Simon the Sorcerer, along with many others like him, were drawn by his words. 11 But Simon, who was famous at that time, used sorcery to hold such sway over his dupes that they considered him to be the Great Power of God.18 At that time, then, he was dumbfounded at the miracles accomplished by Philipp with divine power, and simulated faith in Christ to the point of undergoing baptism. And it is worth marveling that this is still done even now by those who adhere to that most defiled heresy that stems from that wretch. They, following their ancestor, insinuate themselves into the church like a pestilential and irritating disease. Whomever they come in contact with, they infect with the deadly and painful disease hidden within them. Most of those who contracted this wickedness have already been expelled, just as Simon himself, who was exposed by Peter, received the appropriate punishment.19 13 But as the growth of the salvific preaching was progressing daily, some business20 led one of the queen’s palace officers out from the land of the Ethiopians, for according to ancestral custom this people is even

15. Acts 8:5–13; 11:19. 16. Acts 8:3. 17. Acts 6:5. 18. Simon’s followers are accused of claiming that Simon was an incarnation or manifestation of God’s power or powers, which were sometimes, as here, conceptualized as having a distinct, hypostatic existence; compare, for example, Philo, Migration of Abraham 32. 19. The story of Simon the Magus, Philipp, and Peter is in Acts 8:9–24. 20. “Business” translates oikonomia, the same word Eusebius uses to refer to the divine economy; the multivalence is purposeful here.

84

the ecclesiastical history

now ruled by a woman.21 Word has it that this officer was the first of the Gentiles to receive the mystic rites from Philipp, thanks to an epiphany, and that he became the firstfruits of believers throughout the inhabited world.22 Upon his return to his native land he was the first to evangelize the knowledge of the God of the Universe and the life-giving sojourn of our Savior among humanity. Through him the prophecy that includes “Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand to God” was fulfilled in point of fact.23 14 After this, Paul, the vessel chosen not by humans nor through humans but through a revelation of Jesus Christ himself and through God who raised him from the dead, was proclaimed to be an apostle, deemed worthy of being called through a vision and the heavenly voice that served as a revelation.24 HOW T I B E R I U S WA S M OV E D A F T E R B E I N G I N F O R M E D B Y P I L AT E A B OU T T H E M AT T E R S R E L AT I N G TO CHRIST

chapter 2. And as soon as the miracle of our Savior’s resurrection and ascension into the heavens was famous everywhere, and since an ancient custom was in force whereby those governing the provinces had to report new developments in their territory to him who held imperial power, so that no happenings would escape his notice, Pilate related to the emperor Tiberius the reports about our Savior Jesus’s resurrection from the dead that were already circulating everywhere throughout the whole of Palestine, 2 and also that he had learned of other prodigies and that after rising from the dead Jesus was already believed by most to be a god.

21. Eusebius’s only ethnographic source here is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:26–39, which he is about to summarize. 22. “Mystic rites” translates orgia, a word often used to refer to the rites of the Eleusinian mysteries; “firstfruits” translates aparchē, the beginning of a sacrifice and the portion of a harvest dedicated to a deity (and presented to the priests of a temple). 23. Ps. 67:32. 24. Eusebius harmonizes Gal. 1:1 and Acts 9:3–6, 15.

book 2

85

They say that Tiberius referred the report to the Senate, and they rejected it, seemingly because they had not previously decided the matter, for an ancient law held sway that one could not be deified among the Romans except by the vote and decision of the Senate,25 but in actuality because the salvific teaching of the divine preaching had no need of human judgment and confirmation. 3 But even though the Roman Senate rejected the report given them concerning our Savior, Tiberius maintained the opinion he held previously—to make no harmful plans against the teaching of Christ. 4 Tertullian, a most precise Roman jurist and a man held in high repute in other respects and among the leading lights of Rome, includes these matters in the Apology he wrote on behalf of the Christians in the Roman language and which has been translated into the Greek tongue. He recounts it in this way, verbatim:26 But in order that we may examine laws such as these from their creation, it was the ancient doctrine that no one be consecrated as a god by the emperor before the case was approved by the Senate. Marcus Aemilius had done so concerning an image of Alburnus. The same procedure was followed on behalf of our case—because among you divinity is granted by human decision. But if a god does not receive human favor he does not become a god. But according to this reasoning humanity ought to be propitiated by God! 6 Tiberius, therefore, during whose reign the name of the Christians spread into the world, when report of this doctrine came to him from Palestine, where it first began, referred the matter to the Senate, being clear to them that he was pleased with the doctrine. But the Senate, since they had not reviewed the case, rejected it. But he retained his decision, threatening the accusers of the Christians with death, for providence from heaven, according to the divine economy, put this into his mind,

so that the Word of the Gospel would traverse the earth everywhere thanks to an unimpeded beginning.27

25. The introduction of a deity and its cult to Rome required the approval of the Senate; see, e.g., Livy’s description of the importation of the Great Mother from Phrygia to Rome (History 29.14). 26. Tertullian, Apology 5.1–2. 27. This final clause is connected grammatically to the passage from Tertullian, but is not found in the Latin original; it is probably Eusebius’s own insertion.

86

the ecclesiastical history HOW I N A SHO RT SPA N O F T I M E T H E S T O RY A B OU T C H R I S T SP R E A D I N T O T H E W HO L E WO R L D

chapter 3. And so, then, with the power and cooperation of heaven, the salvific Logos suddenly illuminated the entire inhabited world like the rays of the sun. At once, “the voice” of its evangelists and apostles, resonant with divine sweetness, “went forth over the whole earth and their words to the ends of the inhabited world,” in accordance with the divine scriptures.28 2 And indeed, throughout every city and town churches full of myriad people were established, full to capacity like a crowded threshing floor. And those who by ancestral custom and prior error had bound their souls to the ancient disease of idolatrous superstition were set free by the power of Christ, through the teaching of the disciples and their miraculous deeds, as though finding release from terrible masters and the harshest prisons. They were spitting upon demonic polytheism and confessing there to be one God alone, the maker of everything, and were honoring him with the rites of true piety through the divinely inspired and temperate worship disseminated by our Savior into human life. 3 But when divine grace was poured out upon the rest of the Gentiles, and Cornelius became the first in Caesarea of Palestine, through a divine epiphany and Peter’s ministry, to accept faith in Christ,29 together with his whole house, so did many other Hellenes in Antioch, to whom those who were dispersed upon Stephen’s martyrdom preached, and as the church in Antioch flowered and flourished and at the same time many prophets from Jerusalem were there, and along with them Barnabas and Paul, and another crowd of brothers with them—then and there the name of Christians was first given, as if from a flourishing spring.30 4 And Agabus, one of the prophets who came with them, prophesied about a famine that was going to come, while Paul and Barnabas, after having been generously supplied with aid for the brothers, were sent on their way.31

28. 29. 30. 31.

Ps. 18:5. Acts 10:1–48. A summary of Acts 10:1–48 and 11:19–26. Acts 11:20–30.

book 2

87

T HAT, A F T E R T I B E R I U S , G A I U S A P P O I N T E D AG R I P PA K I N G O F T H E J EWS , P U N I SH I N G H E R O D W I T H E T E R NA L BA N I SH M E N T

chapter 4. Tiberius died after reigning for about twenty-two years, and after him Gaius assumed the imperium.32 He immediately placed the diadem of the kingdom of the Jews upon Agrippa, and made him king of the tetrarchies of Philipp and Lysanias, and not much later added to them the tetrarchy of Herod, after he had punished Herod (the one associated with the Savior’s Passion) along with his wife Herodias, based on many accusations. Josephus is the witness for these matters.33 T HAT P H I L O WA S SE N T T O G A I U S A S A N A M BA S S A D O R O N B E HA L F O F T H E J EWS

2 At this time Philo was famous, a man most renowned not only among our people but even among those keen on outside learning.34 He was a Hebrew by race, inferior in excellence to none of the distinguished men of Alexandria, and that he worked long and hard studying the divine and ancestral teachings is in fact evident to everyone. And that he was so greatly accomplished in philosophy and the liberal studies of outsiders it is not necessary to say, for he was so zealous in his study of the Platonic and Pythagorean traditions that he is reported to have surpassed everyone in his time. chapter 5. He hands down in five books what befell the Jews in Gaius’s reign, recounting in this work Gaius’s madness—that is, how he proclaimed himself a god and committed myriad outrages as ruler, and the hardships experienced by the Jews during his reign, and the embassy to the city of Rome upon which he was sent on behalf of his fellow people in Alexandria, and how when he appeared before Gaius

32. Gaius Caligula, March 37 c.e. 33. The preceding summarizes Antiquities 18.237, 252, 255. 34. Hē exōthen paideia, learning “outside” the Christian community; compare 1 Tim. 3:7.

88

the ecclesiastical history

on behalf of their ancestral laws he received nothing more than laughter and ridicule, and was almost in danger for his life.35 2 Josephus also mentions these matters, writing verbatim in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities:36 And when there was unrest between the resident Jews and the Hellenes,37 three ambassadors were chosen from each side of the dispute and went to appear before Gaius. 3 And there was among the Alexandrian ambassadors one Apion, who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews, and even claimed that we overlook the honors due Caesar. For he said that among all who pay tribute to the power of the Romans, who set up temples to Gaius and in all respects accept him as they do the gods, only the Jews deem it ignoble to honor him with cult statues in human form and to swear by his name. 4 But after Apion had spoken many harsh accusations, by which he hoped to gratify Gaius (as they were likely to do), Philo, the leader of the Jewish embassy, a man held in high esteem and brother of the alabarch Alexander and not inexperienced in philosophy, was ready to deliver a defense against the charges. 5 But Gaius cut him off, commanding that he stand aside, and was visibly enraged and ready to do something dreadful against them. Philo exited, for he was greatly insulted, and said to the Jews who were with him that they must not fear, even though Gaius was enraged against them, for in fact he was marching out against God.

6 So writes Josephus. And Philo himself gives an accurate eventby-event account of what he did at that time in his Embassy. But I will pass over most of it and set down only what will contribute to a clear explanation for readers of what immediately, not much later at all in fact, befell the Jews because of what they dared do against the Christ.

35. Eusebius summarizes the work known today as Embassy to Gaius, but it does not consist of five books. Based on internal evidence, the Embassy was written along with Against Flaccus, and together they may represent two of the five books mentioned here. Eusebius also refers to the work as On Virtues (see 2.6.3), and this may have been the title under which the Embassy, Flaccus, and (perhaps) three additional books were transmitted to Eusebius. 36. Antiquities 18.257–60. 37. In Alexandria, the Jewish community constituted a sizable minority in a majority Hellene city, and enjoyed Alexandrian citizenship, while also having a council to govern internal affairs.

book 2

89

HOW M A N Y EV I L S P OU R E D D OW N U P O N T H E J EWS A F T E R W HAT T H EY DA R E D D O AG A I N S T T H E C H R I ST

7 First, he recounts that38 in the city of Rome, during Tiberius’s reign, Sejanus, who was the most powerful of the emperor’s advisers at that time, vigorously proposed completely destroying the whole people, while in Judaea Pilate (in whose time they ventured their effrontery against the Savior) attempted to do something to the Temple in Jerusalem (which was still standing at that point) that for Jews was beyond the pale, and roused them into a great frenzy. chapter 6. And he reports that, after the death of Tiberius, Gaius received the imperium and committed many other outrages against many people, but most of all he harassed the whole Jewish people to no small extent. All of this can be learned in brief through his own words, where he writes verbatim:39 2 So great was the inconsistency of Gaius’s behavior toward all, but especially toward the Jewish race, by whom he was so deeply irritated, that he appropriated the prayerhouses,40 beginning with those in Alexandria, and erected images and anthropomorphic statues in his own likeness (for though others dedicated them, in point of fact he erected them, insofar as he encouraged it), and ordered that the Temple in the Holy City, which remained untouched because it was held to be inviolable, be adapted and transformed into his own temple and that it be called the temple of Gaius the Younger, Zeus Manifest.

3 The same writer recounts myriad other terrors beyond all description that befell the Jews in Alexandria under the ruler just mentioned in the second treatise of those he wrote, titled On Virtues.41 And Josephus agrees with him, similarly pointing out the calamities that 38. The passage 2.5.7–6.1 is a quotation in indirect discourse of Embassy 24 and 38; the “something” Pilate attempted was to place votive shields in Jerusalem, which was considered by many to violate Jewish custom (but compare the parallel from Josephus, War 2.169, quoted below, where Pilate is said to have brought military standards into the city). 39. Philo, Embassy 43. 40. Proseuchai, “prayerhouses,” a synonym for “synagogues.” 41. On Virtues is the text known today as the Embassy to Gaius; see n. 34 above.

90

the ecclesiastical history

began for the whole people from the time of Pilate and their effrontery against the Savior. 4 Hear, then, what he evidences in the second book of the Jewish War, saying in these very words:42 Pilate, sent by Tiberius as procurator of Judaea, snuck the images of Caesar called standards43 into Jerusalem under the cover of darkness. At daybreak this roused a great tumult among the Jews. For those nearby were flabbergasted by the sight, since the laws had been trampled by their presence. For they44 deemed that no likeness could be set up in the city.

5 Comparing this to the writing of the Gospels, you will see that not much later the statement they uttered before Pilate himself overtook them—the statement in which they proclaimed that they had no king but Caesar. 6 Then, the same writer recounts that another calamity overtook them next, in these words:45 But after these events, he caused another tumult, when he spent the Temple treasury, called Corban, on an aqueduct that was three hundred stades long. The masses were angered at this, and since Pilate was present in Jerusalem they appeared before him en masse, shouting at him. But he foresaw their tumult, and had already mingled soldiers amid the crowd, disguised in civilian clothes. He had forbidden the use of swords, but ordered them to strike those who were shouting with clubs instead. He gave the signal from the tribunal. The Jews were struck down; many were killed by the blows, many others by their own people who trampled them as they fled. Dumbstruck by what had happened to those killed, the crowd was silenced.

8 The same writer shows that there were myriad other revolts besides these in Jerusalem itself, stating that, from that point on, uprisings, wars, and evil plots never ceased, one after another, until at last the siege of Vespasian overtook them. In this way, then, divine judgment pursued the Jews with a vengeance for what they dared do against Christ.

42. 43. 44. 45.

War 2.169–70. Standards belonging to Caesar, not standards having images of Caesar. The antecedent could be “the laws” or “those nearby,” probably the former. War 2.175–77.

book 2

91

T HAT P I L AT E A L S O D I D AWAY W I T H H I M SE L F

chapter 7. But it is right not to ignore that word has it that Pilate himself, who governed at the time of the Savior, fell into such calamities that not much later (during Gaius’s reign, the events of which we are now running through) he was forced to become his own murderer and delivered vengeance with his own hand, when divine judgment, so it seems, tracked him down. Those of the Hellenes who record the Olympiads and the events that happened during them recount this.46 O N T H E FA M I N E I N T H E T I M E O F C L AU D I U S

chapter 8. But Claudius succeeded Gaius, who had held power for less than four full years.47 When a famine fell upon the inhabited world (and this is reported by writers who stand far from our doctrine)48 the prophecy of Agabus in the Acts of the Apostles about the famine that was going to occur throughout the whole inhabited world was fulfilled. 2 Luke, after making reference in Acts to the famine in Claudius’s reign and recounting that the brothers in Antioch were sending resources via Paul and Barnabas to those in Judaea, as each was able, continues, saying:49

46. What source is meant here is unknown. Pilate is not mentioned as having committed suicide in any extant sources. Josephus (Antiquities 18.85–88) states that he was removed as prefect by Tiberius after mishandling an uprising in Samaria, and ordered to report to Rome, but that Tiberius died before Pilate’s arrival. 47. Early 41 c.e. 48. A difficult phrase, “far from our doctrine” translates porro tou kath’ hēmas logou. McGiffert renders this “entire strangers to our religion” and Williamson as those “whose point of view is very different from ours.” It is possible that Eusebius may simply mean writers whose work references the famine, but whose narratives would not be worth referencing or quoting because they stand too far afield from his own narrative, but compare the use of the same phrase at 5.5.3, where the contrast between “Christians” and “others” is more marked. 49. Acts 12:1–2.

92

the ecclesiastical history M A RT Y R D OM O F JA M E S T H E A P O ST L E

chapter 9. But at that time (it is clear he means the time of Claudius)50 Herod the king set his hands upon some from the church, to harm them, and he killed James the brother of John by the sword.

2 Clement records an account worth mentioning about this James in the seventh book of Hypotyposes, an account he says is a tradition handed down from his predecessors. He states that the man who led James before the court was so moved when he saw him testify that he himself confessed that he was a Christian.51 3 Then they were both led away, and along the way he asked forgiveness for himself from James. He looked at him briefly, “Peace be with you,” he said, and kissed him. And thus both were beheaded together.

4 Then, indeed, as divine scripture says, when he saw that the execution of James pleased the Jews, Herod turned upon Peter, too. Placing him in chains, nothing would have prevented his killing him, except that an angel appeared before Peter at night in a divine epiphany, and after miraculously releasing him from prison, sent him on his way to serve the Preaching.52 Such was the divine economy as it related to Peter.53 T HAT AG R I P PA , A L S O C A L L E D H E R O D, P E R SE C U T E D T H E A P O ST L E S A N D I M M E D IAT E LY E X P E R I E N C E D D I V I N E J U S T IC E

chapter 10. But there was no stopping the king’s plots against the apostles. All of a sudden, the avenging servant of divine judgment set upon him, right after he had schemed against the apostles. Having been prompted to go to Caesarea as Acts recounts, there, on the day designated for a festival, he adorned himself in resplendent royal rai50. 51. 52. 53.

Eusebius’s parenthetical comment. Fragment of Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes. See “preaching” in the glossary. Acts 12:3–17.

book 2

93

ment and mounted the tribunal to address the crowd. Then, as the whole populace was shouting their approval at his demagoguery, as though he had the voice of a god and not a man, the story goes that an angel of the Lord immediately struck him down, and consumed by worms, he breathed his last.54 2 And we should marvel at the harmony of Josephus’s narrative with divine scripture as regards this miracle. It is clear that he presents a true testimony about it in the nineteenth book of the Antiquities, where he discusses the marvel this way, verbatim:55 3 When the third year of his reign over all Judaea had ended, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower. There he held shows in honor of Caesar, knowing that this was a festival held for his well-being,56 and that the crowd in attendance was comprised of those who held power and preeminence throughout the province. But on the second day of the shows, he donned a robe made entirely of silver, woven into an awe-inspiring fabric, and entered the theater at the opening of the second day. Then, when the silver fabric gleamed as the rays of the sun fell upon it, it sparkled wondrously, and as it glowed it struck terror in those who gazed at it, shuddering. 5 His flatterers immediately raised their voices from every direction (though not for his benefit), calling him a god and adding, “May you bestow your favor! If until now we feared you as a man, henceforth we shall proclaim you as greater than of mortal nature!” The king was not shocked at this, nor did he reject the impious flattery. After a short time he looked up and saw an angel57 perched above his own head. He understood immediately that this was a sign of bad things to come, as it had previously been a sign of good things.58 7 His heart hurt, and soon after pains

54. Acts 12:19–23. 55. Antiquities 19.343–51. 56. A festival or sacrifice pro salute imperatoris, or “for the emperor’s well-being,” was an important way for provincial elites and client kings (like Agrippa) to display their allegiance to the emperor. 57. One of the few times Eusebius misquotes his source. The text of Josephus reads: “After a short time he looked up and saw an owl perched above his own head upon a rope. He understood immediately that this messenger [Gk. angelos] was a sign of bad things to come” (translator’s emphasis). 58. According to Josephus, when the young Agrippa was a hostage in Rome, a soldier saw an owl sitting in a tree above him, and divined it as a sign that Agrippa would prosper, but die within five days of seeing the owl again (Antiquities 18.6–7).

94

the ecclesiastical history began and quickly spread through his bowels. Then, looking up at his friends, he said, “I who am your god am appointed to lose my life, for fate is straightaway convicting these false statements about me. I who am called by you immortal, am in fact led off to die. One must accept what is fated as what God has willed. For I have lived a life in no way paltry, but of a length deemed blessed.” 8 As he was saying this, he was struck by intense pain. He was brought speedily into the palace, and the story spread everywhere that he would certainly die in a short time. The crowd, along with the women and children, immediately sat in sackcloth, in observance of ancestral law, and were supplicating God on the king’s behalf, and everywhere was full of wailing and lamentation. The king, who was lying in an upper room, looked down and saw them throwing themselves down prostrate, and he himself could not hold back his tears. After being wracked by stomach pains for five days, 9 he died, having lived fifty-four years since birth and seven years as king.59 He reigned for four years under Gaius Caesar, ruling the tetrarchy of Philipp for three years and receiving that of Herod in the fourth, and had another three years under Emperor Claudius Caesar.

10 I marvel that Josephus states these things and others that share the truth with the divine scriptures. But even if he appears to some to differ according to the name of the king,60 nevertheless the time and the events he discusses show that they are the same, and either the name has been altered by some scribal error, or he used two names for him, as he does in the case of many others. O N T H E U DA S T H E S O R C E R E R

chapter 11. But since Luke in turn includes in Acts [the story] that Gamaliel said at the inquest concerning the apostles that Theudas had already sprung up by that time and that he was destroyed, and that all who were persuaded by him were destroyed,61 come, let us compare the writing of Josephus concerning this person. In the work already noted, in fact, he recounts the very same things, verbatim:62 59. Thus he died in 44 c.e. 60. Apparently, some did not understand that the Herod mentioned in Acts 12 was the Herod Agrippa I of Josephus’s narrative. 61. Acts 5:34–36. 62. Antiquities 20.97, 98.

book 2

95

2 When Fadus was governing Judaea, a certain sorcerer by the name of Theudas conned a great crowd into taking their possessions and following him to the Jordan River. For he claimed to be a prophet, and said he would lead them across easily by parting the water at his command. And he led many astray by claiming this. 3 But Fadus would not allow them to gratify their folly, and sent out a troop of cavalry to meet them. The cavalry set upon them unawares, killed many, and took many others alive. Theudas himself they captured alive, cut off his head, and brought it back to Jerusalem.

After these events he next mentions the famine that occurred in Claudius’s time, just so:63 O N H E L E N E T H E QU E E N O F A D IA B E N E

chapter 12. At this time, too, the great famine came upon Judaea, during which Queen Helene bought grain from Egypt at great personal expense, and distributed it to those in need.

You will find that this is in harmony with the text of the Acts of the Apostles, which includes the account that each of the disciples in Antioch who was able decided to send resources to those residing in Judaea, which they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Paul.64 3 Moreover, conspicuous monuments of the Helene this author mentions are still pointed out now, outside the walls of today’s Aelia. She is said to have reigned over the people of Adiabene.65 O N SI M O N T H E S O R C E R E R

chapter 13. But because faith in our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ was already being disseminated to all humanity, the enemy of humanity’s

63. Antiquities 20.101. 64. Acts 11:29–30. 65. Helene of Adiabene: according to Antiquities 20.34–35 she converted thanks to a Jewish merchant; the story has important parallels with the Abgar legend reported by Eusebius in book 1; on Helene, see War 5.55, 119, 147; Antiquities 20.17–18, 20, 34–35, 49, 51.

96

the ecclesiastical history

salvation plotted to snatch away the city that is queen over all.66 He led the aforementioned Simon there,67 and cooperating in that man’s crafty sorcery won over to error many of those living in Rome. 2 Justin, one of our eminent men who lived not long after the apostles, shows this in one of his discourses. I will set out the details relating to him at the appropriate time.68 But in the beginning of the Apology that he wrote on behalf of our doctrine he says this:69 3 And after the ascension of the Lord into heaven, the demons put forward certain men who claimed they were gods. Not only did you70 not prosecute them, you even deemed them worthy of honors! Simon, a certain Samarian, from a village called Gitthon, who in the time of Claudius Caesar performed deeds of sorcery thanks to the art of the demons that worked through him, was in your queen city, Rome, thought to be a god, and was honored by you as a god with a statue on the Tiber, between the two bridges, which had this Latin inscription: Simoni Deo Sancto, that is, “To Simon the Holy God.” And more or less all the Samarians, 4 as well as a few from other peoples, worship him, confessing that man to be the First God. And a certain woman, Helene, who traveled together with him at that time and who had previously lived in a brothel in Phoenician Tyre they claimed was his “First Thought.”

5 So writes Justin. But Irenaeus also agrees with him, recording both the details concerning the man and his unholy and defiled teaching in the first book of Against Heresies.71 It would be superfluous to recount it in full at present, for the origins and lives of each of the heresiarchs that came after him, as well as the claims of their false doctrines and what their practices are, are available without difficulty to those who wish to learn them fully, handed down in the book of Irenaeus just mentioned. 6 We, therefore, have received the tradition that Simon was the first founder of all heresy, from whom those who even in the present follow his heresy imitate the self-controlled philosophy of the Christians that

66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

Rome. See 2.1.10–11. On Justin, see 4.18. Justin, 1 Apology 26. “You” (pl.): the Romans. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.23.1–4.

book 2

97

is renowned among all because of the purity of this way of life. And the superstition concerning the idols, from which they seemed to escape, they cling to no less than before, throwing themselves prostrate before painted images and icons of Simon himself and of the aforementioned Helene along with him, undertaking to worship them with incense, sacrifices, and libations. Their most secret rituals, which they claim will amaze anyone who first hears them and, according to a written saying of theirs, “will strike one with terror” (since they are truly full of terrors, insane thoughts, and madness), are so awful that not only can they not be handed on in writing; they cannot even be spoken by the lips of a temperate person, so shameful and unmentionable are they. 8 Think of the most polluted shame imaginable, and the most foul heresy of these people outdoes it all, for they mock their pitiable women, whom they truly burden72 under heaps of evils. O N T H E P R E AC H I N G O F T H E A P O ST L E P E T E R I N R OM E

chapter 14. The evil power, the hater of the good that schemes against humanity’s salvation put forward Simon at that time as the father and creator of such evils, like a great challenger73 against the great and divinely inspired apostles of our Savior. 2 Nevertheless, divine and supercelestial grace aided her servants and through their epiphanies and presence quickly doused the flame kindled by the Evil One, through them humbling and knocking down “every promontory raised up against the knowledge of God.”74 3 Consequently, not a single cabal has lasted—not of Simon or of any others of those who were then springing up during those apostolic times. For the splendor of truth and the Divine Logos of God himself, who had just recently shined from God upon humanity and was flourishing upon the earth and governing the polity of his own apostles, conquered and overpowered them all. 4 Immediately, the aforementioned sorcerer fled, as though the eyes of his reasoning faculty had been blinded by a divine and miraculous 72. 2 Tim. 3:6. 73. Antipalos: the opponent in a wrestling match or sophistic contest. 74. 2 Cor. 10:5.

98

the ecclesiastical history

flash when he was caught earlier in Judaea committing evils in the presence of the apostle Peter. He took a long overseas journey from the East to the West, thinking that only in this way could he live life according to his [heretical] opinion.75 5 He arrived at the city of Rome, where the power that resided in him effected great wonders through him, and in a short time his venture took such a hold that he was honored there by the people by the dedication of a statue, just like a god.76 6 But his success did not last long. For during the same reign of the emperor Claudius, the All-Good and Most Philanthropic Providence of the Universe led that one who was steadfast and great among the apostles, that one who was the leader of them all because of his virtue—Peter—hot on his heels to Rome as to a great destroyer of life. He, like God’s noble general armed with divine weapons, imported the costly merchandise of noetic light from the East to those in the West, evangelizing the very Light and Logos that saves souls, the Preaching of the kingdom of heaven. O N T H E G O SP E L AC C O R D I N G T O M A R K

chapter 15. And so, once the Divine Logos took up residence among them, the power of Simon was immediately extinguished and destroyed, along with the man. The light of piety shone so brightly upon the minds of Peter’s hearers77 that they did not think it sufficient to have heard it only once, nor to have the Divine Preaching only in an unwritten form. They therefore beseeched Mark (whose Gospel has been handed down) with every sort of entreaty, since he was a follower78 of Peter, to bequeath a written record of the teaching that had been passed on to them verbally. And they did not let up until the man completed the task. In this way, then, they became the prompt for the writing called the Gospel According to Mark. 2 It is said that the apostle, when he learned what had happened, for the Spirit had revealed it to him, was delighted by the men’s eager-

75. Acts 8:18–23. 76. A story he knows from Justin, 1 Apol. 26 (see 2.13.3). 77. Akroatai: those who attended the public lectures of a sophist or philosopher; to be distinguished from a sophist’s or philosopher’s gnōrimoi (“intimates” or “inner circle”). 78. Akolouthos: one who travels in someone’s retinue; often an attendant.

book 2

99

ness and granted that the writing be admitted for use in the churches. Clement includes this account in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes,79 while the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias80 also adds his testimony that Peter mentions Mark in his first letter, which they say was composed in Rome itself, and that he indicates this very fact when he refers to the city figuratively as Babylon in these words: “The fellowelect church in Babylon greets you, as does Mark my son.”81 T HAT M A R K WA S T H E F I R ST W HO P R E AC H E D K N OW L E D G E O F CHRIST IN EGYPT

chapter 16. And they say that this Mark was the first [apostle] sent to Egypt to preach the gospel (the one that he wrote, in fact), and was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself. 2 Indeed, so great a crowd of believers, both men and women, united in the most philosophical and rigorous discipline upon that first effort there that Philo deemed their habits, meetings, symposia, and every other practice of their way of life worthy of a treatise.82 W HAT P H I L O R E C OU N T S A B OU T T H E A S C E T IC S I N E G Y P T

chapter 17. Word also has it that, during the time of Claudius, Philo went to Rome to converse with Peter, who was preaching to those there at that time. And this is not unlikely, since the very treatise we mentioned, which he diligently wrote some time later, clearly 79. Clement’s Hypotyposes, no longer extant. 80. Papias wrote in the first quarter of the second century; Eusebius gives the title of his work as Exegeses of the Lord’s Sayings (see 3.39 ff.). 81. 1 Pet. 5:13. 82. In what follows, Eusebius summarizes and quotes from a work he knows as On the Therapeutic Life or On Suppliants and known today as De vita contemplativa (On the Contemplative Life). Philo’s treatise describes a first-century philosophical-ascetic Jewish community near the Mareotic lake outside Alexandria. Eusebius argues that the account is a record of the earliest Christian community in Egypt; he also wishes to see in these passages the antecedents of the ascetic-intellectual circle of his own teacher, Pamphilus, which in book 6 he traces to Origen and Alexandria.

100

the ecclesiastical history

contains the rules of the church that even until now have been preserved among us. 2 But since one can also see that he recounts the life of the ascetics among us with great accuracy, it should be clear that he not only knew them, but even approved of them, both regarding and respecting the apostolic men of his time, men who, so it seems, had come from the Hebrews and for this reason still observed most of the ancient customs in a more Jewish way. 3 First, then, after affirming in the treatise he has written On the Therapeutic Life or On Suppliants that he intends to recount nothing beyond the domain of truth or add anything of his own, he says that they are called therapeutas, and the women who are with them, therapeutrides. He adds that the reason for such a name was either because they heal and give “therapy” to the souls of those who join them, releasing them from evil passions in the manner of physicians, or because of their pure and unalloyed “attendance” upon and worship of the divine.83 4 It is not necessary, then, to decide whether he applied the name himself, writing a name appropriately suited to the habits of these men, or whether the first of them in fact used to call themselves by this name from the outset, since the appellation Christians was not at all used widely yet in every region. 5 In any case, he testifies in the first place to their renunciation of property, saying that those who begin to philosophize give up their property to their relatives. and thereby setting aside all the worries of life, they go outside the walls and make a living from small fields and orchards, knowing well that dealings with those who are unlike them is unprofitable and harmful, and those who were initiated at that time, so it seems, disciplined their lives in a way that emulated the prophetic life in eager, fiery faith. 6 For it is also related in the Acts of the Apostles that is acknowledged [as authentic] that all the closest students84 of the apostles sold off their property and possessions and distributed the proceeds to all as each had need, with the result that no one among them was in want. Whoever owned lands or possessed houses, so the account says, sold them and brought the money from what he sold off and set it at the feet of the apostles, so that they could distribute it to

83. Therapeutae comes from the verb therapeuō, which can mean both “provide therapy” and “attend/serve (i.e., the gods).” 84. Gnōrimoi: the “inner circle” of devoted students.

book 2

101

each according to his need.85 7 Philo includes testimonies nearly the same as those just mentioned, saying in these very words:86 This type is found throughout the inhabited world, for both Greece and barbarian lands needed to partake of perfect good. But they abound in Egypt in each of the so-called nomes,87 and especially around Alexandria. 8 The noblest from every place are sent to a colony, as though to a fatherland of “attendants,” which sits in a most suitable region above the shore of the Mareotic lake on a broad plateau, very well suited both for security and for the mildness of the air.

9 Then next, describing what some of the dwellings were like, he says this about the churches throughout the region:88 In each dwelling is a sacred chamber called an august place and solitary place89 within which solitaries perform in seclusion the mysteries of the august life. They bring nothing inside, neither drink, nor grain, nor any of the other things required for the needs of the body, but only laws and the divinely inspired utterances given through the prophets and hymns and other things that increase and perfect knowledge and piety.

And after other things he says:90 10 The period of their askēsis91 lasts from dawn until dusk. Reading the sacred scriptures, they study philosophy, interpreting the ancestral philosophy allegorically, since they consider the interpretation of the statements to be symbols of a hidden nature that is revealed by the deeper sense. 11 There is also among them the writings of ancient men, who were the first leaders of the sect, who left behind many records of the allegorical method, which they use as archetypes and imitate their approach.

12 This, then, seems to have been said by a man who had heard them interpreting the sacred scriptures, and it is quite likely that what he 85. Acts 4:34–35. 86. Philo, Contemplative Life 474.35–44. 87. Nomes: administrative districts in Roman Egypt. 88. Philo, Contemplative Life 475.14–22. 89. Semneion kai monastērion: Philo seems to be referring to a chamber in which ritual contemplation of scriptural texts takes place. 90. Philo, Contemplative Life 475.34–476.2. 91. Askēsis: the “discipline” and “training” of body and mind.

102

the ecclesiastical history

calls the writings of the ancients that they had are the Gospels and writings of the apostles and certain interpretive discourses in the style of the ancient prophets, like those found in Hebrews and many other of Paul’s letters. 13 Then, he continues about the new psalms they composed, writing thus:92 With the result that they not only contemplate but also compose songs and hymns to God in every meter and tune, necessarily composing them according to the more venerable numbers.93

14 He treats many other things relevant to our present discussion in the same book, but it seemed necessary to select only those required to show that what he describes are characteristics of ecclesiastical practice. 15 But if what he mentions seems to anyone not to be specific to the polity established according to the Gospel, but that they reflect the habits of others besides those we have indicated, let him be persuaded by his subsequent statements, which, if he is reasonable, will furnish unambiguous evidence on this matter. For he writes thus:94 16 Laying down self-mastery95 as a kind of foundation for the soul, they build up all the virtues upon it. None of them will take food or drink before sunset, since they deem the practice of philosophy to be worthy of light, but the necessities of the body worthy of darkness. Hence to the former they assign the day, while the latter they relegate to a short portion of the night. 17 But some, in whom greater yearning for knowledge is firmly established, even ignore food for three days at a time, while some are so delighted and nourished by these feasts upon wisdom, which provides teachings abundantly and generously, that they hold out for double the time and scarcely taste the necessity of food for six days, having become accustomed to the practice.

We think these statements from Philo clearly and incontrovertibly refer to our people. 18 But if anyone is still so recalcitrant as to object

92. Philo, Contemplative Life 476.2–5. 93. The therapeutics of number was associated with Pythagoreanism. 94. Philo, Contemplative Life 476.36–49. 95. Enkrateia: Philo probably means to liken the therapeutae to the Stoics, for whom self-mastery was the foundation for all virtue. Early Christians also used the term to describe their ascetic practice (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 2.105.1).

book 2

103

to these statements, let even him be turned from disbelief, when he yields to the authority of the clearer evidence that is impossible to find anywhere except in the worship of the Christians that is according to the Gospel. 19 For he says that96 among those the treatise is concerned with there are also women, most of whom happen to be aged virgins, and that they preserve their chastity not of necessity, like some of the priestesses among the Hellenes, but rather by their free choice, because of their zeal and desire for Wisdom.97 Being eager to live with her they rejected all thought of bodily pleasures, and delighted not in mortal but immortal offspring, which only the soul that loves God can birth from herself. 20 Then, skipping ahead, he adds this, which is even more clear:98 For them, the interpretation of the sacred scriptures lies in allegories of deeper meanings. For to these men the whole legislation seems to resemble a living being, and has as its body the arrangement of its utterances and as its soul the invisible mind that lies within the words. This community began to contemplate this [invisible mind] preeminently. They saw in the extraordinary beauty of the words, as in a mirror, the revelation of intellectual objects.

21 What need is there to add to this that they gather in the same place, and study, the men in their place and the women in theirs,99 and the habitual, perfect askēsis that is still practiced among us even now, 22 and which we are especially accustomed to accomplish through fasts, night-long prayer vigils, and attentive study of the divine sayings during the festival of the salvific Passion. This the man mentioned records in his own writings, describing things that are precisely the same as what is unto the present practiced by us alone—the all-night vigils of the great festival, recounting both the askēsis undertaken and the hymns we are accustomed to recite, and how while one sings in wellordered rhythm the rest listen in silence and then together sing the refrains of the hymns, and how for an appointed number of days they live on straw mats, completely abstaining from wine—as he has 96. The remainder of 2.17.19 is a quotation of Philo, Contemplative Life 482.3–11 in indirect discourse. 97. Eusebius equates Wisdom with the Son/Logos. 98. Philo, Contemplative Life 483.42–484.1. 99. Philo, Contemplative Life 476.23–34; 481.22–24.

104

the ecclesiastical history

written in these exact words—and from anything that has blood, but water is their only drink, and how they take salt and hyssop with their bread.100 23 In addition to this, he writes of the manner of the leadership of those selected for ecclesiastical service, both the diaconate and the office that is highest of all, the episcopacy. But whoever is desirous of precise knowledge of these matters may learn of them from the accounts of the man that have been pointed out. 24 And that Philo wrote of these matters because he observed the first heralds of the teaching that is according to the Gospel and the customs handed down from the beginning by the apostles is evident to everyone. W HAT WO R K S O F P H I L O HAV E C OM E D OW N T O U S

chapter 18. Philo was great in eloquence and broad in meaning, being elevated and lofty in his contemplation of the divine writings. He composed discussions of the sacred words that were variegated and versatile. On the one hand, he treated the topic of the narrative in Genesis in the books he titled Allegories of the Sacred Laws, while, on the other hand, he composed detailed discussions one at a time of the principal questions in the scriptures, providing them and their solutions in the work he gave the corresponding title Questions and Solutions on Genesis and Exodus. 2 In addition to these he also has careful essays on specific problems, such as the two books On Agriculture and the same number of books On Drunkenness, and some others with a variety of fitting titles, such as On That Which the Sober Mind Demands and Disdains, On the Gathering for Instruction, On Who Is the Heir of Divine Things, or On the Division into Odd and Even, and still too On the Three Virtues along with Others as Described by Moses, 3 and along with these On Name Changes and Why Names Change, in which he says that he has composed On Covenants 1 and 2. 4 There is also his On the Migration and Life of the Wise Man Initiated into Righteousness, or Unwritten Laws, and still too On Giants, or On the Immutability of the Divine, and On Dreams Being Sent from God According to Moses: Books 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 100. Philo, Contemplative Life 484.10–21; 482.18–21; 483.4–10.

book 2

105

5 These are the works on Genesis that have come down to us, but on Exodus we know his Questions and Solutions: Books 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and On the Tabernacle, and On the Decalogue, On the Laws That in Their Form Fall under the Headings of the Decalogue 1, 2, 3, 4, and On the Sacrifice of Animals and the Form of the Sacrifices, and On the Rewards in the Law for the Good and Punishments for the Wicked. 6 Along with all of these there are single-book treatises of his, such as On Providence, and the work composed by him On the Jews, and The Statesman, as well as Alexander, or On Irrational Animals Having Reason, and along with these That Every Wicked Man Is a Slave, which is followed by That Every Studious Man Is Free. 7 After these he composed On The Contemplative Life, or On Suppliants, from which we have taken the portions that concern the way of life of the apostolic men, and The Interpretation of Hebrew Names in the Law and the Prophets is said to be his work. 8 This man went to Rome during the reign of Gaius, and is said to have read aloud before the whole Senate what he wrote about Gaius’s hatred of God in the work he titled, with apt irony, On Virtues, with the result that his words caused such wonder that they were deemed worthy of placement in libraries. W HAT S O RT S O F C A L A M I T I E S B E F E L L T H E J EWS I N J E RU S A L E M O N T H E DAY O F T H E PA S C HA

9 During this time, as Paul was completing his circuit from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, Claudius banished the Jews from Rome, and Aquila and Prisca departed Rome with the other Jews and went down to Asia, where they spent time together with the apostle Paul, who just at that moment was reinforcing the foundation of the churches that he had established there. The teacher of these matters is the sacred scripture of Acts.101 chapter 19. But while Claudius was still managing the affairs of the empire, there was a revolt and riot in Jerusalem during the festival of

101. Rom. 15:19 (Prisca and Aquila); Acts 18:2, 18, 19, 23.

106

the ecclesiastical history

Pascha that was so large that, just among those who rushed in a crowd to the Temple’s exits, thirty thousand Jews died as they trampled one another. The festival became a day of public mourning for the whole people, and there was wailing in every house. Josephus reports this, verbatim.102 2 Claudius appointed Agrippa, the son of Agrippa, as King of the Jews, and sent Felix as governor of the whole territory of Samaria and Galilee, as well as the territory called Perea. And after Claudius had administered the imperium for thirteen years and eight months he died, leaving Nero as successor.103 W HAT HA P P E N E D I N J E RU S A L E M I N THE TIME OF NERO

chapter 20. During the time of Nero, while Felix was serving as governor of Judaea, Josephus writes again, in these very words, in the twentieth book of the Antiquities that there was factionalism among the priests against one another, just so:104 But the factionalism was kindled by the high priests against the priests and the leading men of the populace of Jerusalem, and each assembled for himself a band of the most reckless and revolutionary men, and became their leader. And when they fought, they would mock each other and hurl rocks. There was not a single one who rebuked this, and they did this freely, as though living in a city without leadership. 3 Such shamelessness and recklessness overtook the high priests that they dared send slaves to the granaries to seize the tithes owed to the priests. And the result was that one saw the impoverished priests destroyed by want. Thus did the violence of this factionalism overcome all justice.

4 But the same writer in turn recounts that during the same time a type of brigand arose in Jerusalem. They, as he says, used to murder 102. War 2.227. 103. Nero succeeded Claudius in October 54 c.e.; Herod Agrippa II was greatgrandson of Herod the Great and the last client king from the Herodian dynasty; Felix was procurator of Judaea and Samaria 52–54 c.e.; compare War 2.247–48. 104. Antiquities 20.180, 181.

book 2

107

their targets during the day and in the middle of the city. 5 And in particular, they mixed with the crowd during festivals and hid short swords under their garments, with which they stabbed distinguished men. Then, after they had fallen, the murderers became part of the gawking crowd. In this way, they went completely undetected, their performance was so believable.105 6 Now, then, the first person they slaughtered was Jonathan the high priest, but after him many were killed on a daily basis, and the fear was worse than the actual facts, for each person was expecting death at any hour, just as in a war. O N T H E E G Y P T IA N W HO I S A L S O M E N T IO N E D I N T H E AC T S OF THE APOSTLES

chapter 21.

Next, after other matters, he continues, saying:106

But the Egyptian false prophet harmed the Jews with a greater calamity than these. For a sorcerer suddenly appeared in the land, and claimed for himself the faith due a prophet. He gathered about thirty thousand followers, and led them from the desert to what is termed the Mount of Olives. From there he was going to enter Jerusalem by force, overpowering the Roman garrison and the populace, using the “soldiers” who had fallen in with him like a tyrant. 2 But Felix anticipated his assault, and set out to meet them with Roman soldiers, and the whole populace consented to this measure. Consequently, as soon as the battle was joined the Egyptian fled with a few of his followers, while most of those on his side were killed or captured.

3 Josephus recounts these matters in the second book of the Histories. But along with what he has said there about the Egyptian it is also worth knowing what is said in the Acts of the Apostles. In that work, during the time of Felix, the centurion said to Paul in Jerusalem, when the crowd of the Jews rose up in opposition against him: “Aren’t you the Egyptian who just days ago rose up and led forty thousand Sicarii in the desert?”107 Such were affairs during the time of Felix. 105. Summary of War 2.254–56, describing the sicarii, or “dagger men.” 106. War 2.261–63. 107. Acts 21:38.

108

the ecclesiastical history T HAT PAU L WA S SE N T A S A P R I S O N E R F R OM J U DA E A T O R OM E , P R E SE N T E D A D E F E N SE , A N D A L L C HA R G E S W E R E D I SM I S SE D

chapter 22. Festus was sent by Nero as Felix’s successor, during whose time Paul was put on trial and led in chains to Rome.108 With him was Aristarchus, whom Paul at one place in his letters aptly calls a fellow prisoner. And Luke, who hands down the deeds of the apostles in writing, brings his account to an end with these events, when he indicates that Paul spent two whole years in Rome in freedom and preached the word of God without restraint.109 2 And then, once he had defended himself in court, word has it that the apostle was again sent out for the service of the Preaching, but when he arrived in the same city a second time he was killed in martyrdom. During the time he was in chains, he composed the second letter to Timothy, mentioning both his first defense and his imminent death. Indeed, accept even his own testimonies on these matters:110 At my first defense, no one was present with me, but all abandoned me (let it not be reckoned against them), but the Lord stood with me and empowered me, in order that the Preaching would be fully satisfied through me and that all the Gentiles would hear it, and I was snatched out of the lion’s mouth.

4 With these words, he clearly indicates that, first, in order that the Preaching that came through him would be fulfilled, he was “snatched from the lion’s mouth,” applying this term to Nero, on account of Nero’s likeness in character to a lion. Next, he does not add anything like “he will snatch me from the lion’s mouth,” for he saw by means of the Spirit the manner of his death, which was yet to come. This is why he says, adding in addition to “and I was snatched from the lion’s mouth,” the phrase “the Lord will snatch me away from every evil plot and save me into his supercelestial kingdom,”111 thereby indicating his imminent martyrdom. He also predicts this most clearly in the same 108. Festus governed Judaea 60–62 c.e. 109. Acts 25:8–12; Col. 4:10; Acts 28:30–31. 110. 2 Tim. 4:16–17. 111. 2 Tim. 4:18.

book 2

109

letter, saying: “For I am already poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure stands close by.”112 6 Now, then, in the second of the letters to Timothy, he makes it clear that only Luke was present with him when he wrote, but that at the time of the first defense he was not. Hence, Luke in all probability wrote the Acts of the Apostles at that time, taking the narrative down to the point when he was present with Paul. 7 We say this to show that Paul’s martyrdom was not accomplished during the sojourn in Rome about which Luke wrote.113 8 For in all likelihood, since Nero was more mildly disposed at the beginning [of his reign], he accepted a defense on behalf of Paul’s doctrine more readily, and later, along with the other things he did after he had become recklessly lawless, set his hand against the apostles. T HAT JA M E S , W HO WA S C A L L E D T H E B R O T H E R O F T H E L O R D, WA S M A RT Y R E D

chapter 23. When Paul appealed to Caesar and was sent to the city of Rome by Festus, the Jews, their hopes upon which they hung their plot against him frustrated, turned their attention to James, the Lord’s brother, who had been appointed to the throne of the episcopacy in Jerusalem by the apostles. This was what they dared to do against him.114 2 Dragging him into their midst, they were demanding that he deny faith in Christ in front of the whole people. But, contrary to their intention, he spoke freely and, against expectation, frankly declared and confessed our Lord and Savior Jesus to be God in front of the whole crowd. When they could no longer bear the man’s testimony, because he was believed by all to be exceptionally just because of the authenticity he displayed in living the philosophical and pious life, they killed him, taking advantage of this period of 112. 2 Tim. 4:6. 113. At the conclusion of Acts, Paul is sent to Rome by Festus after claiming his right of appeal to the emperor as a Roman citizen (Acts 25:10–12); Acts 28:30 states that Paul lived under arrest in Rome for two years. Eusebius harmonizes this account with 2 Timothy (a pseudonymous Pauline letter probably composed in the 110s c.e.), in which “Paul” appears to presage his impending martyrdom, by arguing that Paul escaped death after a first arrest (described in Acts) and is writing 2 Timothy after a second arrest, which would lead to his death. 114. Acts 25:11–12; 27:1; 23:13–15; 25:3.

110

the ecclesiastical history

anarchy. Because when Festus had died at that same time in Judaea, administrative affairs in that region were without leadership or governance. 3 But the manner of James’s death the words of Clement have already shown; he recounts that James was thrown from the corner [of the Temple] and beaten to death with a club.115 But Hegesippus, in fact, who belonged to the first succession after the apostles, gives a more detailed account of him, speaking thus in the fifth book of his Hypomnemata:116 4 James, the Lord’s brother, received the church after the apostles. He was, more than anyone from the time of the Lord until our own day, deserving of the name “Just,” for there were many named James, 5 but he was holy right out of his mother’s womb. He did not drink wine and liquor, nor did he eat animate foods. No razor touched his head, nor did he anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the baths.117 6 Only in this way was it possible to enter the holy places.118 For neither did he wear wool, but only linen. And he used to enter the Temple alone, and he could be found down on his knees begging forgiveness on behalf of the people. His knees became calloused like a camel’s, because he was always bending down on his knees, kneeling before God and asking forgiveness on behalf of the people. 7 And so, because of his superior justice, he was called the Just and ōblias, which in Greek is “fortified wall of the people” and “justice,” as the prophets indicate about him.119 8 Now, some from the seven heresies that exist among the people,120 and about which I wrote earlier, kept on asking him, “What is the ‘Gate of Jesus’?”121 and he replied that it was the Savior. 9 Based on this, some came to believe that Jesus is the Christ, but the aforementioned heresies believed neither in the resurrection nor that he was coming to give each his due for his deeds. But those who did believe did so thanks to James.

115. See 2.1.4–5. 116. Fragment of Hegesippus, Hypomnemata. 117. Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:3; Luke 1:15. 118. Or “For him alone was it possible to enter the holy places.” 119. Exactly what Hebrew or Aramaic word Hegesippus has in mind with the Greek transliteration ōblias is puzzling, as are the prophetic passages he has in mind; Lawlor and Oulton suggest Isa. 33:15–16. 120. See 4.22.7 below. 121. A reference to the “Gate of Joshua” at 2 Kings 23:8 (“Jesus” and “Joshua” are identical in Greek and Hebrew).

book 2 10 And when many of the leading men came to believe, there was an uproar among the Jews, and the scribes and Pharisees were saying that the whole people ventured to think that Jesus was the Christ. They came to James, and were saying, “Please, we beg you, stop the people, for they have erred about Jesus being the Christ. Please, we beg you, persuade all of those coming for the day of Pascha [of the truth] about Jesus, for we are all persuaded by you. For we and the whole people testify that you are just and that you are not putting on an act. 11 Persuade the crowd not to err about Jesus, for the whole people and all of us are persuaded by you. Stand on the corner of the Temple, so that you can be seen clearly above and your words be easily heard by the whole people, for all the tribes are coming, along with all the Gentiles, because of Pascha.” 12 So the aforementioned scribes and Pharisees stood James upon the corner of the Temple, and croaked and said, “Just One, by whom we are all bound to be persuaded, since the people strays after Jesus the Crucified, give us an answer. What is the ‘Gate of Jesus?’” 13 And he answered with a loud voice, “Why do you ask me about the Son of Man, when he sits in heaven at the right hand of the great power, and is going to come upon the clouds from heaven?”122 14 And when many were satisfied with and glorified James’s testimony and were saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” then once again the same scribes and Pharisees said to each other, “We did badly in offering such a testimony to Jesus, but let’s go up and cast him down, so that they will be afraid and not believe him.” 15 And they croaked, saying, “Oh! Oh! Even the Just One has gone astray,” and they fulfilled the scripture written in Isaiah: “Let us seize the Just One, for he is an obstacle for us. Therefore they shall eat the fruits of their works.”123 Then, they went up and cast down the Just One. 16 And they said to each other, “Let us stone James the Just, “ and they began to stone him, since although he had been cast down, he had not died. But he turned over and got to his knees, saying, “Please, I beg you, Lord God, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”124 17 But as they were casting stones at him, one of the priests from among the sons of Rechab, son of Rechabim, those to whom Jeremiah testifies,125 cried out, saying, “Stop! What are you doing? The Just One is praying on our behalf!” 18 and then

122. 123. 124. 125.

Compare Dan. 7:13 and Mark 14:62 (and parallels). Isa. 3:10. The same phrase ascribed to Jesus during the crucifixion at Luke 23:34. Jer. 35:14.

111

112

the ecclesiastical history someone stepped forward, one of the fullers,126 with the club he used to wring out cloth, and smashed it against the Just One’s head. And in this way he became a martyr. And they carried him in a funeral procession to the place beside the Temple, and his monument still remains beside the Temple. This man became a true witness to both Jews and Hellenes that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.

19 Hegesippus provides this more detailed account, in agreement with Clement. But, in fact, James was such a marvelous man and renowned for justice so much more than all others that even the sensible ones among the Jews realized that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem that followed immediately upon his martyrdom. It befell them for no other reason than the polluting crime they dared against him. 20 And of course, Josephus does not shrink from providing written testimony to this, in the passages where he says:127 These things befell the Jews as retribution for James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. For though he was most just, the Jews killed him.

The same writer mentions his death in the twentieth book of the Antiquities, in these words:128 Upon learning of Festus’s death, Caesar sent Albinus to Judaea as governor.129 But the younger Ananus, who we said earlier had assumed the high priesthood, had an arrogant demeanor and was exceptionally bold. He was of the Sadduceean sect, who are among all the Jews the most severe in their judgments, as I have shown before. 22 Since Ananus was this sort of person, he thought he had an opportune moment thanks to Festus’s death and because Albinus was still en route. He convened a Sanhedrin of judges, and led before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, along with some others. After accusing them of transgressing the law, the Sanhedrin sentenced them to be stoned. 23 But those throughout the whole city who were considered the 126. A fuller cleans and fluffs new woolen cloth by beating it as part of the woolmaking process. 127. The passage that follows is not found in the manuscripts of Josephus, but Origen (Against Celsus 1.47) also cites it. Eusebius’s citation formula indicates he is presenting this as a direct quotation, not an extrapolation or summary. 128. Antiquities 20.197, 199–203. 129. Albinus governed Judaea 62–64 c.e.

book 2

113

most reasonable and accurate in matters concerning the laws130 were indignant at this behavior, and sent word secretly to the emperor, requesting that he send orders to Ananus commanding that he no longer do such things, for he had not acted rightly from the outset. Some of them even went out to intercept Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, and explained that Ananus could not convene a Sanhedrin without his approval. Albinus, persuaded by what they said, wrote angrily to Ananus, threatening that he would inflict punishment on him. And because of this, King Agrippa took the high priesthood from him after he had ruled for three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Dammaios.

Such are the accounts concerning James. The first of what are called the General Letters is said to be his.131 But it must be noted that its authenticity is doubted, and that not many of the ancients mention it, as is also the case with the letter called “of Jude,” which is also one of the seven letters called General. Nevertheless, we know that these two, along with the rest, are used publicly in most churches. T HAT, A F T E R M A R K , A N N IA N U S WA S A P P O I N T E D T H E F I R S T B I SHO P O F T H E C H U R C H O F T H E A L E X A N D R IA N S

chapter 24. In Nero’s eighth year ruling the empire,132 Annianus became the first successor in the service of community in Alexandria after Mark the evangelist. O N T H E P E R SE C U T IO N U N D E R N E R O, DU R I N G W H IC H PAU L A N D P E T E R W E R E A D O R N E D W I T H M A RT Y R D OM F O R T H E S A K E O F P I E T Y I N R OM E

chapter 25. But after Nero had taken command of the ship of the state and had run it aground upon unholy habits, he armed himself against that very piety that is directed toward the God of the Universe.

130. A circumlocution for the Pharisees. 131. “General” or “Catholic (i.e., Universal)” because they are traditionally held to be addressed universally, rather than to a specific community or individual. 132. 44/5 c.e.

114

the ecclesiastical history

Now to describe the full extent of his depravity in writing is not possible in the present work. Since many, however, have handed down very accurate descriptions of the affairs relating to him, whoever it pleases may learn from them of the man’s sinister insanity, thanks to which he irrationally pursued the destruction of such myriads and drove on to such bloodthirstiness that he spared neither his household nor his friends, but treated his mother, brothers, and wife, along with many other relatives, like enemies and hostile combatants, devising subtle and diverse deaths for them. 3 But in addition to all this, about him the inscription still remained to be written that he would reveal himself to be the first of the emperors to become an enemy of the piety that is directed toward the divine. 4 Once more, the Roman Tertullian mentions this, saying just so:133 Look in your records, and there you will find that Nero, who after subjugating the entire East was savage toward all but especially whenever he was in Rome, was the first to persecute this doctrine. Your efforts at our “correction” have such a founder! For whoever is familiar with that infamous man is able to understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was a great good.

5 In this way, then, Nero was at this time the first to be proclaimed as a noteworthy fighter against God, and was roused to slaughter the apostles. It is reported that in Nero’s time, in fact, Paul was beheaded in the very city of Rome itself, and that Peter was likewise crucified, and the title “Of Peter and Paul” that up to the present stands over the cemeteries there confirms the account. 6 And no less so does an ecclesiastical man by the name of Gaius, who lived when Zephyrinus was bishop of the Romans. He, having disputed in writing with Proclus, the president of the Phrygian sect, says these very things about the places where the tabernacles of the aforementioned apostles are located:134 7 But I can show you the trophies of the apostles. For if you wish to go to the Vatican [hill] or along the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.

133. Tertullian, Apology 5. 134. At 3.28.1 Eusebius knows the work by the title “Question”; it was a fictional dialogue in “question-and-answer” format between Gaius and a Montanist character, Proclus. The work is known only from quotations preserved by Eusebius.

book 2

115

8 But that both men were martyred at the same time Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, indicates exactly as follows, in homilies written to the Romans:135 Through so great an admonition you join the plantings of the Romans and Corinthians that came from Peter and Paul. For indeed both of those who planted us and taught us in our Corinth and likewise also taught together in the same place in Italy were martyred at the same time.

This should be persuasive as to the truth of the narrative. T HAT T H E J EWS W E R E HA R A S SE D B Y M Y R IA D EV I L S A N D T HAT T H EY I N S T IG AT E D T H E F I NA L WA R AG A I N S T T H E R OM A N S

chapter 26. Once more Josephus, in the course of elaborating many things relating to the catastrophe that overtook the whole Jewish people, while mentioning many other things indicates verbatim how many myriads of those held in honor by the Jews were tortured with lashings and crucified by Florus in Jerusalem itself. He was governor of Judaea when the beginning of the war was kindled in the twelfth year of Nero’s imperium.136 Then he says that awful troubles took hold of all Syria upon the revolt of the Jews, as everywhere those from the Gentiles mercilessly attacked the Jews residing in each city, as though they were enemies. The result was that one saw the cities full of unburied bodies, dead children and the old tossed out together, dead, and women without anything to cover their shame. The whole province was full of indescribable catastrophes, and the threat of what was impending was worse than the crimes of any one occasion. So writes Josephus verbatim.137 And such was the state of affairs among the Jews during in this period.

135. Fragment of Dionysius of Corinth (late second c.). 136. Gessius Florus governed Judaea 64–66 c.e.; War 2.306–8. 137. War 2.284; Antiquities 20.257.

Book 3

OV E RV I EW

Book 3 spans the half century between the outbreak of the Jewish War of 66–73 c.e. and the reign of Trajan, ca. 117 c.e. In the first sentence, Eusebius indicates that he will continue with his interconnected accounts of apostolic mission and expansion, on the one hand, and the divine punishment of the Jews, on the other. In chapter 3, moreover, he announces an important theme that did not appear in the overview of his project in book 1: the formation and reception of the New Testament canon. Eusebius also continues his genealogy of heresy and heretics, tracing the descent of heretics from Simon Magus (see 2.13.6) to Menander (3.26), the Ebionites (3.27), Cerinthus (3.28), and the Nicolatians (3.29); his main source is Irenaeus’s Against Heresies.

SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The Early Christian Canon Book 3 contains some of the most well-known and well-studied sources on the New Testament canon and early Christian notions of canonicity. For Eusebius, the scriptural canon is integrally related to the theme of apostolic authority and succession: “As the history proceeds, as I recount the successions, I will mention at the appropriate times who among the ecclesiastical writers used any of the disputed writings, and what they say about the registered and acknowledged 116

book 3

117

writings and about those that are not” (3.3.3.). The two most famous “canon” passages in book 3 are chapters 24 and 25. Chapter 24 offers an etiology of (an account of the reasons for and origins of) the four Gospels (an origin story for the Gospel of Mark appeared earlier at 2.15). His primary concerns in this passage are explaining the order of the Gospels as he has received it (he argues that the received order of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John is chronological) and arguing for the authority of a fourfold canon of Gospels while simultaneously explaining why the four canonical narratives differ (his answer: John’s Gospel recounts events before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, while the others do not; 3.24.12–13). In chapter 25 Eusebius says he will provide a summary of the writings of the kainē diathēkē, which means “new covenant,” but is also the Greek phrase often translated “New Testament.” The term refers to writings associated with, embodying, and communicating the “new covenant” of the new Israel (i.e., the Christians) with God, which in Eusebius’s supersessionist ideology has succeeded and displaced the palaia diathēkē, or “old covenant/Old Testament,” between God and the old Israel (i.e., Jews living under the Mosaic law). In other words, while it refers to a collectivity of texts, it does not primarily signify a book or books. The “New Testament” was not something one could pull off a shelf; rather, it was something communicated variously in a variety of different material forms. Eusebius’s aim is to summarize which texts should be taken as authentically embodying that communication. Eusebius’s keen interest in the canon is contemporaneous with the production of some of the earliest extant pandect bibles, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. In the decade after he wrote the History, moreover, Eusebius was tasked by the emperor Constantine with producing Bibles for use in the churches of Constantinople. Eusebius was theorizing the idea of the canon and canonicity at the same time that he was engaged in the practical question of embodying that idea in material form. For more on Eusebius’s significant place in the history of the Bible as a book, see the summary discussion and bibliography in A. Grafton and M. Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006), esp. pp. 215–21.

118

the ecclesiastical history

In chapter 25, Eusebius differentiates texts using a threefold distinction, though it is also clear that there is some fluidity in his categories, especially categories 2 and 3: 1. Writings accepted as genuine (“true, not forged, and admitted”; 3.25.6); elsewhere Eusebius terms them “acknowledged” (homologoumena) (3.25.3). 2. Writings that are not adduced as authoritative by the ancients. He terms these “not registered (ouk endiathēkai) but also disputed (antilegomena)”. Although their authorship is suspect, they are “known by many ecclesiastical men,” and thus are not as problematic as category 3 (3.25.6). 3. Writings that are not authentic. These fall into two subcategories: a. Writings that he describes just before (3.25.4) as notha (illegitimate)—literally, “bastards,” or texts having no legitimate father/author. These texts “would be included among the disputed (antilegomena) writings,” except for the fact that their true authors are unknown (3.25.4–6). b. Writings that are beyond the pale and heretical. They are “proffered by heretics in the name of the apostles,” “strike notes far from an orthodox key,” and “are the forgeries of heretical men” (3.25.6–7). Supersessionist Ideology and Anti-Judaism Eusebius adduces apocalyptic passages from the Gospels to argue that Jesus prophesied the Jewish War and Titus’s siege of Jerusalem as divine retribution for his crucifixion and the persecution of the apostles (e.g., 3.7.1–6). As in book 2, he cites the writings of Josephus as evidence that the Jewish War was divine vengeance (3.5.4). Eusebius finds Josephus useful for his arguments because Josephus’s own account of the war was moralizing. Josephus contended that the failure of the rebellion, the destruction of the Temple, and the suffering of the people had been to the result of internal strife and tyrannical leadership (War 1.4). Eusebius repurposes Josephus’s moralizing passages, framing them in a way that fits his supersessionist ideology. A good example can be found at 3.6.16. Josephus asserts that Jerusalem would have been destroyed by a natural disaster had the Romans not besieged it, “for it bore a generation much more ungodly than those who suf-

book 3

119

fered these things. Thanks to their insanity the whole people was destroyed.” Josephus emphasizes that the people suffered undeservedly for the tyrannical hubris of a minority. Pasted into Eusebius’s narrative, however, the passage is refracted as an indictment of the entire people for persecuting Christ and the apostles. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

•

•

• •

•

Extracanonical early Christian texts: Eusebius mentions a number of New Testament Apocrypha (i.e., gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses that date to the first–third centuries but were not included in the orthodox canon). This volume does not provide detailed explanatory notes for each of the texts Eusebius mentions. Interested readers should consult one of the standard collections of New Testament Apocrypha, such as J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) or W. Schneemelcher, The New Testament Apocrypha, vols. 1–2 (Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1992), which offer complete texts with introductions. Josephus, Jewish War (see references to specific passages in the notes) Irenaeus, Against Heresies (see references to specific passages in the notes); English translation: D. Unger and M. Steenberg, trans., St. Irenaeus of Lyons: Against the Heresies, vols. 1–3 (New York: Paulist Press, 1991, 2012) Letters of Ignatius; English translation: Loeb Classical Library Pliny, Letters 10.96–97 (Pliny’s letter of ca. 112 c.e. on Christians in Bithynia and the emperor Trajan’s response); English translation: Loeb Classical Library Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Lives of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian; translation: Loeb Classical Library

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 3

The places throughout the earth where the apostles preached Christ Who first led the church of the Romans On the letters of the apostles On the first succession after the apostles On the final siege against the Jews after Christ On the famine that oppressed them On Christ’s predictions On the signs before the war On Josephus and the writings he left How he mentions the divine books That, after James, Simon governed the church in Jerusalem That Vespasian ordered those of the family of David to be found That the second to be bishop of the Romans was Anecletus That Abilius was the second to govern the Alexandrians That the third after him was Clement On the Letter of Clement On the persecution under Domitian On John the apostle and the Apocalypse 120

book 3

121

That Domitian ordered those from the family of David to be killed On those from the family of our Savior That Cerdon was the third to govern the church of the Alexandrians That Ignatius was the second [bishop] of the Antiochenes A story about John the apostle On the order of the Gospels On the acknowledged divine writings and those that are not On Menander the sorcerer On the heresy of the Ebionites On Cerinthus the heresiarch On Nicolaus and those named after him On the apostles numbered among the married On the death of John and Philipp How Simon, the bishop of Jerusalem, was martyred How Trajan forbade seeking out Christians That the third [bishop] of Jerusalem was Justus On Ignatius and his letters On the evangelists, who were still distinguishing themselves at this time On the Letter of Clement and the writings falsely ascribed to him On the writings of Papias

T H E P L AC E S T H R OU G HOU T T H E E A RT H W H E R E T H E A P O S T L E S P R E AC H E D C H R I ST

chapter 1. Such, indeed, was the state of affairs among the Jews during those times. But when the holy apostles and disciples of our Savior were disseminated throughout the whole inhabited world, Thomas, as the tradition has it, received Parthia, Andrew Scythia, and John Asia, where he lived and died in Ephesus. 2 Peter appears to have preached to the Jews of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, and finally, when he was in Rome, he was crucified upside down, which is how he deemed it right for himself to

122

the ecclesiastical history

suffer. 3 Need we speak about Paul, who fulfilled the gospel of Christ all the way from Jerusalem to Illyricum and was later martyred in Rome under Nero? The details are reported verbatim1 by Origen in the third volume of Exegeses on Genesis. W HO F I R S T L E D T H E C H U R C H O F T H E R OM A N S

chapter 2. After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man appointed to the episcopacy of the church of the Romans was Linus. Paul mentions him in the closing address of the letter he wrote to Timothy.2 O N T H E L E T T E R S O F T H E A P O ST L E S

chapter 3. Now, one letter of Peter, that called his first, is admitted [as authentic], and the ancient presbyters3 used it as uncontested in their writings.4 But we have not received the “Second Letter” that is in circulation as being registered;5 nevertheless, it seems useful to 1. Kata lexin, usually used by Eusebius to indicate a direct quotation, but here marking a summary of material drawn from Origen’s Exegeses on Genesis; the work, extant only in fragments, is also referenced at 6.24.2. 2. 2 Tim. 4:21. 3. Or “elders.” 4. Eusebius’s vocabulary (“admitted” [anōmologētai] and “uncontested” [anaphilektos]) shows that he measures the genuineness of a text in the first instance by whether the ascription of apostolic authorship can be securely determined. As is clear from what follows, the weight of tradition, especially the writings of the “ancients,” is for Eusebius the most important criterion of authenticity. 5. “Registered” translates endiathēkos. This could also be translated “listed” but might also be rendered “encovenanted,” to capture the fact that the word is etymologically related to diathēkē, “covenant/testament.” Eusebius has drawn this term from Origen (e.g., On Prayer 14.4.8). Lake and Williamson translate endiathēkos as “canonical,” but this obscures the specificity of Eusebius’s use of the word. As he states just below at 3.3.2–3, Eusebius is interested in which ancient Christian writers make use of and mention particular texts; consequently, the term refers to whether or not a particular text is “listed” in writing by writers within the tradition, with this contributing to whether or not a text should be regarded as authentic. “Registered” also conveys the sense of a text’s being both “listed” by predecessors and “registered” to a specific author. See also the discussion of Eusebius’s terminology in G. Robbins, “Eusebius’ Lexicon of ‘Canonicity’,” Studia Patristica 25 (1993): 134–41.

book 3

123

many, and is studied with the other writings. 2 But what are called his Acts, the Gospel that bears his name, and the work called Preaching, and the so-called Apocalypse, we know not to have been handed down at all among the universally accepted works, because not a single ecclesiastical writer among the ancients or in our day has used testimonies taken from them.6 3 But as the narrative proceeds, as I recount the successions I will mention at the appropriate times who among the ecclesiastical writers used any of the disputed writings, and what they say about the registered and acknowledged writings and about those that are not. 4 But about the works attributed to Peter, of which only one letter is legitimate and acknowledged by the ancient presbyters,7 this is sufficient. But the status of the fourteen letters of Paul is plain and clear.8 5 It should not be ignored, however, that some reject the Letter to the Hebrews, saying that it was disputed by the church of the Romans as not being Paul’s, but I will lay out what has been said by our predecessors about it at the appropriate time. We have not, however, received what are said to be his Acts among the uncontested works. 6 But since the same apostle mentions Hermas along with others he addresses at the end of the Letter to the Romans, whose work the Book of the Shepherd is said to be, it must be noted that this work, too, is disputed by some, according to whom it should not be placed among the acknowledged works, while by others it has been judged most necessary, especially for those who need introductory teaching. We know that it is read publicly in the churches even now for this reason, and I have found some of the most ancient writers making use of it. 7 Let the preceding suffice regarding the status of the divine writings that are unchallenged and those that are not acknowledged by everyone.

6. Another criterion of authenticity—whether a text is among those accepted “universally”; that is, by (putatively) all ecclesiastical writers (putatively) everywhere, at (putatively) all times. By “has used testimonies,” Eusebius means the practice of quoting passages as proof-texts. 7. Or “elders.” 8. The orthodox collection of fourteen Pauline letters was set by Eusebius’s day (though the authorship of Hebrews remained disputed, as he notes below).

124

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E F I R S T SU C C E S SIO N AFTER THE APOSTLES

chapter 4. Now, that Paul, preaching to those from among the Gentiles, laid the foundations of the churches in a circuit extending from Jerusalem to Illyricum should be clear from his own words and from what Luke recounts in the Acts. 2 And from Peter’s statements in the letter of his that we have said is acknowledged [as authentic], it should be clear how in many provinces he evangelized those from the circumcision and bequeathed the new covenant. In this letter he wrote to those of the Hebrews living in the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.9 3 But how many and who among them became true zealots and were proved able enough to shepherd the churches founded by Peter and Paul is not easy to say, except for the fact that one can gather them from Paul’s statements. 4 For he had myriad fellow workers, and he terms them “fellow soldiers,”10 most of whom he deemed worthy of indelible memory, continuously including testimonies concerning them in his own letters. Not only that, but Luke, too, in the Acts, mentions those known to him and recounts their names. 5 Timothy, for instance, is recounted as the first to have received the episcopacy of the community in Ephesus, as is Titus, too, for the churches in Crete. 6 But Luke, being by race an Antiochene and by profession a physician, spent most of his time with Paul and was not trivially acquainted with the rest of the apostles, and he left behind for us illustrative examples for the therapy for souls that he gained from them in two books: the Gospel, which he testifies he inscribed based on what those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the beginning handed down to him, all of which he says he has followed from the outset, and in the Acts of the Apostles he no longer wrote based on what he heard, but on what he saw with his own eyes.11 7 And they say, in fact, that Paul was customarily referring to Luke’s Gospel whenever he wrote about a Gospel as his own and would say, “According to my Gospel.” 8 Of the rest of Paul’s followers, Crescens is avowed by him to have been sent to Gaul, and Linus, whom he mentions as

9. 1 Pet. 1:1. 10. Phil. 2:25; Philem. 2. 11. Compare Luke 1:1–4; Acts 1:1.

book 3

125

being with him in Rome in his second letter to Timothy, was shown earlier to have been the first chosen after Peter to the episcopacy of the Romans.12 9 But Clement, too, who was himself made the third bishop of the church of Rome, is avowed by Paul to have been his fellow worker and comrade in the fight.13 10 In addition to them, the Areopagite, whose name was Dionysius and who Luke writes was the first to believe after Paul’s speech to the Athenians in the Areopagus,14 another Dionysius, one of the ancients and the shepherd of the community in Corinth, reports became the first bishop of the church in Athens.15 11 But, as they march along, we will recount the matters of the periodic succession of the apostles at the appropriate time. Now, though, let us continue with the next portion of the history. O N T H E F I NA L SI E G E AG A I N ST T H E J EWS AFTER CHRIST

chapter 5. After Nero held power for ten and three years, when the matters surrounding Galba and Otho had lasted a year and six months, Vespasian, who had made himself famous in the battles against the Jews, was made emperor in Judaea itself, having been proclaimed imperator by the soldiers there. He immediately betook himself to Rome, and left the war against the Jews in the hands of his son Titus.16 2 Then indeed, after the ascension of our Savior, in addition to the daring crime they had committed against him, the Jews immediately also contrived many similar plots against his apostles. Then, when Stephen was the first destroyed by them, by stoning, and then after him James, who was the son of Zebedee and the brother of John, was beheaded, and finally James, the first after the ascension of our Savior to be 12. Crescens: 2 Tim. 4:10; Linus: 2 Tim. 4:21. 13. Phil. 4:3. 14. Acts 17:34. 15. The awkward English attempts to capture Eusebius’s enjoyment in the syntactical play afforded by the fact that the tradition about Dionysius the Areopagite is preserved by the homonymous second-century bishop of Corinth. 16. The “matters surrounding Galba and Otho” refers to the “year of four emperors,” a chaotic period after Nero’s death in June 68 c.e. Vespasian’s troops acclaimed him as emperor in July 69 c.e., after which he defeated Vitellius (another imperial claimant Eusebius does not mention) and was confirmed as emperor by the Senate in December.

126

the ecclesiastical history

chosen for the throne of the episcopacy there, departed in the manner described previously;17 and when the rest of the apostles had become the victims of myriad plots to kill them and had been driven out of the land of Judaea, though they had been sent on a journey to all the Gentiles for the teaching of the message with the power of Christ, for he had said to them, “Go, and make all the nations disciples in my name”;18 and not only that but when the people of the church in Jerusalem had been ordered by an oracle given by a revelation [granted] to trustworthy people there to leave the city and take up residence in a city of Perea (they call it Pella), and the believers in Christ became emigrants from Jerusalem, so that the holy men had completely left behind the royal metropolis of the Jews and the entire land of Judaea— then did judgment from God finally pursue them, when they had committed such crimes against both Christ and his apostles, utterly erasing that generation of impious people from humanity.19 4 What sort of evils poured down at that time upon the whole people in every region, and how the residents of Judaea in particular were driven to the heights of disaster, and how many myriads of young people and women and children, fell to the sword and famine and thousands of other forms of death, and how many and which Jewish cities were besieged, and also what horrors and things beyond horrible those who fled to Jerusalem itself as to a safe mother-city witnessed, and the manner of the whole war and each of the events that took place during it in detail, and how at the end the abomination of desolation that had been publicly declared by the prophets was set up in the famous Temple that in former times belonged to God, which suffered complete destruction and final obliteration by fire, anyone who pleases can read an accurate account in the narrative written by Josephus. 5 But mention should be made of the fact that this very writer recounts that the crowd of those who gathered together from all of

17. See 2.23 above. 18. A truncated quotation of Matt. 29:19. 19. This series of clauses, awkward in English, preserves the violent and disturbing effect of Eusebius’s grammar—a long string of genitive absolutes leads to a result clause. In other words, the sentence heaps accusation after accusation upon “the Jews” before indicating their ultimate punishment—utter “erasure.”

book 3

127

Judaea on the days of the paschal festival, as though (in his words) locked in prison, was around three million.20 6 It was necessary, then, that on the very same days when they had devised the events of the Passion for the Savior and Benefactor of all, God’s Christ, as though locked in a prison they receive the destruction that was coming for them by way of divine judgment. O N T H E FA M I N E T HAT O P P R E S SE D T H E M

7 Passing over, indeed, the details of what befell them, by the sword and by other means, I think it necessary to set down only the disasters they suffered because of famine, so that those who read this text may know, from this partial account, how vengeance from God pursued them not long after their crime against God’s Christ. chapter 6. Come, then, take in hand again the fifth book of the Histories of Josephus and recount the tragedy of what happened at that time.21 For the well-off, remaining was equal to destruction; they would be killed for their wealth on the charge of desertion. The famine caused the desperate insanity of the rebels to grow, and the terror of both burned hotter every day. 2 Grain was nowhere in evidence, but they broke into houses and searched them, and then if they found anything they harassed the people for denying it, but if they found nothing they tortured them for having hidden it so carefully. The sure sign of their having any food or not was the bodies of the pitiful people. Those of them who still seemed robust seemed to have plenty of food, while those who looked worn down were passed over, for it seemed unreasonable to kill those who were going to die from hunger soon. 3 Many secretly traded their possessions for one measure of grain— wheat if they happened to be wealthier, barley if poorer. Then they locked themselves in the most secure parts of their houses, and some, because of the extent of their hunger, ate the grain unprepared, while others cooked as necessity and fear advised them. The food was pitiful and the sight worthy of tears; the stronger ones snatched everything,

20. War 6.425–28. 21. War 5.424–38.

128

the ecclesiastical history while the weaker ones wailed. Famine exceeds every type of suffering. It destroys nothing so much as self-respect, for what is usually thought worthy of respect is then thought little of. Women were grabbing food right out of the mouths of men, children from fathers, and most lamentable of all, mothers from children, and as loved ones slowly wasted away, they did not refrain from taking the smallest morsels of life away from them. 6 But as they ate in this way, they did not escape notice, for the rebels were everywhere to steal it from them. For when they spied a house that had been locked up, it was a sign that those inside had gotten food, and they immediately broke down the doors and ran in, and all but grabbed the crumbs from their throats. 7 Old men who withheld grain were beaten, and women were dragged by their hair for hiding what was in their hands. There was no pity for gray hair or youth, as they grabbed children clutching at crumbs and threw them on the ground. Anyone who ate their food in anticipation of the rebels’ arrival, they treated more savagely, as if they were the ones who had been wronged. 8 They thought up horrible torments in order to find food, stuffing the openings of their victims’ nether regions with bitter vetch and impaling their rear ends with sharp sticks. A person suffered unbearable and unmentionable things to confess a single loaf of bread and to reveal one handful of hidden barley. 9 But the torturers were not hungry at all, and indeed, their savagery would have been less if it had been necessary. Theirs was a practiced insanity, designed to provide them with supplies for the coming days. 10 They caught those who had crept out to the Roman pickets to collect plants and grass, who thought that they had already escaped the enemy and who repeatedly begged them, calling upon the awe-inspiring name of God, to allow them a portion of what they had gathered at such risk. They gave them nothing, and for the one who had been pillaged it was a welcome thing simply not to be murdered.

11 After other things he adds to this, saying:22 But for the Jews, when the exits were cut off, so was all hope of salvation, and the famine strengthened itself and fed upon the people a house and a family at a time. The rooms were filled with rotting bodies of women and babies, the narrow streets with dead old men. 12 Boys and young men bloated by hunger crowded the agoras like statues and fell wherever their suffering overtook them. Those who were hard-

22. War 5.512–19.

book 3 pressed were not strong enough to bury those who had preceded them in death, and those who still had strength shrank at the sheer number of the dead and their own precarious situation. Many fell dead upon those they were burying, and many went to the grave before their fated time. 13 Amid these disasters there was no wailing or lamentation; rather, the famine put these sufferings to shame, and those who were dying such awful deaths gazed with dry eyes on those who had already gone to their rest. Deep silence fell over the city and the night was full of death. 14 And the brigands were harder to bear than this. Breaking into houses like grave robbers they pillaged the dead and stripped the clothing from their bodies and exited laughing. They tested the blades of their swords on the fallen, and some who were still alive they ran through, just to test the steel. But those who begged to be put out of their misery by a merciful blow they treated with disdain. Each of them looked straight toward the Temple as they breathed their last, leaving the rebels living. 15 At first, they were ordering burials for the dead to be paid for by the public treasury, for the smell was unbearable. Then, when this wasn’t enough, they threw the bodies from the walls into the ditches. As Titus was making a circuit of the city and he saw the ditches filled with the dead and damp with the carnage dripping from the rotting bodies, he sighed and stretching out his hands testified to God that this deed was not his doing.

16 After this, he adds, in the midst of other matters:23 I shall not shrink from saying what passion commands me. I think that if the Romans held back from destroying the sinners, the city would either have been swallowed by a chasm or destroyed by a flood or been struck by the lightning bolts of Sodom, for it bore a generation much more ungodly than those who suffered these things. Thanks to their insanity the whole people was destroyed.

17 And in the sixth book he writes thusly:24 The number of those in the city killed by the famine was beyond counting and the suffering beyond words. In each house, a war ensued at the mere hint of food, and loved ones pawed at each other, grasping for the miserable necessities of life. 18 Neither were the dying believed to be without food; the brigands searched those who were breathing their

23. War 5.566. 24. War 6.193–213.

129

130

the ecclesiastical history last, in case anyone was hiding food by pretending he was dead. Others, with their mouths hanging open because of their hunger, stumbled and weaved about like rabid dogs and knocked on doors like drunks; in their incompetence they went up to the same houses two or three times in a single hour. 19 Necessity led everything past people’s teeth; they gathered things unfit for the filthiest of irrational animals and endured eating it. Ultimately, they did not even abstain from their leather belts and shoes, and chewed on the hides they stripped off their shields, and for some, food consisted of scraps of old animal feed. Some people collected bare stalks and sold the tiniest measure for four Attic drachmas.25 But why mention what shame the famine brought when it came to eating inanimate things? For I will tell of an incident during the famine such as has never been recounted among Greeks or barbarians, shameful to speak of and unbelievable to hear. And I myself, in case I be thought by people to be making up a horror story, would happily pass over this disaster, if it were not for the innumerable witnesses I have among those of my time. And furthermore, I would be doing a cold favor to my fatherland by compromising the account of the events it suffered. 21 There was a woman among those who lived beyond the Jordan, Mary by name, whose father was Eleazer, from the town of Bathezor (this means “house of hyssop”), who was famous for her family and her wealth. After she fled with the rest of the throng into Jerusalem she was besieged along with them. 22 The tyrants took from her all the rest of the property she had brought with her into the city from Perea, and if they thought there was any food among what was left armed guards entered the house daily and took it. A fearful outrage came over the woman, and she repeatedly abused and cursed the thieves to make them angry at her. 23 But when no one was angry or merciful enough to kill her and she was tired of finding grain for others (it was, in fact, impossible to find anywhere) and the famine sank deep into her heart and marrow, her anger burned hotter than the famine. She took anger and necessity as her adviser and went against nature. She took her child, who was still at her breast, and said, 24 “Pitiful infant, in the middle of a war, famine, and rebellion, why do I protect you? Even if we survive we will be slaves among the Romans, but famine is getting to us before slavery, and the rebels are harsher than both. Come, be my food,

25. Drachma: the standard coin in the Hellenistic world; here subpar animal feed is being sold for a price that would be extreme for even the finest grain.

book 3

131

a Fury26 to the rebels, and a tale for the ages, the one that is missing among the calamities of the Jews.” 25 As soon as she said this she killed her son and cooked him. Then she ate one half, but kept the rest safe by hiding it. Immediately, the rebels arrived and smelling the unlawful odor threatened that if they didn’t get what she had prepared they would immediately kill her. She told them she had set aside a fine portion for them, and revealed what was left of the child. 26 A shock of disgust and fear seized them immediately, and they were frozen by the sight. But she said, “This is my legitimate child, and this is my doing. Eat, for I have eaten! Do not be softer than a woman or more compassionate than a mother. But if you are pious and reject my sacrifice, then consider that I have eaten your portion and let the rest remain for me.” 27 After this they left trembling, in this one instance acting like cowards and barely leaving this food to the mother. Immediately, the whole city was filled with this defilement, and each person shuddered, keeping the experience before their eyes as though he or she had perpetrated it. 28 Death was the desire of those who were starving and blessed were those who had achieved it before hearing or seeing such horrible evils.

O N C H R I S T ’ S P R E D IC T IO N S

chapter 7. Such was the punishment for the Jews’ impiety and crime against God’s Christ, but it is right to add to these the truthful prediction of our Savior, in which he indicates these very things, saying precisely: “Pray that your escape not be during winter or on the Sabbath. For at that time there will be great affliction such as there has never been from the beginning of the world to the present, nor shall there be.”27 Adding up the total number of those killed, this writer says that28 1,100,000 were destroyed by famine and the sword, and that the rebels and bandits who were left after the capture of the city betrayed each other and were killed. The tallest and most physically handsome of the youths were picked out to be paraded in a triumphal 26. In Greek tragedy, the Furies were deities that avenged injustice; the mother’s cooking of her child recalls stories like that of Procne, who in Sophocles’s Tereus serves her son to her husband as revenge for his raping her sister, Philomela. 27. Matt. 24:19–21. 28. HE 3.7.2 is a quotation in indirect discourse of War 6.420, 417, and 418.

132

the ecclesiastical history

procession, of the rest of the throng those over seventeen were sent as slaves into hard labor throughout Egypt,29 and the rest were allocated to the provinces to be killed in the theaters by the sword or by beasts. Those under seventeen were given over to be led off into slavery, and the number of these men alone was ninety thousand. 3 These things were accomplished in this manner in the second year of the rule of Vespasian30 in agreement with the prescient utterances of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw all this beforehand as though it were present and wept and mourned, according to the scripture of the holy evangelists, who set down his very words when he spoke as though to Jerusalem herself: 4 “If you, even you, had recognized on this day what could have brought you peace! But now it is hidden from your eyes, because the days have come upon you and the enemies will wall you in and encircle you and press you on all sides and beat you and your children down.”31 5 And then, when he spoke as though to the people: “There will be great anguish upon the earth, and anger upon this people, and they shall fall into the mouth of the sword and they shall be enslaved among all the nations. And Jerusalem shall be trampled by the nations until the times of the nations will be fulfilled,”32 and again: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know then that her desolation has drawn near.”33 6 How would anyone who compares the statements of our Savior with the rest of this writer’s narratives about the whole war not marvel, and confess that our Savior’s foreknowledge and prophecy are truly divine and exceedingly miraculous? 7 Now, concerning what befell the whole race after the salvific Passion and the utterances in which the crowd of the Jews requested that the brigand and murderer be released from death but demanded that the Origin of Life be taken from them,34 nothing need be added to these narratives. But it would be right to add the following matters, 8

29. The phrase “hard labor” could refer to condemnation to mines or to chattel slavery on imperial estates. 30. 70 c.e. 31. Luke 19:42–44. 32. Luke 21:23–24. 33. Luke 21:20. 34. Compare Luke 23:18–19; John 18:40.

book 3

133

as they should provide evidence of the love for humanity characteristic of All-Good Providence. For forty whole years after their crime against Christ, she35 deferred the destruction directed against them, during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself, the first bishop there, who is called a brother of the Lord, were still living in this life, and as they pursued their affairs in the city of Jerusalem itself they continued to serve as the strongest fortification for the place, 9 for divine oversight was still patient, in case [the Jews] might repent of what they had done and obtain pardon and salvation, and along with such magnificent patience she arranged for miraculous divine signs to signal what was going to happen if they did not repent. These very matters were deemed worthy of mention by the aforementioned writer, and nothing is like setting down the passages that are found in that work. O N T H E SIG N S B E F O R E T H E WA R

chapter 8. So, take and read what he has related in the sixth book of the Histories, in these passages:36 Now, at that time, rogues and liars persuaded the pitiable people away from God, but the people neither heeded nor believed the palpable signs predicting the coming desolation, but as though they had been thunderstruck and had neither eyes nor soul they ignored God’s proclamations. 2 For example, at one time a star stood over the city that resembled a sword, and the comet lasted a whole year. At another time, in the period before the revolt and the lead-up to the war, when the people had gathered for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the eighth of the month of Xanthikos at the ninth hour of the night, a light so bright lit up the altar and Temple that it seemed like daylight was shining, and it lasted for half an hour. To the inexperienced this seemed to be a good sign, but the sacred scribes immediately judged it correctly, before the events happened. 3 And during the same festival a cow that had been led by the high priest for sacrifice gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple. 4 The eastern gate of the inner court, which was bronze and extremely sturdy and could barely be closed by twenty men

35. The antecedent is “Providence,” a feminine noun in Greek. 36. War 6.288–304.

134

the ecclesiastical history in the late afternoon, and which was hung on iron bars and had posts that were sunk especially deep, was observed at the sixth hour of the night to have opened on its own. 5 And not many days after the festival, on the twenty-first of the month of Artemision, a demonic apparition was observed that was beyond belief, and what I will report might seem to be nothing but a horror story, except for the fact that it was recounted by those who saw it and the subsequent sufferings were worthy of the signs. Before sunset, chariots and armed phalanxes were observed in the sky throughout the whole region, running through the clouds and encircling the cities. 6 But during the festival, the one that is called Pentecost, the priests entered the Temple at night, as was the custom, to perform the services, and they said they first heard movement and a crash, and after that a sudden cry, “We are leaving this place.”37 7 More terrifying than this, four years before the war, when the city was enjoying great peace and prosperity, a man by the name of Jesus, son of Ananias, a country-bumpkin from among the commoners, came to the festival, since it was the custom that everyone make booths for God,38 and suddenly began to cry out in front of the Temple, “A voice from the East, a voice from the West, a voice from the four Winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the Temple, a voice against brides and grooms, a voice against the whole people!” He went through every street yelling this day and night. 8 Some of the more respected citizens were irritated by the wicked-sounding words and seized the man and mistreated him with many lashings. But he said nothing on his own behalf nor in private to those present, but continued crying out the utterances just like before. 9 But the leaders, thinking (which was in fact true) that the man’s motivation was most demonic, brought him to the Roman governor. There, when he was whipped down to the bone he neither pleaded nor wept, but making his voice as pitiful as possible answered each lash, “Woe! Woe to Jerusalem!”

10 The same writer also recounts something more marvelous than this, when he says that an oracle was found in the holy scriptures that held that at that time someone from their region would rule the inhabited world, which he himself says was fulfilled by Vespasian.39 11 But he did not rule over the whole world, only that portion that was under

37. See also Eusebius DE 8.2.121 and Ecl. Proph. 164.2–6. 38. I.e., Sukkot. 39. War 6.312, 313.

book 3

135

Roman rule. It would be more correct, rather, to apply it to Christ, to whom it was said by the Father: “Ask it of me, and I shall give you the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession.”40 It was precisely at that time that “the voice” of the holy apostles “went through the whole earth and their words unto the ends of the inhabited world.”41 O N J O SE P H U S A N D T H E W R I T I N G S H E L E F T

chapter 9. In addition to all of this, it is right not to ignore Josephus himself, who has contributed so much to the narrative at hand—both when he lived and what family he came from. Once again he himself indicates this, saying this:42 Josephus, son of Matthias, a priest from Jerusalem, who in the beginning fought against the Romans and was present, under constraint, at later events.

2 Among the Jews of that time he was a most renowned man, not only among his own people, but even among the Romans, to the extent that he was honored in the city of Rome by the setting up of a statue, and the writings he diligently produced were deemed worthy of inclusion in the library. 3 He set down the whole Jewish Antiquities in twenty complete books, the history of the Jewish war that took place in his own day in seven books, which he testifies was produced not only in Greek but also in his ancestral tongue,43 which is worth believing based on everything else. 4 And two other books On the Ancientness of the Jews are worthy of study, in which he responds to Apion the grammarian, who at that time composed a treatise against the Jews, and to others who tried to discredit the ancestral traditions of the Jewish people.44 5 In the first book he sets out the number of the 40. Ps. 2:8. 41. Ps. 18:15. 42. War 1.3. 43. War 1.3; Josephus says he wrote in Aramaic first, then translated the work into Greek. 44. This work by Josephus is more commonly known as Against Apion. Apion was a contemporary of Philo in Alexandria and led the anti-Jewish embassy to Caligula, while Philo led the Jewish embassy (see 2.5.1–6.3 above).

136

the ecclesiastical history

scriptures registered as belonging to what is termed the “old [covenant]” and which are undisputed among the Hebrews, in these very words, as coming from ancestral tradition:45 HOW H E M E N T IO N S T H E D I V I N E B O O K S

chapter 10. We do not have myriads of discordant and contradictory books, but only twenty-two, which contain a written account of the whole of time and are correctly believed to be divine. 2 Of these, five are of Moses, which contain the laws and an account of human generations until his death. This time period is just short of three thousand years. 3 From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who was king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote of the events of their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and counsel for human life. 4 Each period from Artaxerxes until our time has been recorded, but do not merit the same trust as those written before them, because the succession of the prophets was not reliable. 5 It is clear, in fact, how we approach our own writings, for such a great span of time has indeed passed [since they were written], but no one has dared add to them, delete anything, or alter anything. Instead, every Jew innately, and immediately upon birth, thinks that these books are the dogmas of God, and adheres to them and, if need be, happily dies for them.46

6 Let these statements from this writer be usefully included here. The man has also labored to produce another work that is not ignoble, On Reason as Emperor, which some have titled Maccabees because it contains an account of the struggles the manly Hebrews who are described in the [other] books called Maccabees endured for their piety toward God.47 7 And at the end of the twentieth book of the Antiquities the same writer indicates that he is preparing to write four 45. Josephus, Against Apion 1.38–42. 46. On this account of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, and the history of early Jewish theorizations of canon, see a good introductory account such as S. Chapman, “Collections, Canons, Communities,” in S. Chapman and S. Sweeney, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 28–56. 47. Known today as 4 Maccabees; Josephus’s authorship is disputed.

book 3

137

books on the ancestral doctrines of the Jews concerning God and his being, and about the laws, why they allow some actions but preclude others.48 And the same writer also mentions other treatises he has worked on in his own works. 8 In addition to this, it is also reasonable to recount what he includes at the end of his Antiquities as confirmation of the testimonies we have excerpted from it. When he refutes Justus of Tiberias, who had tried, like him, to write a historical narrative of the same period, for not writing the truth, correcting the man on many other accounts, he includes the following, verbatim:49 9 I, though, did not have the same fear as you about my own writing, but I presented the books to the emperors themselves, who, of course, had just witnessed it all. And I was well aware that I myself had protected the transmission of the truth, and did not fall short of my expectation of obtaining their confirmatory testimonies. 10 I also presented the history to many others, some of whom were present during the war, such as King Agrippa and some of his family. 11 The emperor Titus wished that humanity should learn of the events from my books alone, and ordered the books to be made public, signing an order to that effect with his own hand. King Agrippa wrote sixty-two letters, testifying to the truth of the tradition.

He also includes two of the letters. Let this be our account of matters relating to this man. T HAT, A F T E R JA M E S , SI M O N G OV E R N E D T H E C H U R C H I N J E RU S A L E M

chapter 11. Let us go on to what follows. After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem immediately afterward, word has it that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive came together from all directions to the same place, along with those who were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for many of them were still alive at that time). Together they all took counsel about determining who would be worthy of succeeding James, and with one 48. Antiquities 20.268. 49. Josephus, Life 361–64; this passage comes from a text that modern scholarship usually designates as a separate work of Josephus, the Life, while Eusebius’s previous statement indicates that he knew it as a conclusion or appendix to the Antiquities.

138

the ecclesiastical history

accord they all decided that Simon, son of Clopas—whom the scripture of the Gospel also mentions50—was worthy of the throne of the community there. He was, they say, a first cousin of the Savior, for Hegesippus reports that Clopas was the brother of Joseph. T HAT V E SPA SIA N O R D E R E D T HO SE O F T H E FA M I LY O F DAV I D T O B E F OU N D

chapter 12. And in addition to this, [they say] that after the capture of Jerusalem Vespasian ordered a search for all members of the family of David, so that no one from the royal family would be left among the Jews, and for this reason once again a great persecution hung over the Jews. T HAT T H E SE C O N D T O B E B I SHO P O F T H E R OM A N S WA S A N E C L E T U S

chapter 13. When Vespasian had ruled for ten years, the emperor Titus, his son, succeeded him.51 In the second year of his reign, Linus, having served twelve years as bishop of the Roman church, passed the office to Anacletus. Domitian, Titus’s brother, succeeded him after he had reigned two years and the same number of months.52 T HAT A B I L I U S WA S T H E SE C O N D T O G OV E R N T H E A L E X A N D R IA N S

chapter 14. In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the community in Alexandria, died after having completed twenty-two years, and Abilius, the second bishop, succeeded him. T HAT T H E T H I R D A F T E R H I M WA S C L E M E N T

chapter 15. In the twelfth year of the same imperium, Clement succeeded Anacletus, who had served as bishop of the Roman church for 50. Luke 24:18; John 19:25. 51. June 79 c.e. 52. September 81 c.e.

book 3

139

twelve years. The Apostle teaches that Clement was his fellow worker when he writes to the Philippians, saying: “With Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.”53 ON THE LET TER OF CLEMENT

chapter 16. One letter accepted as Clement’s is in circulation, and it is long and wonderful, which he inscribed as from the church of Rome to that of Corinth, when a disturbance had arisen in Corinth. We know that this letter has been read publicly in the common assembly both in antiquity and in our day. And of the fact that matters in Corinth were stirred up by a disturbance at the time of the aforementioned Clement, Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. O N T H E P E R SE C U T IO N U N D E R D OM I T IA N

chapter 17. Domitian revealed his great rage against many people, killing no small number of wellborn and famous men in Rome without a fair trial, and punished myriad other well-known men with banishment beyond the city limits and confiscation of their property. He finally established himself as Nero’s successor in enmity against God and as a fighter against God. He was the second, in fact, to stir up the persecution against us, even though his father, Vespasian, had never thought of doing anything unreasonable against us. ON JOHN THE APOSTLE AND T H E A P O C A LY P SE

chapter 18. At this time, word has that John, both apostle and evangelist, was yet at work in this life and because of his witness to the Divine Logos, was exiled to the island of Patmos. 2 Irenaeus, in fact, writing about the numerical cipher of the name of the Antichrist that is in the Apocalypse that is called “of John,” says this about John in these very words in the fifth book of Against Heresies.54

53. Phil. 4:3. 54. Against Heresies 5.30.3.

140

the ecclesiastical history

3 But if it were necessary that his name be proclaimed openly at the present moment, it would have been stated by that man who had seen the revelation. For it was not seen very long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.

4 The teaching of our faith was so resplendent during the aforementioned time that writers far from our account did not shrink from including the persecution and the martyrdoms that occurred during it in their own narratives.55 And they also recorded the chronology accurately, relating that in the fifteenth year of Domitian along with many others Flavia Domitilla, the niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls at the time, was sent to the island of Pontia as punishment for her testimony to Christ. T HAT D OM I T IA N O R D E R E D T HO SE F R OM T H E FA M I LY O F DAV I D T O B E K I L L E D

chapter 19. When the same Domitian ordered those from the family of David killed, an ancient story has it that some of the heretics accused the grandchildren of Judas (he was a brother of the Savior according to the flesh) of being from the family of David and being relatives of Christ himself. Hegesippus explains this when he says, verbatim:56 O N T HO SE F R OM T H E FA M I LY O F OU R S AV IO R

chapter 20. There were still some from the Lord’s family, grandsons of Judas who was called his brother according to the flesh, who were accused of being from the family of David. The evocatus57 led them before Domi55. Hoi apothen tou kath’ hēmas logou sungrapheis; Lake translates this “writers foreign to our belief ” and Williamson “historians who accepted none of our beliefs”; as at 2.8.1 above, however, it can also be taken as referring to writers whose accounts stand “far off ” from the trajectory of Eusebius’s narrative, and are thus not worth quoting or citing in full. Also unclear are which specific sources are referred to here. 56. A fragment of Hegesippus’s Hypomnemata. 57. Hegesippus transliterates the Latin term for a veteran soldier who has reenlisted; evocati often served in elite roles, as here, where this soldier is serving in the presence of the emperor.

book 3

141

tian Caesar. He feared the arrival of the Christ just as Herod had. 2 He asked them if they were of David’s line, and they confessed it. Then he asked them what real property they owned and what income they had. They said that they had only nine thousand denarii between them, and half belonged to each of them, and that this was not in the form of coin, but that it was the value of only thirty-nine plethra of land, from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves with their own labor.58

3 Hegesippus says that59 they then showed him their hands, presenting as evidence of their personal labor the hardness of their bodies and the callouses embossed on their hands from the endless work. 4 And when they were asked about Christ and what kind of kingdom he had and where it was and when it would appear, they gave the statement that it was not worldly nor would it be upon the earth, but that it would be in the heavens and angelic, and that it would come at the completion of time, when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and reward each person according to the way one lived one’s life. 5 At this Domitian made no judgment against them, but despising them as simpletons let them go free, and stopped the persecution against the church with an edict. 6 After they were released they led churches, since they were martyrs as well as members of the Lord’s family, and they remained in this life during the period of peace that lasted until the time of Trajan. 7 So writes Hegesippus. Not only he but Tertullian, too, mentions such things about Domitian:60 Once Domitian attempted to do the same as that wretched man, for he had a portion of Nero’s rage. But, I think, because he had at least some sense he quickly stopped and recalled those he had exiled.

8 After Domitian had ruled for fifteen years Nerva received the imperium.61 The judgments of Domitian were annulled, and the Roman Senate voted that those who had been unjustly exiled could return to

58. I.e., they were not wealthy, but average subsistence farmers. 59. From here through the end of 3.20.6, Eusebius continues quoting Hegesippus’s Hypomnemata, but in indirect discourse. 60. Tertullian, Apology 5. 61. September 96 c.e.

142

the ecclesiastical history

their homes with the restitution of their property. Those who recorded the events of these times in writing relate this.62 9 The report of our ancients passes on the tradition that at that time, too, the apostle John returned from exile on the island to resume his work in Ephesus. T HAT C E R D O N WA S T H E T H I R D T O G OV E R N T H E C H U R C H O F T H E A L E X A N D R IA N S

chapter 21. When Nerva had reigned just over a year Trajan succeeded him.63 It was in his first year that Abilius, having led the community in Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon; he became the third bishop after the first, Annianus. At this time Clement still led the Romans and also held the third spot of those who served as bishop there after Peter and Paul; Linus was the first and after him Anacletus. T HAT IG NAT I U S WA S T H E SE C O N D [ B I SHO P ] O F T H E A N T IO C H E N E S

chapter 22. And during this period, too, after Evodius, the first to govern those in Antioch, Ignatius became well known. And during this time Simon, likewise, was the second after our Savior’s brother to serve in the church of Jerusalem. A S T O RY A B OU T J O H N T H E A P O ST L E

chapter 23. During the same period, that same apostle whom Jesus loved64 and who was still alive in Asia—John, who was both an apostle and an evangelist—managed the churches there, having returned from exile on the island after the death of Domitian. 2 But the claim that he remained alive until this period is sufficiently proven by two witnesses, and they should be considered trustworthy, for they were ambassadors of ecclesiastical orthodoxy—none other than Irenaeus 62. Probably a reference to the unnamed sources mentioned at 3.18.4 above. 63. January 97 c.e. 64. John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20.

book 3

143

and Clement of Alexandria. 3 The first of these writes verbatim in the second book of Against Heresies:65 And all the elders66 in Asia who came to know John, the Lord’s disciple, testify that John passed on traditions to them. For he remained with them up to the times of Trajan.

4 And in the third book of the same treatise he evidences the same thing in these words:67 But the church in Ephesus was also founded by Paul, but John remained with them up to the times of Trajan, and is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

5 Clement both indicates the time and includes a narrative that is required reading for those who love to hear things that are well written and helpful, in his treatise he titled Who Is the Rich Man Who Is Saved. Take and read exactly what his writing says:68 6 Hear a myth that is not a myth but a true account about John the apostle that has been handed down by tradition and has been well guarded by memory. After the tyrant died he returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus and also traveled when requested to the lands of neighboring peoples, appointing bishops in some places, organizing whole churches in others, and in others appointing an appointee who had been designated by the Holy Spirit. 7 Now, when he came to one of the cities that was not far away (its name is stated by some sources), to give relief to the brothers, in front of everyone, as he was looking at the man elected bishop, he saw a young man who was strong in body, fine in appearance, and had a warm soul. “I entrust this young man to you,” he said, “with all sincerity before the church and Christ as my witness.” After the bishop had accepted and made all the promises, again he made the same statements and sworn testimonies. 8 Then John returned to Ephesus, and the elder man took the young man who had been entrusted to his care home, raised him, befriended

65. Against Heresies 2.22.5. 66. Or “presbyters”; it is ambiguous (as it probably was also to Irenaeus and Eusebius) whether this word should be understood here as referring to a formal office, the venerable age of the tradents, or (more probably) both. 67. Against Heresies 3.3.4. 68. Who Is the Rich Man Who Is Saved? 42.

144

the ecclesiastical history him, cared for him, and finally gave him the light.69 And after this he relaxed his attention and protection, since he had set upon him the greatest protection there is, the seal of the Lord. 9 But when he was released [from supervision] too soon, some wild and dissolute boys his age, who were accustomed to evil, corrupted him. First they lured him with lavish dinner parties, then they dragged him along with them when they went out at night to rob, and then they asked him to join them in a greater plot. 10 Little by little he got used to this, and because of the greatness of his nature took off down the straightaway just like a hard-mouthed, strong horse chomping at the bit and headed toward the cliff even faster. 11 Lastly, he rejected the salvation that is in God. He set his sights on trifles no longer, but committed a great evil, since he was lost once and for all, and deemed himself worthy to suffer the same things as the others. He gathered them and organized a band of brigands, and was their ready and willing brigand captain, most violent, most murderous, and most cruel. 12 Time passed, and some pressing need called John back. When he had completed the business on which he had come, he said, “Come then, bishop, give us back our deposit, which I and Christ entrusted to you in the presence of the church you preside over as witness.” 13 The bishop, for his part, was dumbstruck at first, for he thought that he was being tricked out of some money that he had never received. He couldn’t be trustworthy about something he didn’t have, but he didn’t distrust John either. But when John said, “I am asking for the young man and the brother’s soul,” the old man sighed and shed a tear. “That boy,” he said, “has died.” “How and what kind of death?” “He has died to God,” he said, “for he grew up to be evil, perverted, and, to top it off, a brigand, and instead of the church he has holed up on the mountain with his little army.” 14 The apostle rent his clothes and hit his head, moaning deeply. “What a good guardian I left for the brother’s soul!” he said. “Let me have a horse and a guide for the way.” He rode off, just as he was, directly from the church. But as he traveled into the countryside he was captured by the brigands’ picket. He didn’t flee or beg, but cried out, “That’s exactly why I have come; take me to your leader.” 16 Meanwhile, the brigand captain waited for him, armed and ready. But when he recognized John approaching, he fled in the opposite direction, ashamed. But John rapidly pursued him, forgetful of his own age, crying out, 17 “Why are you running from me, child, your

69. I.e., baptized him.

book 3

145

very own father, an unarmed old man? Have mercy on me, child. Don’t be afraid! You yet have hope for life. I will petition Christ on your behalf. If need be I will willingly endure your death; I will offer my soul on behalf of yours. Stop! Trust me! Christ sent me!” 18 He heard him, and at first stood with his eyes downcast, then cast off his weapons, and then, trembling, wept bitterly. He embraced the old man as he approached, apologizing with as many lamentations as he could muster, and was baptized a second time in his own tears, only he kept his right hand concealed. 19 But John pledged and swore that he had obtained forgiveness for him from the Savior. He prayed, knelt down, and kissed his right hand as being cleansed by repentance. He led him back to the church, offered abundant prayers, struggled together with him through continuous fasts and softened his attitude with tapestries of words, and did not leave before, as they say, he stood once again in the church, providing a great model of true repentance and a great token of rebirth, a trophy of visible resurrection.

I shall let this selection from Clement stand here both for what it contributes to the overall narrative and for the benefit it offers to those who read it. O N T H E O R D E R O F T H E G O SP E L S

chapter 24. But come, and let us indicate the undisputed writings of this apostle. 2 First, of course, let his Gospel be acknowledged, which is well known to all the churches under heaven. And that with good reason it was counted by the ancients as being in the fourth place after the other three, it should be clear from this. 3 The divinely inspired and truly godly men (I mean Christ’s apostles) had purified their lives to the utmost and adorned their souls with every virtue, but were simple people when it came to language. Although they had courage thanks to the divine and miraculous power the Savior had gifted them, they did not know how or attempt to act as ambassadors of the teachings of the master using persuasion or the art of language, but made use only of the demonstration of the Divine Spirit that worked with them and the wonderworking power of Christ that was effected through them. They proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of the heavens throughout the inhabited world, but thought little about being writers. 4 And they did this because they were assisted by something greater and superhuman. Paul, for instance, who was most

146

the ecclesiastical history

capable when it came to arranging all kinds of discourses and whose thought was more than sufficient, handed down in writing nothing more than brief letters, even though he could have said myriad ineffable things, for he had contact with visions through the third heaven and had been caught up into godly paradise itself where he was deemed worthy to hear ineffable utterances.70 5 The rest of our Savior’s pupils were not unacquainted with them either—the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and myriad others in addition to them. Yet among all those who were members of the Lord’s circle71 only Matthew and John have left us written records. And word has it that they turned to writing out of necessity. 6 Matthew preached first to the Hebrews, and so when he was planning to go to other peoples he handed down his Gospel in writing in their native language, so that the lack of his presence among those from whom he was sent could be filled by his writing. 7 But they say that when Mark and Luke had already presented their Gospels, John, who had always used an unwritten preaching, finally came to writing, for the following reason. When the three Gospels that had been written previously had already been given to everyone, including John, they say that he accepted them and testified that they were true; the only thing missing in the written account was a discussion of what Christ did at first and at the beginning of his preaching. 8 And this account must be true. One can see that the three evangelists wrote only about what Jesus did for one year, after John the Baptist was locked in prison, and that they adverted to this at the beginning of their narratives. 9 After the forty days of fasting and the temptation that followed, Matthew indicates the time covered by his own writing, saying: “After he heard that John had been betrayed, he departed” from Judaea “and went into Galilee.”72 10 Mark does the same thing: “After John was betrayed,” he says, “Jesus went into Galilee.”73 And Luke, before he begins the acts of Jesus, makes a similar comment, saying that Herod,

70. 2 Cor. 12:2–4. 71. “Members of the Lord’s circle”: the vocabulary is that of the philosophical circle, and the word describing Christ’s followers (diatribein) describes regular attendance at the sessions of a sophist or philosophical master. 72. Matt. 14:12. 73. Mark 1:14.

book 3

147

adding to the evils he had done, “locked John in prison.”74 11 And so, they say for these reasons that the apostle John was called upon to provide in his Gospel an account of the time about which the previous evangelists had been silent and what was done by the Savior during that time (that is, the time before the imprisonment of the Baptist), and that this is evidenced when he says at one point: “Jesus made this the beginning of his miracles,” and at another point mentions the Baptist in the middle of the account of Jesus’s acts as still baptizing in Aenon near Salem, indicating this clearly by saying: “For John had not yet been thrown in prison.”75 12 John, therefore, handed down in the writing of his Gospel the things Christ did when the Baptist had not yet been thrown in prison, while the remaining three evangelists memorialize things that happened after the Baptist was locked in prison. 13 And by establishing this, the Gospels should no longer seem to disagree with one another, because of the fact that the one according to John contains Christ’s first acts, and the rest contain a narrative of what happened at the end of his time. It is quite reasonable, then, that John is silent concerning our Savior’s genealogy according to the flesh, seeing as it had already been written by Matthew and Luke, and began with theology,76 since this had been reserved for him by the Divine Spirit because he was better able to do it. 14 Let that suffice about the writing of the Gospel According to John, and the reason that the one according to Mark was written has been discussed above.77 Luke, for his part, prefaces his composition with an account of the reason he wrote it, pointing out that while many others had hastily undertaken to produce accounts, of which he had full knowledge, he felt compelled to relieve us of the doubtful reputation of the others, and that he provided in his own Gospel a sound account of things about which he well knew to be true from the time he spent together with Paul as part of his circle and from taking advantage of the company of the rest of the apostles.78 16 That is what we will say about these matters, but at a more appropriate moment we

74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

Luke 3:19–20. John 2:1; 3:23–24. Or “an account of his divinity,” “an account of him as a god.” See 2.15.1–2 above. Eusebius’s interpretation of the Lukan prologue (Luke 1:1–4).

148

the ecclesiastical history

aim to indicate from quotations from the ancients what others have said. 17 But of John’s writings, in addition to the Gospel, the first of the letters is unambiguously accepted [as genuine] both by people today and by the ancients, but the remaining two are disputed, and about the Apocalypse opinion tends both ways even still. At the appropriate time it will also receive an examination from the testimony of the ancients.79 O N T H E AC K N OW L E D G E D D I V I N E W R I T I N G S A N D T HO SE T HAT A R E N O T

chapter 25. It is reasonable, having come to this point, to provide a summary of the writings of the new covenant that have been mentioned. The holy quartet of the Gospels must, of course, be placed first. The writing of the Acts of the Apostles follows them. 2 And the letters of Paul are reckoned after it. And it must be considered proper to place the first letter that bears the title “of John” and likewise the first “of Peter” next after them. After them must be placed, if it seems right, the Apocalypse of John, the [variant] opinions concerning which we will include at the right time. 3 These are the ones that are among those that are acknowledged [as genuine]. But of the writings [whose authenticity] is disputed,80 but are well known to many, there are in circulation the so-called letters of James and Jude, a second letter of Peter, and those letters termed the second and third of John; they belong either to the evangelist or to another with the same name as he. 4 Let be tallied among the illegitimate writings81 the Acts of Paul, the work called the Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to them the letter bearing the title “of Barnabas,” and the so79. See especially 7.25.1–27, where Eusebius quotes Dionysius of Alexandria on the authorship of Revelation. 80. In this and the preceding sentence, Eusebius uses the antonyms homologoumena and antilegoumena; the distinction is between writings “agreed” to be authentic and those whose authenticity is “not agreed.” 81. “Illegitimate” translates the adjective nothos, which is also the word used of illegitimate children; they are “bastard” texts insofar as their authors are not apostles and/or are unknown.

book 3

149

called Teachings of the apostles, and also, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right, which some, as I said, reject, but others judge it to stand among the writings accepted [as genuine].82 5 And some, moreover, have ranked the Gospel According to the Hebrews among them, which the Hebrews who have accepted Christ are especially glad to accept.83 6 All these would be included among the disputed writings; however, we have found it necessary to make a catalogue of them, distinguishing those writings that, according to ecclesiastical tradition, are true, not forged,84 and admitted [as authentic], and those that are different from them, not registered but also disputed, but known by many ecclesiastical men, so that we can know both them and those that are proffered by the heretics in the name of the apostles, such as those containing gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and certain others besides them, or the Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. Of them not a single man in the ecclesiastical succession has deemed it worthy to adduce a single reference in his writing. 7 And further, the fact that the character of expression differs from apostolic usage, and that the attitudes and the opinions they contain strike notes far from an orthodoxy key, proves clearly indeed that they are the forgeries of heretical men. Hence they must not be ranked among the illegitimate writings, but must be denounced as utterly out of place and impious. O N M E NA N D E R T H E S O R C E R E R

chapter 26. It remains for us to continue with the narrative of what follows. Menander succeeded Simon the Sorcerer, and revealed that in respect of his conduct he was no less a weapon of diabolical power than the former. This man was also a Samaritan, who no less than his 82. The texts listed here are two second-century apocalypses, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter; the Letter of Barnabas (ostensibly a letter by the apostle Barnabas that deploys extensive allegory and is markedly anti-Jewish); and the Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles (a text referenced by patristic writers but unknown to modern scholars until the rediscovery of a manuscript in 1875). The Shepherd and Letter of Barnabas were especially popular, and were even included in Codex Sinaiticus. 83. See also 3.27.4. 84. Aplasta: “not made up,” “not forged.”

150

the ecclesiastical history

teacher had reached the heights of sorcery and lavished even greater mind-blowing tricks. He even said that he himself was the Savior sent down for the salvation of humanity from the invisible eons above, 2 and taught that not even one of the angels who made the cosmos could survive unless they were led to it first, through the magical experience he bequeathed and the baptism he dispensed, and that those deemed worthy of it would partake of eternal immortality in this very life, dying no longer, but remaining in this life forever and becoming some kind of ageless and immortal beings. These details can easily be learned from the writings of Irenaeus.85 3 And Justin in the same way, after he has mentioned Simon, adds an account about this man, saying:86 We know that a certain Menander, himself a Samaritan from the village of Kaparattaia, became Simon’s disciple, was himself goaded by the demons and went to Antioch, and led many astray through magical arts. He also persuaded his followers that they would not die, and even now there are some descended from this man who admit this.

4 It was, in truth, characteristic of diabolical activity to studiously discredit the great mystery of piety as magic through sorcerers who falsely assumed the name Christian, and through them shred the ecclesiastical doctrines concerning the immortality of the soul and resurrection from the dead. But those who gave these men the title “saviors” have fallen away from the true hope. O N T H E H E R E SY O F T H E E B IO N I T E S

chapter 27. But others the wicked demon was unable to shake from their attitude toward God’s Christ, but found he could catch them by another way, by fabricating his own [Christ]. Earlier men aptly named them Ebionites, because they held “poor” and low opinions concerning the Christ. 2 For they considered him to be plain and common and that he had been made a righteous human being based only on the progress of his moral character, and that he was born from the union of a man and Mary. And they consider the entirety of the worship prescribed in 85. Against Heresies 1.23.5. 86. Justin, 1 Apology 26.

book 3

151

the law required, since they do not think they will be saved through faith in Christ alone and a life lived in accordance with it. 3 But there are others besides them who have the same name, who fled the absurd insanity of those just mentioned, and do not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and the Holy Spirit, yet who similarly do not confess that he preexisted, being God the Word and Wisdom. And so they inclined to the impiety of those earlier ones, especially when, similarly to them, they earnestly respected the bodily cultic observances of the law. 4 They thought all the letters of the Apostle had to be rejected, calling him an apostate from the law, and used only the so-called Gospel According to the Hebrews; the rest they gave short shrift. 5 And similarly to those other ones they kept the Sabbath and the other Jewish habits, but on the Lord’s days they celebrated rites much like ours in memory of the salvific resurrection. 6 Hence, they got their name based on such practice, as the name Ebionites indicates the “poverty” of their intellect, for this is the name used of a poor man among the Hebrews.87 O N C E R I N T H U S T H E H E R E SIA R C H

chapter 28. During the time period under discussion, we have received the tradition that Cerinthus became the leader of another heresy. Gaius, whose statements I already included earlier, writes this about him in the Question attributed to him:88 2 But Cerinthus, who wrote revelations as though they were by a great apostle, introduces us to mind-blowing wonders, lying that they had been shown to him by angels, and saying that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ will be upon the earth and once again the flesh will live in Jerusalem governed by the flesh, to serve lusts and pleasures. He is an enemy of the scriptures of God, and wishing to lead people astray, he says that the “marriage feast” will last for a period of a thousand years.89

87. Ebiōnaioi is a Hellenization of the Hebrew ebyonim (poor ones), first attested in Against Heresies 1.26.2. 88. Gaius wrote in the early third century, in Rome. At 2.25.6 Eusebius says that the Question took the form of a dialogue between Gaius and a Montanist character, Proclus. 89. The “marriage feast of the Lamb” at Rev. 19:9, and the thousand-year imprisonment of Satan at Rev. 20:1–3, were taken by chiliasts as predicting a thousand-year period before the final judgment; Gaius (and Eusebius) rejected this view.

152

the ecclesiastical history

3 Dionysius, too, who held the episcopacy of the community of Alexandria in our day, reports an ancient tradition concerning the Apocalypse of John in the second book of On Promises, and mentions the same man in these words:90 4 Cerinthus, who established the Cerinthian heresy that takes its name from him, hoped to attach a more trustworthy name to his own forgery. 5 For this was the doctrine of his teaching: the kingdom of Christ would be upon the earth, and being a lover of the body and utterly carnal, he dreamt that it would consist of the things he desired, the belly and the things that fill the belly, that is food, drink, and marriages and the “festivals,” “sacrifices,” and “slaughter of holy victims” through which he thought he could obtain them more respectably.

6 So writes Dionysius. But Irenaeus includes some of his more unspeakable false doctrines in the first book of Against Heresies, and in the third book he provides a narrative that should not be forgotten, one he received from the tradition of Polycarp, which says that91 John the apostle once entered a bathhouse, in order to wash, but when he learned that Cerinthus was inside he walked right out of the place and ran right out the door, for he couldn’t stand being under the same roof. And he urged the same of those who were with him, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bathhouse collapse, for Cerinthus the enemy of the truth is inside!”

O N N IC O L AU S A N D T HO SE NA M E D A F T E R H I M

chapter 29. In this period, too, the so-called heresy of the Nicolatians, which the Apocalypse of John mentions, rose up for a brief time. They boasted of Nicolas, one of the deacons associated with Stephen who were selected by the apostles for the service of the poor.92 Clement

90. Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 247–ca. 264); Eusebius quotes extensively from the works of Dionysius in books 6 and 7. Longer sections of On Promises are quoted at 7.24.4–25.27. 91. What follows is an indirect quotation of Against Heresies 3.3.4 (compare also 4.14.6). 92. Acts 6:5.

book 3

153

of Alexandria recounts this about him verbatim in the third book of the Stromateis:93 2 He had, they say, a beautiful wife, and after the Savior’s ascension was reproached by the apostles for being jealous. He led his wife into their midst and ordered her to have intercourse with whoever wished. They say that this deed was done in accordance with that saying “It is necessary to disregard the flesh,” and that because they followed what was done and said simply and without examination, the adherents of his heresy freely fornicate. 3 But I have heard that Nicolas had no other woman besides the one he married, and that of his children the females grew old as virgins and that his son remained uncorrupted. This being the case, his trundling the wife he was jealous about into the midst of the apostles was a rejection of passion, and control94 over eager desires taught him “to disregard the flesh.” For in accordance with the Savior’s command, I think, he did not want “to serve two masters,” pleasure and the Lord. 4 And they also say that Matthias taught thus, to combat and disregard the flesh, affording it no pleasure, but to amplify the soul through faith and knowledge.

Let this suffice concerning95 those during the period under discussion who took it in hand to contravene the truth, but who were utterly extinguished more quickly than this account of them. O N T H E A P O S T L E S N UM B E R E D AMONG THE MARRIED

chapter 30. In response to those who reject marriage, Clement, whose words we just read in connection with the preceding discussion, lists those of the apostles who were counted among the married, saying:96 Or do they also think little of the apostles? For Peter and Philipp had children, and Philipp gave his daughters to husbands, and in one of his letters even Paul does not shrink from mentioning his

93. Clement, Stromateis 3.25–26. 94. Enkrateia: the virtue of deliberate control over one’s body and its passions. 95. A transition formula used frequently to mark the conclusion of the discussion of a topic (compare its use in Aristotle, for instance). 96. Clement, Stromateis 3.52–53.

154

the ecclesiastical history yokemate, whom he did not bring with him, so that he could serve more conveniently.97

2 Since we have mentioned them, it won’t hurt to include another worthwhile narrative from Clement, which he wrote in the seventh book of the Stromateis, narrating in this manner:98 Now, they say that the blessed Peter, seeing his wife led to execution, rejoiced that she had been called and was returning home and called out with heartfelt encouragement and exhortation, calling her by name, “Dear woman, remember the Lord!” Such was marriage among the blessed and the perfect attitude of their dear ones.

Let me include this here at this time, as being appropriate to the topic under discussion. O N T H E D E AT H O F J O H N A N D P H I L I P P

chapter 31. Now, then, we have already indicated the time and manner of Peter’s and Paul’s death, and, furthermore, the site where their tabernacles were laid after they left this life.99 2 And the time of John’s death has already been mentioned, while the site of his tabernacle is indicated by a letter Polycrates (he was bishop of the community in Ephesus) wrote to Victor, bishop of Rome. And he mentions both John and Philipp the apostle and his daughters this way:100 And in Asia two great stars have gone to their rest, and they will rise again on the last day, when the Lord returns, coming with glory from heaven to find all the saints once again. One is Philipp, one of the twelve apostles, who went to his rest in Hieropolis and two of his

97. Phil. 4:3. 98. Clement, Stromateis 7.63–64. 99. “Tabernacle” (or “tent,” skēnōma) is a metaphor for the body, which one’s soul inhabits like a “tent” (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:13). It also recalls the “tabernacle,” or tent, that housed the ark of the covenant (and the presence of God) during the Israelites forty-year sojourn in the desert (see, e.g., Exod. 26:1 ff.). At John 1:14, moreover, the incarnation of the Logos is described as a “tenting” or “tabernacling” among humans. 100. Polycrates: bishop of Ephesus at the end of the second century; Eusebius offers another long quote from his letter to Victor at 5.24.2–8.

book 3

155

daughters who grew old as virgins, and another daughter of his lived in the Holy Spirit and died in Ephesus. And John, too, who reclined on the Lord’s chest, who was a priest who wears the plate,101 a martyr, and a teacher, went to his rest in Ephesus.

4 And so concerning the death of these men. And in Gaius’s dialogue that we mentioned shortly before, Proclus, to whom he poses his question, speaks thus about the death of Philipp and his daughters, in harmony with the previous selections:102 After this the four prophetesses of Philipp were in Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there, and so is their father’s.

That is what Proclus says. Luke, for his part, in the Acts of the Apostles mentions that at that time Philipp’s daughters worked together with their father in Caesarea in Judaea, and were deemed worthy of the prophetic gift, saying verbatim:103 We came to Caesarea, and entered the house of Philipp the evangelist, who was one of the Seven, and stayed with him. And he had four daughters who gave prophecies.

Having described in sequence what has come to our knowledge concerning the apostles and the apostolic period and the sacred writings they have bequeathed us, as well as the disputed writings, which are used publicly by many in most churches, and the completely illegitimate books, which deviate from apostolic orthodoxy, let us go on to the narrative of what follows.104

101. Part of the high priest’s regalia (Ex. 28:36 LXX), the “plate” (petalon) was a piece of gold leaf inscribed with the phrase “Holiness of the Lord” and attached to the front of the priest’s miter (headwear). If Polycrates is claiming that John the Apostle was of the priestly caste, this is not attested elsewhere, though “wearing the plate” may be a circumlocution for “being bishop.” 102. Another quotation from Gaius’s Question. 103. Acts 21:8–9. 104. Eusebius periodizes his narrative, differentiating between the “apostolic period” and “what follows”; note, too, that he locates apostolic literature (“sacred writings”) and its illegitimate “others” within this period. This distinction informs modern scholarly organizations of the literature of this period into “New Testament/Apostolic” and “Apocryphal” categories.

156

the ecclesiastical history HOW SI M O N , T H E B I SHO P O F J E RU S A L E M , WA S M A RT Y R E D

chapter 32. After Nero and Domitian, during the reign of [the emperor] whose times we are now setting out in order,105 word has it that the persecution against us occurred periodically and in specific cities, motivated by popular uprisings.106 We have received the tradition that at this time Simon, the son of Clopas, whom we indicated above to have been the second bishop of the church in Jerusalem, left this life in martyrdom. 2 And the witness for this is that man whose various statements we have used already—Hegesippus. Giving an account of some heretics, he continues, showing that at this time Simon endured being accused by them, and that when he was pointed out as a Christian, he was mistreated in manifold ways for many days. He terrified the judge himself and his associates in the extreme, and was finally led away to a death like the Lord’s. 3 Nothing, though, is like hearing the writer as he recounts this verbatim, in this way:107 Some of the heretics, obviously, accused Simon, son of Clopas, of being of the family of David and a Christian, and thus he became a martyr, being 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar and the consular governor Atticus.108

The same writer says that those who accused him (since at that time those from the royal line of the Jews were being sought out) were themselves arrested as being among them. One can with reason say that Simon was one of the eyewitnesses and hearers of the Lord, based

105. The next in succession would be Nerva (referenced at 3.21), but Eusebius passes over his brief reign and describes the reign of Trajan (January 98–August 117). The Chronicle dates the death of Simon, son of Clopas, to the tenth year of Trajan (107 c.e.). 106. Note how Eusebius adverts to the sporadic, local, and specific character of persecution as revealed by his sources, while simultaneously universalizing “the persecution against us.” 107. Fragment of Hegesippus, Hypomnemata. 108. Hupatikos: in the second century, a governor who had held a consulship.

book 3

157

on the evidence of the long duration of his life and the fact that the text of the Gospels mentions Mary, the wife of Clopas, whose son this work has already shown him to have been. 5 The same writer states that one of the grandchildren of those who were considered brothers of the Savior, whose name was Judas, lived into the same reign after giving the previously described testimony to Domitian on behalf of their faith in Christ, and writes thusly:109 6 They came, then, to lead every church as martyrs and as members of the Lord’s family, and there was deep peace in every church, and they remained until the time of Trajan Caesar, until the time when the son of the Lord’s uncle, the aforementioned Simon, son of Clopas, was falsely accused by the heretics in the same way he was on the same charge before Atticus the consular. And after being tortured for many days he became a martyr, with the result that all, including the consular governor, were astonished by how someone 120 years old could endure, and he was ordered to be crucified.

7 In addition to this, the same man, in discussing the events of the period under discussion, adds that until those times the church remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, while those who took it in hand to destroy the sound rule of the salvific Preaching (if there were any) were as yet lurking in obscure darkness. 8 But once the sacred chorus of the apostles had reached the ends of their lives in different ways, and the generation of those who had been deemed worthy to hear their divinely inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, at that moment the conspiracy of godless error had its beginning in the fraud of false teachers who, because none of the apostles were left, shamelessly took it in hand to preach what is falsely named knowledge110 over and against the Preaching of the truth.

109. Fragment of Hegesippus, Hypomnemata. 110. For the phrase “falsely named” or “falsely so-called knowledge,” see 1 Tim. 6:20, and the original title of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (i.e., Refutation and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Knowledge).

158

the ecclesiastical history HOW T R AJA N F O R BA D E SE E K I N G O U T C H R I S T IA N S

chapter 33. So great, in fact, was the persecution raised against us at that time in many places that Pliny Secundus,111 one of the most famous governors, was moved by the sheer number of the martyrs and informed the emperor about the crowd of those who had been killed on behalf of the faith. At the same time in the same letter he reported that he understood that they did nothing unholy or contrary to the laws, but rather that they rose together at dawn to hymn Christ like a god and forbade adultery, murder, and like crimes and completely followed the laws. 2 In response Trajan sent his decision: that the Christian tribe should not be searched out, but if happened upon should be punished. With this order the great violence of the impending persecution was to a certain extent extinguished. Nonetheless, motives remained for those who wished to do us wrong. Sometimes the people, and sometimes the local leaders as well, formed plots against us, with the result that although there was no open and obvious persecution it was kindled intermittently a province at a time, and many believers competed112 in various martyrdoms. 3 This account has been taken from the Latin Apology of Tertullian that we referenced above, the translation of which runs this way:113 And we have found, too, that the inquest against us was stopped. Pliny Secundus, the governor of the province, passed judgment on some Christians and deprived them of their social rank, but was troubled by the sheer number of them, and because he was ignorant as to what he was required to do informed the emperor Trajan, saying that outside of not wanting to worship idols he had found among them nothing unholy. But he reported this, too: that the Christians arose at dawn and sang hymns to Christ like a god, and for the purpose of keeping discipline forbade murder, adultery, greed, theft, and things like these. Tra-

111. Pliny the Younger (61/2–before 117 c.e.): became legate of Bithynia around 109 c.e.; his extensive collection of letters is a crucial source for the political and social history of the late first and early second centuries c.e. 112. Literally, “struggled,” but with athletic connotations; martyrdom was a contest to be won. 113. Tertullian, Apology 2; the correspondence of Pliny with Trajan is extant in Pliny, Letters 96, 97; Eusebius does not seem to have read Pliny’s letters directly.

book 3

159

jan wrote in response that the Christian tribe should not be searched out, but if happened upon, punished.

These were the events during this period. T HAT T H E F OU RT H T O L E A D T H E C H U R C H O F T H E R OM A N S WA S EVA R E ST U S

chapter 34. But in the third year of the reign of the aforementioned emperor,114 Clement handed on the office of the bishops of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life, having been in charge of the teaching of the Divine Logos for nine complete years. T HAT T H E T H I R D [ B I SHO P ] O F J E RU S A L E M WA S J U ST U S

chapter 35. And when Simon had died in the manner previously indicated,115 a Jew named Justus (for there were many from the circumcision who had come to believe in Christ at that time, and he was one of them) succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. O N IG NAT I U S A N D H I S L E T T E R S

chapter 36. During this period Polycarp, the student116 of the apostles, was prominent in Asia, and was appointed to the episcopacy of the church in Smyrna by eyewitnesses and associates of the Lord. 2 At this time Papias became known, who was himself bishop of the community in Hierapolis, and Ignatius, who is still famous now among many, inherited the episcopacy as second in succession after Peter in Antioch. 3 Word has it that he was sent to the city of Rome to become food for wild beasts, for bearing witness to Christ. 4 And as he was being transported through Asia under the careful watch of guards he encouraged the communities in each of the cities in which he stayed with the words of his homilies and exhortations. In the first place, he

114. Trajan. 115. See 3.32.6. 116. Homilētēs: one who attends the public discourses (homilia) of a teacher.

160

the ecclesiastical history

urged them to be particularly on guard against heresies, which were just then surfacing, and encouraged them to hold fast to the tradition of the apostles, which for the purpose of its safekeeping he thought necessary to put down in writing, having already testified to it.117 5 So, then, when he was in Smyrna, where Polycarp was, he wrote one letter to the church in Ephesus, mentioning its shepherd, Onesimus, and another to the church in Magnesia on the Meander, in which he again makes mention of the bishop, Damas, and to the church in Tralles another, in which he recounts that Polybius was the leader at that time. 6 Along with these he wrote to the church of Rome, to whom he extends the request that they not defraud him of the hope he yearned for by begging him to forgo martyrdom. It is valuable to include brief passages from this letter to demonstrate what has just been stated. He writes, verbatim:118 7 From Syria through to Rome I fight wild beasts on land and sea, night and day, since I am shackled to ten “Leopards,” which is the name of a military formation, who become worse when I show them kindness; instead I make myself a disciple amid their mistreatment. “But I have not been made righteous by this.”119 8 May I benefit from the beasts that await me, which I pray I will find quickly, and which I will mollify so that they eat me quickly and not shy away as they do before some and don’t touch them. And if they won’t because they are unwilling, I will force them! 9 In my case, forbear. I myself know what is useful for me—I am now beginning to be a disciple—that I be eager for nothing seen or unseen, in order that I might obtain Jesus Christ. Fire, the cross, combat with wild beasts, the breaking of bones, the cutting of limbs, grinding the whole body to dust, chastisement from the devil—let them all come, only that I obtain Jesus Christ!

10 He wrote these [letters] from the city indicated to the churches listed. When he was already beyond Smyrna, from Troas he conversed

117. In what follows, Eusebius names all seven letters belonging to the traditional “Ignatian corpus” (letters to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, and Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp); the letters had probably come to Eusebius as a collection, and as with other lists of corpora in the History, he is probably referencing them in the order in which they appeared in the codex from which he was working. 118. Ignatius, To the Romans 5. 119. 1 Cor. 4:4.

book 3

161

again in writing with those in Philadelphia and the church in Smyrna, and in particular with its leader, Polycarp. He was well aware that he was an apostolic man, and like a true good shepherd entrusted the flock in Antioch to him, asking him to care for it earnestly. 11 The same man when writing to the Smyrnaeans, using words that come from somewhere I do not know, recounts certain things concerning Christ:120 But I know and believe that after the resurrection he was in the flesh. And when he had come to those around Peter he said to them, “Touch, feel me and see that I am not an incorporeal demon.”121 And immediately they touched him and believed.

12 And Irenaeus knows of his martyrdom,122 and mentions his letters, saying thusly:123 As one of our people said when he was condemned to the beasts for bearing witness to God: “I am the grain of God and I will be milled by the teeth of beasts so that I will be found to be true bread.”

13 Polycarp also mentions these same [letters] in the letter to the Philippians that is ascribed to him, saying in these very words:124 I ask all of you to obey and practice all the endurance that you saw with your own eyes not only in Ignatius, Rufus, and Zosimus, but also in others among you, and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles. Be persuaded that they did not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are with the Lord, whose suffering they shared, in the place owed them. For they did not love the present age, but him who died for our sake and was raised by God on our account.

14 And he continues:125 Both you and Ignatius wrote to me, that if anyone was going to Syria he should also carry your letters, which I will do if I find a convenient

120. Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 3. 121. An agraphon, or “saying,” attributed to Jesus by patristic authors but not transmitted in the canonical gospels; this agraphon also appears in Origen, On First Principles 1.pr.8. 122. Eusebius probably means that he knows about Ignatius’s martyrdom, not necessarily that he knows a text with the title “Martyrdom of Ignatius.” 123. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.28.4, quoting Ignatius, To the Romans 4. 124. Polycarp, To the Philippians 9. 125. Polycarp, To the Philippians 13.

162

the ecclesiastical history time, either myself or someone I send as an ambassador for you as well. 15 We sent you the letters of Ignatius that he sent to us, along with whatever others we have, as you requested. They are appended to this letter. From them you will be able to benefit greatly, for they have faith and endurance, and every edification that leads to our Lord.

This is enough concerning Ignatius. After him, Heros succeeded to the episcopacy of Antioch. O N T H E EVA N G E L I S T S , W HO W E R E S T I L L D I S T I N G U I SH I N G T H E M SE LV E S AT T H I S T I M E

chapter 37. Quadratus126 was another of the luminaries during this period, who word has it was granted the prophetic gift along with the daughters of Philipp. And in addition to them many others became well known at this time, and held the first position in the apostolic succession. They, seeing as they were fitting disciples of such great men, laid another course upon the foundations of the churches that had been founded by the apostles in every place, further intensifying the Preaching and sowing the salvific seeds of the heavenly kingdom widely throughout the whole inhabited world. 2 For indeed, many of the disciples at that time had their souls struck by the Divine Logos with a deep desire for philosophy, and first fulfilled the salvific command to distribute their property to the needy, and then went out on journeys to perform the work of evangelists, aspiring to proclaim the report of faith to those everywhere who had not heard it and to provide the written text of the Divine Gospels. 3 Once they had established foundations of the faith in foreign places they appointed shepherds and selected others along with them to help in the husbandry of those who had just been herded together. They then went again to other lands and peoples with the grace and cooperation of God, since many miraculous works of the Divine Spirit were still being done 126. A person or persons named Quadratus appears three times in the HE: here, at 4.3.1 (author of an apology to the emperor Hadrian), and at 4.23.3 in a summary of Dionysius of Corinth (the third bishop of Athens). Eusebius almost certainly considered the bishop and the apologist the same person, but whether he thought Quadratus the prophet mentioned here was the same person is unclear.

book 3

163

through them at that time, and as a result, upon only an initial hearing whole crowds right down to a man eagerly accepted piety toward the demiurge of the universe into their souls. 4 Since it is impossible for us to enumerate by name all who in the first round of the apostolic succession were shepherds or evangelists, too, in the churches throughout the inhabited world, we have with good reason memorialized by name in this writing only those the tradition of the apostolic teaching passes down to us through written records. ON THE LET TER OF CLEMENT AND THE W R I T I N G S FA L SE LY A S C R I B E D T O H I M

chapter 38. Ignatius is an example, in the letters we catalogued, and so is Clement in the universally undisputed letter he wrote in the name of the church of Rome to Corinth. He has included in this letter many ideas similar to the Letter to the Hebrews, and already uses some passages from it verbatim, which establishes most securely that this composition was not new, and 2 consequently it seemed obvious to catalogue it with the rest of the Apostle’s letters. Since Paul had conversed in writing with Hebrews in their native language, some say it was Luke, but others that it was this very Clement who translated the writing. 3 And that could be true, because of the fact that the Letter of Clement and the Letter to the Hebrews maintain the same style of expression and that, throughout, both compositions include ideas that do not differ much. 4 But it must be noted that there is a second letter said to be Clement’s; however, we are not acquainted with its authenticity, as we are with the former, because we do not know that the ancients used it. 5 And already, just yesterday in fact, some have put forward other lengthy, wordy compositions as being his, which contain dialogues of Peter and Apion.127 None of the ancients make any reference at all to them, nor does it keep the character of apostolic orthodoxy pure.128 So,

127. Eusebius is referring to some version of at least a portion of what is known today as the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones. 128. “Character” translates charaktēr; the text is playing on the term’s multivalence, as it can, like the English “character,” connote both the “nature” or “temperament” of something and a written mark or imprint. The sense here is both that these texts do not exhibit orthodox temperament and that they do not bear the “imprint” of authenticity.

164

the ecclesiastical history

then, the work of Clement that is acknowledged [as authentic] is evident to all, and those of Ignatius and Polycarp have been mentioned. O N T H E W R I T I N G S O F PA P IA S

chapter 39. Of Papias, books five in number of his Exegeses of the Lord’s Sayings are in circulation. Irenaeus mentions these as being his only writings, saying just so:129 Papias, the hearer of John and companion of Polycarp, an ancient man, testifies to these things in writing in the fourth of his books. And he has composed five books.

2 So writes Irenaeus about this. Papias, however, in the prooimion of his works does not indicate that he was an eyewitness or hearer of the holy apostles at all, but teaches that he received the matters of the faith from those who had been familiar with them; he says in these words:130 3 I will not hesitate to arrange for you along with the interpretations whatever I learned well from the elders131 and remember well, for I am certain about their truth. For I did not, like the rabble, welcome those who gave many speeches, nor those who recounted the commandments of others, but those who recounted what had been deposited by the Lord in faith and came from truth itself. 4 But if someone came who had followed the elders, I made inquiry about the words of the elders, what Andrew or Peter said, or what Philipp or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthias or any other of the Lord’s disciples, or what Aristion and the presbyter132 John, disciples of the Lord, said. For I did not consider what came from books to be of as much value as what came from a living and abiding133 voice.

5 Here it is worth recognizing that he counts the name of John twice. The first time he catalogues him with Peter, James, Matthias, and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist, but by using a dis-

129. Ienaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4. 130. Fragment from the proemium of Papias, Exegeses of the Lord’s Sayings. 131. Or “presbyters,” as Eusebius probably construes the term as applied to “John the elder/presbyter” in what follows. 132. Or simply “elder.” 133. An echo of 1 Pet. 1:23.

book 3

165

tinctive phrase he ranks the other John with others outside the number of the apostles, ranking Aristion before him, and clearly naming him a presbyter. 6 This proves the truth of the account of there being two homonymous men in Asia and two tombs in Ephesus, each of which is still said to be John’s. And one must apply one’s intellect to this. For it is likely that the second John (unless one wishes to claim the first) witnessed the Apocalypse that bears the name of John.134 7 The Papias we are now discussing confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, but says that he heard Aristion and the presbyter John with his own ears. He mentions them by name often and includes their traditions in his compositions. 8 We have reported this to be helpful.135 But is it worthwhile to join to the words of Papias already given other statements of his, in which he recounts certain miracles and other matters that came to him as being part of tradition. 9 The fact that Philipp the apostle worked together with his daughters in Hierapolis has already been indicated above.136 But now it must be noted that Papias was with them, and mentions that he received a miraculous account from Philipp’s daughters. For he recounts that there had been the resurrection of a dead person in his time, and further mentions that there was another miracle concerning Justus who was called Barsabas, [namely,] that he drank a poisonous potion and through the grace of the Lord suffered no harm. 10 The text of the Acts of the Apostles recounts that after the Savior’s ascension, the sacred apostles put forward this Justus along with Matthias and prayed over them in order to elect one in place of the traitor Judas to once more fill their number, just so:137 And they put two forward, Joseph called Barsabas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias, and they prayed and said . . .

134. Another example of Eusebius’s reticence about the legitimacy of Revelation; compare 3.24.17, 25.4; and 6.25.1–27. 135. Literally, “Let us not have said this uselessly” or “Let us not have said this unkindly”; Eusebius is calling the authorship of the Apocalypse of John into question, but presents his reservations as “helpful,” rather than “unkind” or polemical. 136. See 3.31.3–4. 137. Acts 1:23–24.

166

the ecclesiastical history

11 And the same writer [Papias] includes other things that came to him through unwritten tradition, and some strange parables and teachings of the Savior and some other, more mythical accounts. 12 In these he says that a thousand-year period will occur after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up corporeally on this very earth. I think that he made these suppositions by having received the apostolic accounts incorrectly, by not having understood that they spoke mystically, and in signs. 13 For he seems to have been quite small-minded, as is evidenced by his texts. Moreover, he shares the blame for the many ecclesiastical men after him who shared his opinion because they claimed the man’s antiquity, as, for example, Irenaeus and anyone else who declared the same views.138 14 And he presents other accounts of the words of the Lord as being from the aforementioned Aristion and traditions from the presbyter John. We direct lovers of learning to them, but at present we must include along with the words of his that have already been set down a tradition that he has recorded about Mark the evangelist, in these words:139 15 And the presbyter used to say this: that Mark was Peter’s translator,140 and he wrote down accurately, though not in order, what he remembered [hearing] about what the Lord had said and done. For he had not heard the Lord or been his follower, but later, as I said, was Peter’s. Peter used to teach using short examples,141 but he did not compose an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings, with the result that Mark did not err in writing the particulars he remembered. For he took forethought for one thing, not to falsify or omit anything of what he had heard in the accounts he wrote.

16 This is what is said by Papias about Mark. But about Matthew he says this:142

138. An example of Eusebius’s antipathy toward millenarianism, the idea that Christ’s return will be preceded or followed by a thousand-year period. 139. Fragment of Papias, Exegeses of the Lord’s Sayings. 140. Hermēneutēs: earlier (2.15.1) Eusebius refered to Mark as an akolouthos (follower/attendant) of Peter. 141. Chreia: in classical rhetoric, brief, pithy maxims or anecdotes. 142. Fragment of Papias, Exegeses of the Lord’s Sayings.

book 3

167

Matthew composed the sayings143 in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as well as he could.

17 The same writer used testimonies from the first letter of John and likewise the first letter of Peter, and he included another account about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins,144 which the Gospel According to the Hebrews contains. Let us of necessity note these things in addition to what has [already] been set down.

143. Ta logia; the term suggests a sayings collection, like the “Q” source or the Gospel of Thomas, rather than a narrative like the canonical Gospel According to Matthew; consequently, it is not certain that Papias is referring to the canonical gospel. Papias’s comment is the earliest instance of what would become an enduring tradition about the origins of the canonical Matthew being a “Hebrew” text (see, e.g., Against Heresies 3.1.1; Epiphanius, Panarion 29.9.4; 30.3.7; Jerome, Letter 20.5; Commentary on Matthew 12:13). 144. In his Latin translation, Rufinus takes this to be a reference to the pericope of the “woman taken in adultery” at John 7:53–8:11, which does not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts of John.

Book 4

OV E RV I EW

Book 4 opens in the last years of the reign of Trajan (ca. 115–17 c.e.) and ends ca. 177 c.e., a roughly sixty-year time span. Eusebius continues with the themes announced in book 1 (1.1–2). He portrays the second century as a period marked by persecution and martyrdom, on the one hand, and conflicts between orthodoxy and heresy, on the other. He also extends his supersessionist polemic against Jews, interpreting two second-century Jewish uprisings—the Kitos War of 115–17 and the Bar Kochba revolt of the early 130s—as God’s punishment of the Jewish people through Roman imperial domination (4.6.4). SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The Kitos War and the Bar Kochba Revolt Eusebius briefly references two Jewish revolts of the second century. At 4.2.1–5 he describes what is sometimes termed the Kitos War. The details of this event are murky. The term Kitos is a corruption of the name Lucius Quietus, an officer in Trajan’s Mesopotamian campaign who then became governor of Palestine, and who is credited with suppressing Jews in Mesopotamia and executing rebel leaders in Lydda. The sources describe several Jewish uprisings in different regions, contemporaneous with Trajan’s Mesopotamian and Persian campaigns of 115–16. Eusebius provides one of the more extended accounts 168

book 4

169

of these uprisings (the other key source is Cassius Dio). He describes a conflict between the Jewish and Hellene populations in Cyrenaica that spread to Alexandria, and he names the leader of the revolt as Lukouas (according to Cassius Dio it was Andreas; Dio also states that a revolt occurred in Cyprus, under the leadership of Artemion). Upon hearing of these uprisings, Trajan is said to have ordered Lucius Quietus to clear Jews from Mesopotamia. Eusebius also gives an account of the Bar Kochba revolt, an uprising in Judaea during the reign of Hadrian. His account (4.6.1–4) is brief, but significant for his supersessionist ideology and his construction of Christian identity. Eusebius interprets Hadrian’s punitive postwar measures—the exclusion of Jews from Jerusalem and the refounding of that city as a Roman colony, Aelia Capitolina—as a material demonstration of God’s rejection of the Jews and an abrogation of the promises of peoplehood and land made to Abraham’s descendants. According to Eusebius, the Bar Kochba revolt also explains why the Christian church in Jerusalem is no longer a Jewish community: with Jews expelled from the city, the community was Gentile, and the succession of Jewish bishops ended (4.5.3).1 The best concise treatment of both the Kitos War and the Bar Kochba revolt is Mary Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 389–466. Martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna Eusebius summarizes and quotes what was probably most of the text of the Martyrdom of Polycarp as he found it in his manuscript source. Eusebius also mentions Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (4.14.9), which prefaces extant manuscripts of Ignatius’s letters, and may well have headed the manuscript of Ignatius that Eusebius uses in book 3 (3.36.5–6, 10). The martyrdom of Polycarp is reported in the form of a letter sent from the church at Smyrna. In form, then, it can be compared with the letter recounting the martyrs of Lyon and Vienne that Eusebius uses in book 5 (5.1.1–2.7). Other martyrdoms were “appended” to the Martyrdom of Polycarp (4.15.46–48); these included accounts of two Smyrnaean martyrs (Metrodorus, whom Eusebius notes was a Marcionite, and Pionius) and a story of three martyrs in Pergamum

1. Argued in more detail in DE 71a and Commentary on Isaiah 6.11–13.

170

the ecclesiastical history

(Carpus, Papylos, and Agathonike). The Martyrdom of Pionius is extant and indicates that Pionius died during the Decian persecution of 250/1. The fact that he places Pionius’s martyrdom at the incorrect place on his timeline demonstrates the impact of Eusebius’s specific manuscript sources on his narrative—here, as elsewhere (most notably when he uses the letters of Dionysius of Alexandria in books 6 and 7) he tends to list all the works in a given manuscript in their order of appearance in the manuscript, rather than in chronological order. In addition, this and other martyrdom collections influenced Eusebius’s own writing. He was a compiler of martyrdoms himself and at 4.15.47 directs readers to the Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms that he has compiled (see also 5.pr.2; 5.21.2–5). At the same time that his sources have influenced his own thinking and writing about martyrdom, Eusebius’s incorporation of these sources within his universalizing narrative has had a great impact on the subsequent reception and interpretation of second- and thirdcentury martyrdom texts. When Eusebius folds these sources into his globalizing narrative, they have tended to “float” from their local and specific contexts. In short, there has been a tendency to read these sources much as Eusebius framed them, as exemplary of uniform and global persecution, rather than as evidence for sporadic, localized persecutions. The martyrdom of Polycarp, and the Gallic martyrs of Lyons and Vienne in book 5, serve as great load-bearing walls within Eusebius’s construction of Christian martyrdom. Hegesippus Hegesippus (fl. 160s–180s c.e.) is usually assumed to have been a Jew, though his interest in some of what have often been termed JewishChristian Gospels (i.e., the Gospel According to the Hebrews and a Syriac gospel) and in unwritten Jewish traditions does not necessarily entail this conclusion. It may instead be an etiological explanation for interests of Hegesippus that Eusebius framed as “Judaizing.” He is one of Eusebius’s key sources for the Roman and Jerusalem successions, and Eusebius has already referenced and quoted from his Hypomnēmata several times before the formal notice of Hegesippus given at 4.22.1. Hypomnēmata were collections of reports and notes on various topics; based on Eusebius’s quotations, we know of only a few topics treated in Hegesippus’s text:

book 4 •

•

• • •

•

•

•

171

Traditions about James the Just (2.23.4–18) and Jewish sects (2.23.8; 4.22.7) Simon bar Clopas, successor of James the Just, and the suppression of the Davidic line (3.11–12; 32.2–4) Domitian’s suppression of the Davidic line (3.20.1–6; 3.32.5–6) Reference to the First Letter of Clement (3.16) Reference to Hadrian’s founding of the cult of Antinous and the city of Antinopolis (4.8.2) That he resided in Rome from the episcopacy of Anicetus through that of Eleutherius (4.11.6) That he made a succession list of the bishops of Rome up to the time of Anicetus (4.22.3) An heresiological catalogue (4.22.4–6) Heresiology, and Rome as a Christian Intellectual Center in the Second Century

At 4.7.1, Eusebius returns to his heresiological theme, drawing again on Irenaeus’s Against Heresies to trace the genealogy of “falsely socalled knowledge” from Simon (introduced as the founder of all heresy earlier at 2.13.6) to Menander, Basilides, and Saturninus. Eusebius reframes his source material by positing an etiology for the rise of heresy: when he cannot instigate Gentile persecutions, the “demon who hates the good” avails himself of “sorcerers and deceivers” to corrupt the church from within (4.7.1–2). At 4.11.1–11 Eusebius draws on Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to report on heresy in Rome. He highlights two figures: Valentinus and Marcion. Irenaeus lumps together Valentinus and Marcion (and Cerdon, Marcion’s putative predecessor) based on some very superficial structural similarities in their theologies—in particular, their differentiation of the God of the Hebrew Bible from the God revealed by Christ. Valentinus (fl. 130s–ca. 160 c.e.) came from Alexandria to Rome in the late 130s. Irenaeus’s influential account caricatures Valentinus as the arch-Gnostic and the founder of a Valentinian school of thought. In contrast to Irenaeus’s account, a comparison of the extant fragments that can be safely ascribed to Valentinus with later examples of “Valentinian” texts show not a monolithic Valentinian tradition, but a variety of interrelated theological trajectories.

172

the ecclesiastical history

Marcion (fl. ca. 140–ca. 160 c.e.) was a shipowner/merchant from Sinope on the Black Sea. He is often described as developing the first New Testament “canon,” divided into the “Gospel” (a version of Luke redacted to remove what Marcion argued were heretical interpolations) and the “Apostle” (ten Pauline letters, also redacted to remove putatively heretical material). For Marcion, philology and theology were integrally related. He composed a work entitled Antitheses, in which he contrasted the representation of God in the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel to conclude that the Gospel reveals the Absolutely Good true God, while the Hebrew Bible presents a legalistic, punitive god, whom Marcion also identified with the demiurge of the material cosmos. For more detail on Valentinus and Marcion, consult the related primary sources listed below and recent summary discussions, such as those in A. Marjanen and P. Luomanen, A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics” (Leiden: Brill, 2005). For a good introduction to early Christian Gnosticism, see D. Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010). Justin Martyr (fl. 150s–late 160s c.e.), whose apologies Eusebius quotes in book 4, was a younger contemporary of Valentinus and Marcion. Like them, he was an Easterner (from Flavia Neapolis in Samaria), who became an important Christian intellectual in Rome. According to his own stylized account of his philosophical education and his conversion to Christian philosophy, after studying with Stoics, Aristotelians, Pythagoreans, and Platonists, Justin was converted to Christian philosophy during a walk near the sea with a Christian philosopher (Dialogue with Trypho 2–7). Justin, Valentinus, and Marcion are representative of the theological diversity of Christianity in Rome during the mid-second century. This place and time is usually described, following Irenaeus and Eusebius who lionize Justin “the martyr” as the beleaguered representative of orthodoxy, as one of bitter sectarian conflict. It was also a time and place of great intellectual creativity, as Christians, too, became significant public intellectuals during the flowering of the Atticizing literary and rhetorical culture known as the Second Sophistic. For more on the culture of the Second Sophistic, see Timothy Whitmarsh, The Second Sophistic (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). On second-century Christianity and the Second Sophistic, see Kendra Eshleman, The

book 4

173

Social World of Intellectuals in the Roman Empire: Sophists, Philosophers, and Christians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). The Second-Century Apologists Book 4 contains many of Eusebius’s references to writers and texts that modern scholarship places under the umbrella term “apologetic literature.” Eusebius calls several of these works apologies— so titled because they took the form of the defense speech (apologia) made by or on behalf of the accused in a legal case. Eusebius references the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Melito of Sardis, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis (4.26.1). Eusebius seems to reserve the term apologia for works addressed to emperors or imperial officials on behalf of Christian communities experiencing or facing the threat of legal action. The modern, academic category of Christian apologetic literature usually also includes texts that would fall under the ancient rhetorical category of protreptic—treatises aimed at persuading the adoption of the philosophical life. These treatises, often with titles such as To the Hellenes, represent a Christian variation on a philosophical genre; Aristotle, for instance, wrote a Protrepticus, as did Eusebius’s contemporary the Platonist Iamblichus of Chalcis. In addition, texts “refuting” a particular doctrine or school of thought (e.g., Against the Gentiles)—another genre with parallels in the literatures of the philosophical schools—are often included in the modern category of Christian apologetic literature. As with all literary genres, these distinctions were permeable. Apologies and protreptics, for instance, always included refutation, for one was expected to refute the contrary case and defend and/or advocate one’s own. The classic study of the apologists is R. Grant, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988). PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

•

Cassius Dio, Roman History; English translation: Loeb Classical Library — 68.30.1–3, 32.1–5 (Kitos War) — 69.12.1–3, 13.1–3, 14.1–3 (Bar Kochba revolt) Greek apologists of the second century; all available in English in ANF, as well as in the Fathers of the Church (Catholic University

174

•

•

the ecclesiastical history

of America Press) and Ancient Christian Writers (Paulist Press) translation series — Justin Martyr: 1 Apology, 2 Apology, Dialogue with Trypho — Athenagoras: Embassy on Behalf of the Christians — Tatian, Oration to the Hellenes — Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus On Valentinus and Marcion — Irenaeus, Against Heresies — Tertullian, Against Marcion; English translation: ANF, vol. 3 Examples of Valentinian texts — extant fragments of Valentinus; English translation: B. Layton, trans., The Gnostic Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 229–45 — Gospel of Truth; English translation: J. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1988) — Ptolemy, Letter to Flora; English translation: Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures, 306–15

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 4

Who the bishops of the Romans and Alexandrians were during the reign of Trajan What the Jews suffered during his reign Those who delivered apologies on behalf of the faith in the time of Hadrian The bishops of the Romans and Alexandrians during his reign The bishops of Jerusalem, beginning from the time of our Savior until the time under discussion The final siege of the Jews in Hadrian’s reign Who the leaders of falsely so-called knowledge were at that time Who the ecclesiastical writers were A letter of Hadrian in favor of the fact that we should not be pursued without trial Who the bishops of the Romans and Alexandrians were in the reign of Antoninus On the heresiarchs during their time On Justin’s Apology to Antoninus A letter of Antoninus to the Council of Asia on our doctrine What is mentioned about Polycarp, a close associate of the apostles 175

176

the ecclesiastical history

How Polycarp along with others was martyred in the city of Smyrna in the time of Verus How Justin the philosopher was martyred while acting as ambassador of the doctrine of Christ in the city of Rome On the martyrs Justin mentions in his own writing What works of Justin have come down to us Who led the churches of the Romans and Alexandrians in the reign of Verus Who the [bishops] of Antioch were On the renowned ecclesiastical writers in their day On Hegesippus and what he mentions On Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and the letters he wrote On Theophilus, bishop of Antioch On Philipp and Modestus On Melito and what he mentions On Apollinaris On Musanus On the heresy associated with Tatian On Bardesanes the Syrian and the books of his that are current W HO T H E B I SHO P S O F T H E R OM A N S A N D A L E X A N D R IA N S W E R E DU R I N G T H E R E IG N O F T R AJA N

chapter 1. Around the twelfth year of Trajan’s reign,2 the bishop of the community in Alexandria, whom we mentioned just above,3 departed this life, and Primus was the fourth after the apostles to be appointed4 to the service of the people there. At this time, too, after Evarestos had completed his eighth year, Alexander became fifth in the succession in Rome that began with Peter and Paul, and assumed the episcopacy. 2. 109 c.e. 3. Cerdon, mentioned at 3.21. 4. Literally, “allotted.” The notion is that a bishop is appointed by lot (and thus by divine providence), as Matthias was added to the twelve disciples by lot in Acts 1:26.

book 4

177

W HAT T H E J EWS SU F F E R E D DU R I N G H I S R E IG N

chapter 2. While the teaching of our Savior and the church flourished daily and progressed for the better, the affairs of the Jews reached the height of disaster, as evils stacked up one upon the other. In fact, when the emperor was in his eighteenth year,5 once again a rebellion that arose among the Jews destroyed a huge number of them. 2 And in Alexandria, moreover, and the rest of Egypt, and even in Cyrene, they were driven as though fanned by a frightening and rebellious wind to rebel against the Hellenes who were their fellow inhabitants. They grew into a great rebellion, and the next year, when Lupus was governing the whole of Egypt, it turned into a war that was in no way insignificant. 3 And indeed, in the first engagement it happened that they overcame the Hellenes. The Hellenes, fleeing into Alexandria, captured and killed the Jews who were in the city, but when the Jews throughout Cyrene, who were led by Lukouas, realized that no military help would come from those in Alexandria, they plundered the territory around Alexandria and continued destroying the nomes6 in that region. The emperor sent Marcus Turbonus against them with infantry and naval forces, as well as cavalry. 4 He, fighting many battles over a long period, prosecuted the war against them and killed many thousands of Jews, not only those in Cyrene but also those from Egypt who had joined up with their “king” Lukouas. 5 The emperor, moreover, suspecting that the Jews in Mesopotamia might attack residents there, ordered Lucius Quietus to clear them from the province, and he, having been so ordered, slew a huge number of them in that area; for this success he was made governor of Judaea by the emperor.7 And those of the Hellenes who have handed down the events of the same period in writing recount this in these very words.8

5. 115 c.e. 6. Nomes: administrative districts in Roman Egypt. 7. Cassius Dio (68.29.4) writes that the inhabitants of the Persian territory that Trajan had just conquered rose up against the Romans. Dio agrees with Eusebius that Lucius Quietus was made governor (consular legate) of Judaea in part because of his service in bringing Mesopotamia under control (68.32.5). 8. What specific sources Eusebius is referencing here is unclear.

178

the ecclesiastical history T HO SE W HO D E L I V E R E D A P O L O G I E S O N B E HA L F O F T H E FA I T H I N T H E T I M E O F HA D R IA N

chapter 3. When Trajan had ruled for twenty full years less six months, Aelius Hadrianus received the imperium.9 To him Quadratus addressed and delivered a discourse, composing an Apology on behalf of our mode of piety, because certain wicked men were trying to harass our people. It is still current among many of the brothers, and we indeed have the work. From it one can see clear evidence of the man’s understanding and apostolic correctness. 2 He shows that he wrote in the ancient past when he recounts this in his own words:10 But the deeds of our Savior were always present, for they were true. Those who had been healed, those raised from the dead—they could be observed not only after they were healed or raised, they were always present, for they did not live only at the time of the Savior, but even after he departed they lived long enough that some of them even lasted into our times.

3 Such was this man. But Aristides, too, a faithful man motivated by our form of piety, like Quadratus has left behind an Apology on behalf of the faith addressed to Hadrian.11 This man’s writing, too, is preserved up to the present among many. T H E B I SHO P S O F T H E R OM A N S A N D A L E X A N D R IA N S D U R I N G H I S R E IG N

chapter 4. In the third year of the same imperium,12 Alexander, bishop of the Romans, died, having completed ten years in office. Xystus was his successor. And around the same time, Justus succeeded Primus, [bishop] of the community of the Alexandrians, who departed in the twelfth year of his presidency.

9. August 117 c.e. 10. Fragment of Quadratus. 11. Aristides’s Apology is extant in a Syriac version, and a Greek recension is extant embedded within the Byzantine romance known as the Life of Barlaam and Josaphat. 12. 119 c.e.

book 4

179

T H E B I SHO P S O F J E RU S A L E M , B E G I N N I N G F R OM T H E T I M E O F O U R S AV IO R U N T I L T H E T I M E U N D E R D I S C U S SIO N

chapter 5. The periods of the bishops of Jerusalem, however, I have not found preserved in writing at all—quite possibly because, as word has it, they were all short-lived. 2 I have gleaned this much from written accounts: that up to the siege laid against the Jews during Hadrian’s reign, there were fifteen successions of bishops there, who, they say, were all Hebrews in origin, and that they received the knowledge of Christ legitimately, with the result that they were approved by those who were capable of determining such matters as worthy of service as bishops. For at that time, their entire church was composed of faithful Hebrews, from the time of the apostles until the time of those who lived until the siege, when the Jews again revolted against the Romans and were conquered through no small military efforts. 3 Now, since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this point, this is the necessary point at which to catalogue them from the beginning. The first, therefore, was James, who was called the brother of the Lord; after him the second was Simon; third, Justus; Zachaeus, fourth; fifth, Tobias; sixth, Benjamin; John, seventh; eighth, Matthias; ninth, Philipp; tenth, Seneca; eleventh, Justus; Levi, twelfth; Ephres, thirteenth; fourteenth, Joseph; and last of all, fifteenth, Judas. 4 Such were the bishops of the city of Jerusalem from the time of the apostles up to the time indicated,13 who were all of the circumcision. 5 By this time, in the twelfth year of [Hadrian’s] imperium,14 Telesphorus succeeded Xystus, who had completed ten years as bishop of the Romans, as seventh after the apostles. A year and some months later, Eumenes succeeded as eighth in line to the presidency of the community of the Alexandrians; his predecessor had lasted eleven years. T H E F I NA L SI E G E O F T H E J EWS I N HA D R IA N ’ S R E IG N

chapter 6. Then, indeed, because the revolt of the Jews had again gone on to become larger and more complex, Rufus, who was govern-

13. I.e., the time of the Bar Kochba revolt. 14. 129 c.e.

180

the ecclesiastical history

ing Judaea, was sent military reinforcements by the emperor and pursued their insanity mercilessly, killing myriad crowds of men, as well as women and children, and reducing their territories to utter slavery according to the law of war. 2 At that time the one who led the Jews was a man by the name of Barchochebas, which in fact means “star.”15 He was a man in all respects murderous and criminal, yet, based on his name, he tricked them like slaves into thinking that he was a star come down to them from heaven, to illuminate those suffering evil. 3 But, after the war had reached its climax in the eighteenth year of Hadrian’s reign, and at Bethera (this is a strong fortress located not far from Jerusalem),16 the rebels had been driven to the depths of destruction by hunger and thirst due to the length of the foreign siege, and the one who had caused their insanity had paid the deserved penalty, the whole nation was from that time on prohibited from traveling up to the territory around Jerusalem, by the ordinance of a law and the decree of Hadrian,17 who ordered that they should not look upon the ancestral soil even from a distance. Ariston of Pella recounts this.18 4 In fact, once the city was empty of the Jewish nation, its ancient inhabitants had come to complete ruin, and it had been colonized by a foreign people, the Roman city founded there afterward changed its name and was called Aelia in honor of the ruler Aelius Hadrian.19 Moreover, since the church there was [now] comprised of Gentiles, the first person entrusted with the service there, after the bishops that had been of the circumcision, was Marcus. 15. The translation preserves the Greek transliteration of the name of Simon bar Koseva, a.k.a. Simon bar Kochba; bar Kochba means “Son of a Star” in Aramaic and may refer to Num. 24:17 (“A star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel”), a passage often read as a messianic prophecy. 16. Khirbet el-Yehud/Battir, a complex of fortified caves 11 km SW of Jerusalem. 17. This is not extant; Talmudic traditions mention several decrees of “the wicked government,” which are usually taken as referring to persecution under Hadrian (e.g., Sanh. 14a; Ber. 61b; Meʻil. 17a). Eusebius retrojects the characteristics of the Diocletianic persecution (ordered by imperial edict) into the second century, a period for which we have no evidence of empire-wide legislation concerning Christians. 18. Little is known of Ariston of Pella outside of this reference. Maximus the Confessor (sixth c. c.e.) claims that he is the author of the Dialogue of Papiscus and Jason (no longer extant), but the identification is dubious. Ariston (via Eusebius) is the only source for Hadrian’s banning Jews from Jerusalem. 19. Hadrian also reorganized Judaea into a new province, Syria Palaestina.

book 4

181

W HO T H E L E A D E R S O F FA L SE LY S O - C A L L E D K N OW L E D G E W E R E AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 7. But, as the churches were shining throughout the whole inhabited world like the brightest lights, and the faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was flourishing among absolutely the whole human race, then did the demon who hates the good and who is always the enemy of truth and the greatest foe of humanity’s salvation aim every contrivance20 against the church. In earlier times he had armed external persecutors against her, 2 but now he was prevented from using them and deployed wicked men and sorcerers, just as if they were deadly implements and servants of destruction, against souls. He planned a strategem by other means. He noted every pathway, so that sorcerers and deceivers could use the same name as our doctrine, sometimes leading those believers they had seized for themselves into the depths of destruction and at other times, via the arguments they ventured, diverting those who were ignorant of the faith from the path to the salvific doctrine.21 3 Coming forth from Menander, whom we mentioned earlier as Simon’s successor,22 something like the power of a two-tongued, two-headed serpent brought forward two leaders of different heresies— Saturninus, an Antiochene by race, and Basilides, an Alexandrian. They established schools23 of god-hating heresy, the former in Syria, the latter in Egypt. 4 Irenaeus indicates that,24 in most respects, Saturninus spoke the same falsehoods as Menander, while Basilides stretched his notions to the very limit, concocting monstrous fables disguised as the most profound mysteries for his own impious heresy. 5 Now, as most of the ecclesiastical men of that time were fighting on behalf of the truth and were engaged in the most eloquent combat on behalf of the apostolic and ecclesiastical opinion, some at this time provided posterity with written compositions that offered prophylactic measures against the very heresies just mentioned. 6 Of these, a most capable refutation Against Basilides by a most famous writer of 20. Or “every siege engine.” 21. Notice how heresy is described as an imitation or mimicry of orthodoxy. 22. At 3.26.1–4. 23. Didaskaleia: literally, “places for teaching”; the term suggests both a “school of thought” and the gathering of adherents for instruction. 24. Against Heresies 1.24.

182

the ecclesiastical history

that time, Agrippa Castor, has come down to us, which reveals how dreadful the man’s sorcery was.25 After exposing his “mysteries,” Castor says that Basilides compiled twenty-four books on the gospel, and that he contrived on his own authority to name Bar Kabbas and Bar Koph and some other nonexistent [people] prophets, and gave them barbarian names to help confuse those who are duped by such things. And he says that Basilides taught indifference toward food sacrificed to idols and not to care about swearing oaths during times of persecution. And, in the manner of the Pythagoreans, he ordered a five-year silence for those who came to him.26 8 And recounting other things like these about Basilides, the writer just mentioned quite nobly drags the error of the aforementioned heresy out into plain view. 9 Irenaeus also writes27 that Carpocrates was the father of another heresy that goes under the name of Gnostic. They now thought it right to impart Simon’s sorceries not as he had, secretly, but openly, going so far as to solemnly exalt as serious matters the potions they officiously prepared, certain dream-inducing and tutelary demons, and other practices similar to these. And in keeping with these practices, they taught those who were going to be fully initiated into their mystagogy—or rather, into their polluted practices—that they must do all the most shameful things, for they could not escape the cosmic rulers, as they called them, by any means other than rendering all of them their due through these unspeakable practices. 10 And so it happened that that demon who rejoices in evil used these servants, enslaving those who were pitifully led astray by them into destruction, while to the unbelieving Gentiles they provided an excuse for a wealth of slander against the Divine Logos, for their fame spread, fueling libel against the whole Christian people. 11 It was thanks especially to this that it happened that the unbelievers of that time spread the impious and monstrous rumor about us—that we actually practiced unlawful intercourse with mothers and sisters and ate unholy foods.28 12 Things did not go well for him for long, however, for the truth put itself forward and shone like a great light in the time that followed. 13 25. Agrippa Castor: Known only from this reference and Jerome, On Illustrious Men 21. 26. On Pythagorean initiation practices, including a five-year period of silence, see Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras 17. 27. Against Heresies 1.25. 28. Accusations of incest and cannibalism were common slanders against Christians (see, e.g., Minucius Felix, Octavius 9; Athenagoras, Embassy on Behalf of the Christians 3).

book 4

183

The machinations of [truth’s] enemies were forthwith quashed, refuted by its power. One heresy was invented after another, and those that had come before always trickled away, dissolving at one time or another into variegated and polymorphous ideas.29 But the brightness of the universal and only true church moved forward in size and greatness, always remaining exactly the same and shining down the temperance and purity of the inspired polity and philosophy majestically, purely, and unencumbered upon every race, both Hellenes and barbarians. 14 All together and all at once, then, the libel leveled against the whole doctrine was squelched, and only our teaching remained, holding sway everywhere and being acknowledged as preeminent for its majesty, self-control, and divine and philosophical doctrines. Consequently, none of them, right to the present day, dares to level a shameful slander against our faith, nor any libel like those that our attackers liked to use. 15 During the period just mentioned, moreover, the truth again brought forward many champions on her behalf into the midst [of the fight], who soldiered against the godless heresies not only with unwritten refutations but also with written demonstrations. W HO T H E E C C L E SIA S T IC A L W R I T E R S W E R E

chapter 8. During this period Hegesippus was well known, many of whose words we have made use of previously when we quoted certain matters relating to the apostles from the tradition he passed down. 2 He recorded the inerrant tradition of the apostolic preaching in five books, in a most simple style of writing, and gives an indication of the period during which he was well known when he writes just so concerning those who first set up idols:30 They built cenotaphs and temples for them, as they still do up to the present. An example is Antinous, the slave of Hadrian Caesar, in whose honor the Antinoian games are held, the ones established in our time. And he31 even established a city named after Antinous, and prophets, too.32

29. Note the use of temporary streams after a rainstorm as a metaphor for the genealogy of heresy, in contrast to orthodoxy, likened to stable and unitary rays of light. 30. Hegesippus, Hypomnēmata. 31. I.e., Hadrian. 32. The idea that gods were human beings later worshipped as gods is called Euhemerism, after the Hellenistic thinker Euhemerus; it was a common demythologizing

184

the ecclesiastical history

3 And during the same period Justin, a genuine lover33 of true philosophy, was still training in the learning of the Hellenes, but he, too, indicates that this was his time period when he writes in his Apology to Antoninus:34 But I do not think it out of place at this point to mention Antinous, who lived in the present, and whom all were goaded by fear to honor as a god, even though they knew who he was and where he came from.

4 The same writer also includes this when mentioning the war against the Jews that occurred during that time:35 For even in the Jewish war that just recently occurred, Barchochebas, the leader of the Jews’ revolt, ordered only the Christians to be led off to terrible punishments, if they did not deny that Jesus is the Christ, and blaspheme.

5 In the same [work] he explains his change from the Hellenic philosophy to the fear of god—namely, that he did it with discernment and not irrationally—writing this:36 For I myself, too, delighted in the teachings of Plato and heard the Christians slandered. But when I saw that they were fearless toward death and everything thought to be worth fearing, I realized that it was impossible that they lived in wickedness and love of pleasure. For what pleasure-lover or degenerate who goes so far as to think that human flesh being food is a good thing would be able to welcome death gladly, as that which deprives him of his desires. Would he not endeavor at all costs to remain forever in this [corporeal] mode of existence and escape the notice of rulers, rather than announce publicly that he is ready to die?

technique used by Christians (e.g., Minucius Felix, Octavius 21) and non-Christians (e.g., Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods 1.119). Antinous was deified in 130 c.e., and Antinoopolis was founded near the site of his death (Cassius Dio 69.11). 33. Erastēs: the senior partner in a pederastic relationship. Eusebius wants to contrast Justin as a genuine erastēs with Hadrian as false erastēs to his beloved, or eromenos, Antinous. 34. Justin, 1 Apol. 29. 35. 1 Apol. 31. 36. Eusebius identifies the passage as being from “the same work” from which he has just quoted (i.e., 1 Apology), but the passage here is found in the work currently known as Justin’s Second Apology (2 Apol. 12).

book 4

185

6 Furthermore, the same writer recounts that Hadrian received a letter from the governor Serenius Granianus, vir clarissimus,37 on behalf of the Christians, which stated that it would not be just to kill them indiscriminately without any formal charge, merely to humor the cries of the populace. And [he also recounts] that Hadrian sent a rescript to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, ordering him not to judge any case without a formal charge and a reasonable accusation. 7 And he includes a copy of the rescript, preserving [it] in the Roman language as he had it, and prefaces it thus:38 And we could demand, based on the letter of the Great and Most Distinguished Caesar Hadrian, your father, just as we think we have the right, that you order trials [to be held]. But instead we shall not demand this as our right based on what Hadrian ordered, but [simply] from knowing that what we request is just. But we also append the copy of Hadrian’s letter, in order that you will know that we speak the truth; and this is it:

8 To this the aforementioned man adds the Roman rescript itself, but we have translated it according to our ability into Greek, and it runs thus:39 A L E T T E R O F HA D R IA N I N FAVO R O F T H E FAC T T HAT W E SHO U L D N O T B E P U R SU E D W I T HO U T T R IA L

chapter 9. To Minucius Fundanus,40 I received a letter written to me by Serenius Granianus, vir clarissimus,41 whom you succeeded [in office]. It does not, therefore, seem right to leave the matter without considering it, so that the people will not be disturbed and no opportunity will be afforded to informers for wrongdoing. 2 If,

37. Eusebius is using a Greek phrase that translates the Latin vir clarissimus, the honorific given to those of the senatorial class; he is repeating the title from the letter to Minucius Fundanus (4.9.1). 38. Justin, 1 Apol. 68. 39. 1 Apol. 68. This rescript can be compared with Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan and Trajan’s rescript (Letters 10.96–97); see also 3.33.1–3. 40. Gaius Minucius (Minicius) Fundanus, proconsul of Asia 122/3 c.e. 41. The Latin honorific title, literally, “most renowned man,” held by men of senatorial rank.

186

the ecclesiastical history then, the provincials are able clearly to make a claim strong enough against the Christians that it can be judged before the tribunal, then in this case only move forward, but not based on requests and mere public outcry. For it is much more appropriate, if someone wishes to make an accusation, that you [formally] investigate the matter. 3 If, then, someone makes an accusation and shows that something was done that violates the laws, then determine things based on the force of the violation. By Hercules! If someone puts an accusation forward as an informant, use the utmost scrutiny and consider how you ought to determine punishment.

Such is Hadrian’s rescript. W HO T H E B I SHO P S O F T H E R OM A N S A N D A L E X A N D R IA N S W E R E I N T H E R E IG N O F A N T O N I N U S

chapter 10. When [Hadrian] had paid his [life’s] due after his twenty-first year, Antoninus, called Pius, succeeded to the Roman imperium.42 In his first year, Telesphorus departed life in his eleventh year of service, and Hyginus was allotted the Roman episcopacy. O N T H E H E R E SIA R C H S DU R I N G T H E I R R E IG N

Irenaeus, moreover, recounts that Telesphorus distinguished himself in death by martyrdom, and indicates in the same passage that, during the time of the aforementioned Roman bishop Hyginus, Valentinus, who introduced his own heresy, and Cerdon, the leader of Marcion’s form of error, were both well known in Rome. He writes thusly:43 chapter 11. Valentinus, for his part, came to Rome at the time of Hyginus, but flourished in the time of Pius, and remained until the time of Anicetus.44 Cerdon, who preceded Marcion, came into the church and made

42. July 138 c.e. 43. The preceding is in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.3; the quotation that follows is Against Heresies 3.4.3. 44. This would place him in Rome from the mid-130s–ca. 160 c.e.

book 4

187

confession during the time of Hyginus, who was ninth bishop, and went on, teaching in secret for a time, then making confession once again, before he was then accused for the wicked things he taught and separated from the assembly of the brothers.

2 He says this in the third book of Against Heresies. In the first book, moreover, he runs through the following about Cerdon:45 A certain Cerdon, who took the starting points [of his doctrine] from those of Simon’s circle and who resided in Rome when Hyginus held the ninth place after the apostles in the episcopal succession, taught that the god proclaimed by the law and the prophets is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He taught that the former is known, but the latter unknown, the former just, but the latter good. Marcion succeeded him and increased the school, blaspheming unabashedly.

3 The same Irenaeus vigorously unfolds the infinite depth of the variously errant stuff of Valentinus’s [doctrine], and exposes his evil as though it were a serpent lurking in hiding that escapes notice.46 4 And in addition to them he says that there was another man who lived during their time and was experienced in sorcerer’s trickery, Marcus47 was his name, and he writes, exposing their ineffectual and polluted mystagogies, in these very words:48 For some of them prepare bridal chambers and perform initiation into mysteries with certain invocations to the initiates and say that what they are doing is a “spiritual marriage” in the likeness of the couplings [in the realm] above, and they lead them to water and baptize them saying, “In the name of the unknown Father of the Universe, in the name of the Mother of the All, in the one who descended into Jesus.” Others, moreover, use Hebrew words to better confuse the initiates.

45. Against Heresies 1.27.1–2. Cerdon (fl. ca. 130–ca. 140 c.e.): a contemporary of Valentinus. Irenaeus and other second-century heresiologists connected him with Marcion because both differentiated the God of the Hebrew Bible (identified with the demiurge) from the God proclaimed by Jesus (identified as the highest, good God). 46. I.e., Irenaeus’s critique of Valentinian thought in Against Heresies 1.1–8. 47. Against Heresies 1.13–21 is the only real source on Marcus and the “Marcosians.” The emphasis on sexual immorality and word symbolism in the brief section that Eusebius quotes is exemplary of Irenaeus’s ad hominem caricatures of heresies. 48. Against Heresies 1.21.3.

188

the ecclesiastical history

6 But after Hyginus died after the [end of] the fourth year of his episcopacy, Pius was entrusted with the service in Rome. At Alexandria, moreover, Marcus was proclaimed shepherd after Eumenus had completed a total of thirteen years, and when Marcus took his rest in his tenth year of service, Celadion received the service of the Alexandrians’ church. And, in the city of the Romans, after Pius departed life in the fifteenth year of his episcopacy, Anicetus was made the leader of those there. Hegesippus recounts that he himself resided in Rome during his time, and that he remained there up to the episcopacy of Eleutherius. 8 Justin flourished especially during these times. Wearing philosophers’ garb he served as ambassador of the Divine Logos and fought the contest on behalf of faith with written compositions. He wrote, in fact, a treatise against Marcion,49 and mentions that at the time he wrote that man was still known to be alive; he says thus:50 9 But Marcion, a man from Pontus, is still even now teaching those he has persuaded to think that there is some other god greater than the demiurge. And through the assistance of demons he has convinced many throughout the whole human race to speak blasphemy and deny that the maker of this universe is the Father of the Christ, but instead to confess that some other, greater than him, has made it. And all of those who have been motivated by these claims, as we said, are called Christians, in the way that the name “philosophy” is applied in common to philosophers, even though their doctrines are not held in common.

10 He adds to this, saying: There is also a treatise of ours against all the heresies that have come into being, which we will give you if you wish to read it.

O N J U S T I N ’ S A P OLO G Y T O A N T O N I N U S

11 This same Justin labored most effectively against the Hellenes, and addressed an Apology containing other arguments on behalf of our faith to the emperor Antoninus, called Pius, and to the Roman Senate.

49. No longer extant. Eusebius does not list it in his catalogue of Justin’s works in 4.18 below, and probably knows of it secondhand from Justin’s reference in the passage quoted next. 50. 1 Apol. 26.

book 4

189

And he engaged in his pursuits in Rome. He makes clear who he was and where he was from, in these passages from his Apology:51 chapter 12. To Emperor Titus Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Pius, Caesar Augustus, and to Verissimus his son, the philosopher, and Lucius, son by nature of the philosopher-Caesar and adopted son of Pius, the lover of cultured learning,52 and to the sacred Senate and the whole Roman people, on behalf of the people from every race who are unjustly hated and abusively threatened, I who am one of them, Justinus Priscus, son of Bacheius, among those who hail from the city of Flavia Neapolis in Syria Palaestina, has composed this address and petition. A LET TER OF ANTONINUS TO THE C OU N C I L O F A SIA O N OU R D O C T R I N E

And when the same emperor was petitioned by other brothers from Asia who were being oppressed by the provincial communities he thought it right to send this order to the council of Asia.53 chapter 13. Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus,54 Armeniacus, pontifex maximus, with Tribunician power for the fifteenth time, to the council of Asia,55 greetings. 51. 1 Apol. 1. 52. The addressees are the emperor, Antoninus Pius, and his adopted sons and successors, Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. Note how Justin appeals to the emperors as fellow philosophers; this was characteristic of the culture of the Second Sophistic, when emperors frequently leveraged the symbolic capital afforded by styling themselves as philosophers. 53. The rescript is usually not considered authentic, but whether it is a complete forgery or simply interpolated is still debated. Also debated is whether Eusebius found this document appended to the Apology of Melito, cited just after as a witness, to the Apology of Justin, cited just prior, or independently (see A. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea [Leiden: Brill, 2003], 272–75); the phrasing at 4.13.8 below may indicate that it was transmitted along with the Apology of Melito. 54. Eusebius has just identified this as a rescript of Antoninus Pius, but it is addressed as a rescript of Marcus Aurelius. 55. This was a common council with representatives from the cities of the province and served as a vehicle for imperial communication and policy implementation with regional elites.

190

the ecclesiastical history

I know that even the gods are concerned that such people not escape notice. They, much more than you, should chastise those who do not wish to worship them. 3 You are throwing things into disorder when you accuse them as atheists, reinforcing the attitude they hold. Those so accused would prefer to be seen to die, rather than live, on behalf of their own god. Hence they will even emerge victorious, giving up their own souls rather than be persuaded to do what you order them. 4 But concerning the earthquakes that have occurred and continue to occur—it is not out of place to remind you who are disheartened when they happen, and compare our state of affairs with theirs. 5 They, for their part, have come to speak more boldly against the divine, while you, for your part, seem to ignore [the divine] whenever [the quakes] occur, and neglect the other gods and the worship that concerns the immortal.56 In fact, you pursue and persecute the Christians who worship [the divine] to the point of killing them. 6 On behalf of these people, many governors of the provinces have already written to our most divine father, and he has sent rescripts that such people should not be harassed unless they are seen making some attempt against Roman authority. And many have sent reports to me about these people, and I have sent them rescripts that follow the opinion of my father.57 7 But if anyone continues to bring suit against any of these kind of people based [simply] on their being of that sort, the accused shall be acquitted of the charge even if he does seem to be of that sort, while the accuser will be liable to judgment. Publicly posted in Ephesus in the council of Asia.

8 Melito, bishop of the church in Sardis and well known during the same period, testifies to these doings, as is clear from what he says in the Apology he made to the emperor Verus on behalf of our doctrine. W HAT I S M E N T IO N E D A B OU T P O LYC A R P, A C L O SE A S S O C IAT E O F T H E A P O ST L E S

chapter 14. During the period under discussion, when Anicetus was governing the Roman church, Polycarp, who was still living, came to Rome and conversed with Anicetus on the question of the [proper] 56. The Greek here is very convoluted and may indicate interpolations. 57. The rescript claims to be reiterating the policies set forth in rescripts of Antoninus Pius; on whether this may be a fiction, see T. D. Barnes, “Legislation against the Christians,” JRS 58 (1968): 37–38.

book 4

191

days for Pascha. 2 And the same writer provides another account about Polycarp, which must be appended to what has already been mentioned; it runs thusly:58 from the third book of irenaeus’s against heresies 3 And Polycarp was not only taught by the apostles and associated with many who had seen the Lord, but was even installed by the apostles in Asia as bishop of the church in Smyrna. 4 And we saw him in our youth (for he lived a long time and as a very old man departed this life as an esteemed and distinguished martyr).59 He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, which is what the church hands down as tradition, and which alone is true.60 5 All the churches throughout Asia bare witness to this, as well as Polycarp’s successors down to the present day, who are much more trustworthy and sound witnesses of the truth than Valentinus, Marcion, and the rest of those who hold wicked opinions.61 He also spent time in Rome during the time of Anicetus and turned many away from the aforementioned heretics toward the church of God, preaching that he had received this singular and unique truth, which is handed down as tradition by the church, from the apostles. 6 And there are those who heard from him that John, the Lord’s disciple, went out to bathe while in Ephesus, and when he saw Cerinthus inside he ran out of the bathhouse without having bathed, saying, “Let’s get out of here, in case the bathhouse collapses, for Cerinthus, the enemy of truth, is inside!” 7 And once, when Marcion came into sight and said, “Recognize us?” the same Polycarp replied, “I recognize you! I recognize the first-born of Satan!” The apostles and their students take such great care to share not even a word with those who debase the truth, as Paul said, “Dismiss a heretical person after one or two warnings, knowing that such a person is perverted and sins, and is selfcondemned.”62 8 There is also a very powerful letter of Polycarp to the

58. Against Heresies 3.3.4. 59. Eusebius (4.15.1) dates Polycarp’s martyrdom to the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–80), but other manuscripts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp say that he died when Lucius Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia (i.e., 156/7); the earlier date is usually preferred. 60. The preceding three sentences capture, succinctly, Irenaeus’s concept of apostolic succession; he situates himself in the succession as a student of Polycarp. 61. Note how Irenaeus’s assertions of apostolic authority are aimed against rival claims to possess authoritative traditions. 62. Titus 3:10–11.

192

the ecclesiastical history Philippians, from which those who wish and who take thought for their own salvation can learn both the character63 of his faith and the Preaching of the truth.

9 So writes Irenaeus. Polycarp, moreover, in his writing to the Philippians that was just mentioned, and which is preserved today, makes use of some testimonies from the first letter of Peter.64 10 When Antoninus, called Pius, had completed twenty-two years of rule, his son Marcus Aurelius Verus, also named Antoninus, together with his brother Lucius, succeeded him.65 HOW P O LYC A R P A L O N G W I T H O T H E R S WA S M A RT Y R E D I N T H E C I T Y O F SM Y R NA I N T H E T I M E O F V E RU S

chapter 15. In this period, when the din of major persecutions rang again in Asia, Polycarp was perfected in martyrdom. I think it is necessary to include the written account of his death, which is still in circulation, within the record of this narrative. 2 The writing is written by the church he led, and gives notice to the communities in the region of the matters relating to him in these words:66 3 The church of God residing as resident aliens67 in Smyrna to the church of God residing as resident aliens in Philomelium and to all the resident-alien communities of the holy universal church in every location, may the mercy, peace, and love of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ abound. We have written for you, brothers, an account of

63. “Character” translates charaktēr; like the English “character,” it connotes both the “nature” or “temperament” of something and a written mark or imprint. See 3.38.5, where the word is also used of texts. 64. The references to 1 Peter are in Polycarp, To the Philippians 1.3; 2.1, 2; 5.3; 7.2; 8.1; 10.2. 65. March 161 c.e. 66. Those wishing to compare Eusebius’s summaries and quotations of the Martyrdom of Polycarp with a critical edition should consult P. Hartog, ed., Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians and the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Introduction, Text, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). 67. Hē ekklēsia tou theou hē paroikousa; the phrase describes the Christian community as though it is a group of resident aliens in a community not their own; see also “community” in the glossary.

book 4

193

those who gave testimony and the blessed Polycarp, who, as though placing a seal by his testimony, brought the persecution to a close.

4 After this, before the account of Polycarp, they recount matters relating to the rest of the martyrs and describe what firm resolve they showed in the face of suffering. For they say that68 those standing in the audience were astounded when they saw them, at one point, cut by the lash down to their veins and arteries, so that the invisible parts of the body’s innards and their entrails and organs were actually exposed to view, and then at another point saw them dragged over seashells and sharp stones, and led through every form of punishment and torture, and finally saw them given as food to savage animals. 5 And they recount that a most wellborn man, Germanicus, especially distinguished himself, overcoming, with [the aid of] divine grace, the body’s innate dread of death. When the proconsul wanted to persuade him, pointing out his age and supplicating him that since he was quite young and in his prime he should take pity on himself, he did not even consider it, but eagerly presented himself to the beast, all but forcing and spurring it on, so that he could depart their unjust and unlawful life all the more quickly. 6 Upon his noble death, the whole crowd wondered at the manliness69 of the god-loving martyr and the virtue of the entire Christian race70, and began to shout en masse: “Seize the atheists! Find Polycarp!” 7 And as these cries were causing a great uproar, a certain man of Phrygian extraction, whose name was Quintus and who had only recently come from Phrygia, was struck in his soul and went soft71 when he saw the beasts and the other punishments that were being threatened, and ultimately forsook salvation. 8 The text of the aforementioned writing shows that he ran hastily to the tribunal along with the others, though without pious discretion, but that after being seized he nevertheless became a clear example to all that one ought not be so 68. From this point until 4.15.14 Eusebius is summarizing his source. 69. Andreia: “characteristic of a man” (anēr = male); often translated “courage,” but it is always a gendered term in Greek. 70. Genos; see “race” in the glossary. 71. Malakizomai: failing to exhibit andreia; the term has some of the valences of the modern Greek malakas and malakismenos, which when used disparagingly refer to a failed/feminized male.

194

the ecclesiastical history

reckless and without pious discretion. But such is how things turn out for men of this sort. 9 When the most wondrous Polycarp first heard what happened, he remained undisturbed and maintained a steadfast and unmoved demeanor, and he himself intended to stay put in the city. He was persuaded, however, by those of his circle,72 who entreated him and begged that he leave, and went out to a rural estate not far from the city, and resided there with a few others.73 Night and day he did nothing but endure in prayer to the Lord, asking and supplicating that peace be granted to the churches throughout the entire inhabited world—for this had always been his custom. 10 And as he prayed, three days before his arrest, he saw in a vision the pillow beneath his head suddenly burst into flames and burn up. At this he awoke, and immediately interpreted what he had seen for those who were there, all but predicting what was going to happen and clearly declaring to those of his circle that he had to depart this life by fire on account of Christ.74 11 Then, as those who were searching for him drew near with all haste, he was forced by the disposition and love of the brothers to move to another rural estate. His pursuers arrived there not long after, and seized two slaves.75 After torturing one of them, they learned from him where Polycarp was staying. 12 They arrived at a late hour, and found him reclining in an upper room. From here he could have moved to another house, but he had not wished to do so, saying, “God’s will be done.” 13 And upon learning that they were there, so the account goes, he went down to them and spoke with them pleasantly with a bright and gentle attitude, so that to those who had not known the man long he seemed a marvel, as they looked in wonder at his age and his august and calm demeanor, and wondered how there could be so much urgency to arrest an old man such as this.

72. Tois amph’ auton: his circle of closest associates (e.g., deacons and presbyters, but perhaps others of his household as well, such as servants). 73. I.e., members of his circle. 74. An example of imitatio Christi (imitation of Christ) in the Martyrdom of Polycarp; Polycarp, like Jesus, predicts his own death for his followers. 75. Literally, “boys,” but the fact that they are then tortured suggests that they are slaves, for torture was reserved for lower social classes.

book 4

195

14 But he did not hesitate, and immediately ordered a meal to be prepared for them, and then asked them to have as much food as they wanted, and asked them for one hour, that he might pray without disruption. They granted this, and he rose up and prayed, being full of the grace of the Lord, so that those who were present were amazed as they heard him, and many of them were already repenting that so august and godly an old man was going to be killed. 15 After these matters, the text of the narrative about him that follows goes like this, verbatim: Once he had stopped praying, having mentioned everyone he had ever encountered, both the great and the small, those held in esteem and those not, and the whole universal church throughout the inhabited world, and the hour for departure arrived, they seated him on a donkey and led him into the city; it was a “great Sabbath.”76 The irenarch,77 Herod, and his father, Nicetas, came out to meet him. They transferred him to a cart, and sitting down beside him they tried to sway him, saying, “Why is it so bad to say ‘Lord Caesar’ and offer sacrifice, so that you can be saved?” 16 At first he did not answer, but when they persisted he said, “I am not going to do what you advise me.” They stopped trying to sway him, and as they uttered terrifying insults they threw him down with such vigor that he cut his shin getting out of the cart. He did not even pause, but as if he had suffered nothing continued on readily and with vigor as he was led into the stadium. 17 The din in the stadium was so loud that not much could be heard, but a voice from heaven came to Polycarp as he entered the stadium: “Be strong, Polycarp, and be a man.” And no one saw who said this, but many of our people heard the voice. 18 Then, as he was brought forward, a great din rang out from [the crowd] when they heard Polycarp had been seized. Once he had been brought forward, the proconsul asked him whether he was [in fact] Polycarp, and when Polycarp acknowledged it, he urged him to deny, saying, “Have respect for your age,” and other things they are accustomed to say, like “Swear by the Fortune of Caesar,” “Have a change of mind,” “Say, ‘Seize the atheists.’” 19 Polycarp, though, looked up at the whole crowd in the stadium with a dignified expression, gestured at them and with a groan looked 76. Another example of imitatio Christi: Polycarp is led into the city where he will be martyred on a donkey, as Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey before his death (cf. Matt. 21:1–10 and parallels). 77. The irenarch seems to have been someone charged with keeping order at trials; it could be translated somewhat literally as “peace officer.”

196

the ecclesiastical history up to heaven and said, “Seize the atheists.” 20 But the governor pressed him, saying, “Swear, and I will release you. Rebuke Christ.” Polycarp said, “I have served him for eighty-six years, and he has never done me an injustice. How can I blaspheme my king, who saved me?” 21 But he persisted, saying, “Swear an oath to the Fortune of Caesar.” Polycarp said, “If you in your conceit suppose that I will swear an oath to the Fortune of Caesar, as you say, feigning that you do not know who I am, listen candidly—I am a Christian. But if you would like to learn the teaching of Christianity, name the day and listen.” 22 The proconsul said, “Persuade the people.” Polycarp said, “I consider you worthy of a speech, for we have been taught to give the appropriate honor to rulers and authorities, when it does not harm us to do so.78 But I do not consider them worthy of a speech of defense.79 23 The proconsul said, “I have beasts. I will throw you to them, unless you change your mind.” But he said, “Order it. For us, a change of mind from better to worse is not an allowable change. Rather, it is a fine thing to change from what is grievous to what is righteous.” 24 He said to him again, “I will order you subjected to fire, if you think so little of the beasts, unless you change your mind.” Polycarp said, “You threaten me with a fire that burns for a time, and is shortly quenched, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and the eternal punishment that awaits the impious. But why do you delay? Come, do what you will.” 25 As he said these and many other things he was filled with courage and joy, and his countenance was full of grace, so that not only did he not stumble when threatened by what [the proconsul] said to him, but on the contrary, the proconsul was astonished and sent the herald to proclaim in the middle of the stadium, “Three times has Polycarp confessed himself to be a Christian.” 26 Once this had been spoken by the herald, the whole throng of Gentiles and Jews who resided in Smyrna cried out with a great shout and with unbridled aggression, “This man is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians. He destroys our gods, and teaches the masses not to sacrifice or worship.” 27 As they said this, they called out, asking the Asiarch Philipp80 to set the lion upon Polycarp. But he said he was not allowed to, since the

78. Compare Rom. 13:1. 79. Apologia: the defendant’s speech. Polycarp will defend himself to the governor, but not offer a show speech for the crowd’s amusement. 80. Asiarch: a provincial official responsible for, among other things, the imperial cult and the organization of related games (as here).

book 4

197

venatio81 was over. Then, it seemed good to them, single-minded as they were, that Polycarp be burned alive. 28 For the vision of his burning pillow had to be fulfilled—after he had seen it burning while he was praying he had turned to those believers who were with him and said, prophetically, “I shall be burned alive.” 29 All of this happened more quickly than can be described—the crowd immediately gathered together wood and sticks from the workshops and baths, and the Jews were especially eager, as is their habit, to assist in this. 30 Once the fire was prepared he stripped himself of his robes and undid his undergarment, and tried to undo his own shoes, which he was not used to doing because each of the faithful were always eager to be the one who was quickest to touch his skin, for because he had lived such a virtuous life, he had been adorned with beauty before he went gray. 31 He was immediately tied to the structure that had been set up for the fire, and as they were also going to nail him to it he said, “Allow me this—for he who grants me to endure the fire will also grant me [the ability] to remain in the fire undisturbed, even without the security of your nails.”82 They did not nail him, but tied him. 32 He placed his hands behind his back and was bound, just as a noble ram offered up from a large flock as a whole-burnt offering acceptable to the All-Powerful God, and said, “Father of your beloved and blessed child Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge about you, the God of the angels and powers and all creation, and the whole race of the righteous who live in your presence. I praise you because you have deemed me worthy of this day and hour, to receive a share among the number of the martyrs in the cup of your Christ for the resurrection of eternal life, of both soul and body in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. 34 May I be received among them today in your presence as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, just as you the true God who never dies have prepared and shown [me] beforehand and [now] fulfilled. 35 For this and for all things I sing your praises, I bless you, I glorify you through the eternal high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved child, through whom glory be to you with him in the Holy Spirit, now and in the ages to come. Amen.” 36 As he sent up the Amen and completed the prayer the people building the fire83 lit the fire, and as great flames rose up, we to whom 81. Venatio: a staged “hunt” in which gladiators acting as hunters (bestiarii) killed wild animals in the arena. This was also the performance during which condemned criminals could be sent out to be killed by the animals. 82. Meant to evidence Polycarp’s well-practiced impassivity. 83. Literally, “the people of the fire.”

198

the ecclesiastical history it was given to see it saw something wondrous, and we have been preserved so we can report what happened to others. 37 For the fire took on the form of an arch, like a linen sail filled by the wind84, and surrounded the body of the martyr. Within, he was not like burning flesh, but like gold and silver being refined in a furnace, and we scented such a pleasant odor, like the wafting of frankincense or another honorable spice.85 38 After some time, the lawless ones saw that the body could not be burned up by the fire, and ordered a confector86 to approach him and stab him with a sword. 39 As he did this, a mass of blood poured out, so that the fire was quenched, and the whole crowd marveled that there could be so great a difference between the unbelievers and the elect.87 And that most marvelous apostolic and prophetic teacher of our day, the bishop of the universal church in Smyrna, was certainly one of the elect. For every utterance that left his mouth was brought to fulfillment and will be fulfilled. 40 But that wicked rival and slanderer who stands in opposition to the race of the righteous saw the greatness of his martyrdom and the unassailable way of life he maintained from the beginning, and that he was crowned with the crown of incorruption and had won the undisputed prize, and so arranged that we would not receive his body, even though many intensely desired to do this and to have fellowship with his holy flesh.88 41 Thus, some provoked Nicetas, the father of Herod, and brother of Alces, to ask the governor not to hand over the body, “in case,” he said, “they abandon the crucified one and begin to worship this one.”89 And he said this because the Jews suggested it and pressured him. They, moreover, stood watch as we were going to take him from the fire, being ignorant of the fact that we will never be able to forsake the Christ, who suffered for the sake of the salvation of those

84. Pneuma: “wind” or “spirit.” 85. Frankincense: associated with the presence of divinity. 86. Eusebius transliterates the Latin. A confector was charged with “finishing off ” the condemned in the arena. 87. Another instance of imitatio Christi; Polycarp is stabbed and bleeds like Jesus (cf. John 19:34). 88. The community wishes to take Polycarp’s body in order to venerate it as part of the martyr cult. 89. This request echoes Matt. 27:62–66, where Pilate is asked to post guards at Jesus’s tomb to prevent his followers from stealing the body and falsely claiming the he was resurrected.

book 4

199

throughout the whole world who are saved, nor worship any other. 42 For we worship him as the Son of God, but we love the martyrs as students and imitators of the Lord, as is worthy, for the sake of their unsurpassable affection toward their own King and Teacher. May we become their partners and fellow students.90 43 Now, when the centurion saw that the Jews were being contentious, he set [the body] in the middle [of the fire], as is their habit, and burned it. And so later we collected his bones, more dear than precious stones and more valuable than gold, and placed them in a fitting place. There, when we can, the Lord allows us to gather to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom with exultation and joy, both in memory of those who have previously competed and for the training and for the preparation of those who will compete. 45 Such were the affairs relating to the blessed Polycarp, who, when numbered together with those from Philadelphia, was the twelfth person martyred, and who by himself is specially remembered by all, so that he is even spoken of by the Gentiles everywhere.

46 Such is the account of the marvelous and apostolic Polycarp, who was deemed worthy of so great a death, the narrative of which the brothers of the church of the Smyrnaeans set out in the letter of theirs that we have mentioned. To this same writing about him other martyrdoms are appended that occurred in the same city of Smyrna in the same time period as the martyrdom of Polycarp. Among them was Metrodorus, who seems to have been a presbyter belonging to the error of Marcion, who was sentenced to death by fire. 47 A certain Pionius, moreover, was one of the famous martyrs at that time. The reports about him give a point-by-point account of his outspokenness, and his instructive and popularizing defense speeches that he presented to the people and the rulers on behalf of the faith, as well as how he extended his right hand to those who had succumbed to temptation in the persecution, and the encouragement he gave to the brothers who visited him in prison, and in addition to this, the punishments he endured, and on top of them the pain, both how he was nailed, his patient endurance of the fire, and after all his miracles, his 90. Note how the text is invested in defining boundaries between idolatry, the cult of the martyrs, and the worship of Christ. To both insiders and outsiders, the cult of the martyrs could look like the worship of traditional deities and heroes, on the one hand, and the worship of Christ/God, on the other.

200

the ecclesiastical history

death. The writing that contains all this about him we have arranged in more complete form together with the martyrdoms of the ancients that we have collected—and to it I shall refer all whom it pleases.91 48 Next, records of others martyred in the city of Pergamum in Asia are in circulation: Carpus, Papylos, and a woman, Agathonike, who were perfected gloriously after many noble confessions. HOW J U S T I N T H E P H I L O S O P H E R WA S M A RT Y R E D W H I L E AC T I N G A S A M BA S S A D O R O F T H E D O C T R I N E O F C H R I S T I N T H E C I T Y O F R OM E

chapter 16. During this period, too, the Justin we mentioned shortly before presented a second book to the aforementioned rulers on behalf of the doctrines we hold, and was adorned with divine martyrdom when Crescens—who was a zealot for the life and habit that bears the name Cynic—stitched up a plot against him, because Justin had often refuted him in public debates with audiences present. Ultimately, when he was perfected in death by his martyrdom he wore the victory laurels of the truth whose ambassador he was. 2 Justin, who was in all the truest senses most philosophical, even anticipated this, and indicates so clearly in the aforementioned Apology just was what plotted against him, in these words:92 3 I, too, expect to be plotted against by one of those I have named, and fixed to a stake—maybe even by Crescens, that most un-philosophical glory-hound. For the man is not worthy of the name philosopher, when knowing not of what he speaks he accuses us publicly, claiming that Christians are godless and impious, and doing this to please the errant masses and win their favor. 4 For if he comes after us without having read the teachings of Christ he is utterly wicked and much worse than common people, who often guard against accusing or bearing false witness against what they do not understand. And if he has read them and does not understand the greatness in these teachings, or understands,

91. A reference to his Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms; see also 5.pr.2; 5.21.2–5. 92. Justin, 2 Apol. 3. Eusebius states that this passage comes from the 1 Apology, but it is found in what scholars know today as the Second Apology (2 Apology); in Eusebius’s manuscript they were probably presented as a single text.

book 4

201

but acts so that he won’t be suspected of being one, he is even more ignoble and utterly wicked, being bested by stupid and irrational opinion and fear. 5 For I would have you know that I put questions to him and asked him certain things, and learned that he truly knows nothing. And to prove that I speak the truth, if the common records of these disputations have not come to you, I am ready to participate in disputation again in your presence, for this would be a kingly thing. 6 But if my questions and his answers are known to you, it is evident to you that he knows nothing of us. Or if he does know and because of fear of the audience does not dare say so, as I said before, he is not a philosophical, but glory-loving man who has no respect for that most admirable Socratic saying.93

7 So writes Justin. And that he did die because Crescens plotted against him, according to his own prediction, is recounted by Tatian—a man who first lived a life of sophistry amid the learning of the Hellenes and enjoyed no small amount of glory among them for it, and left behind many records about Justin in his writings—in his [Oration] to the Hellenes, saying thus:94 And the most marvelous Justin righty declared the aforementioned [men] to be brigands.95

8 Then when making some statements about the philosophers, he adds this:96 Crescens, who built his nest in the great city, excelled everyone in pederasty, and was utterly fixated on avarice. 9 He advised despising death, but feared death so much himself that he even plotted to have Justin put to death, as though it were a great evil, because by proclaiming the truth Justin refuted the philosophers as gluttons and deceivers.

And such is the cause to which he has ascribed Justin’s martyrdom.

93. Eusebius cuts the passage before Justin quotes the Socratic saying “A man must not be honored above the truth” (Plato, Republic 595c). 94. Tatian, Oration to the Hellenes 18. 95. In context, Tatian is claiming that Justin called practitioners of materialist apotropaic healing practices “brigands” because they manipulate demons into kidnapping the gullible by causing illness only to make a public show of curing it. 96. Tatian, Oration to the Hellenes 19.

202

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E M A RT Y R S J U S T I N M E N T IO N S I N H I S OW N W R I T I N G

chapter 17. But the same man97 mentions in his previous Apology that before his contest others were martyred before him, and helpfully recounts these matters in his speech. He writes thus:98 A certain woman lived with a licentious man, and she had also been licentious previously. But when she came to know the teachings of Christ, she became self-controlled, and likewise tried to persuade the man to take up self-control, presenting the teachings and proclaiming to him the punishment in eternal fire that was going to come for those who do not live with self-control with right reason. 3 But he persisted in the same wantonness, and by his actions made his wife a stranger. For the woman thought it impious to continue to lie together with a man who persisted in pursuing every means of pleasure contrary to the law of nature and justice, and decided to leave her yokemate. 4 And when her people tried to shame her, counseling her to remain, suggesting that there was hope that the man would at some point change, she forced herself to stay. 5 But when her man had traveled to Alexandria, and she was informed that he was being even worse, in order that she would not become a sharer of his injustices and impieties by remaining in the marriage and cohabiting and sleeping with him she gave him what you call a repudium99 and was separated from him. 6 But this fine and noble example of a man, who should have rejoiced when she stopped doing what she used to have no hesitation about doing with the slaves and paid staff, rejoicing in drink and every kind of evil, and which she also counseled him to stop, and whom she left because he did not want to stop, made an accusation, saying that she was a Christian. 7 And she presented you, the emperor, with a petition asking that she first be granted leave to make arrangements for her affairs and then present her defense against the accusation after she had arranged her affairs; and leave was granted. 8 But her former husband, since he was no longer able to speak out against her, attacked a certain Ptolemaeus, whom Urbicus100 punished, who was her teacher in Christian learning, in the following way. 9 He persuaded a centurion, who happened to be a friend of his and who imprisoned Ptolemaeus, to accost him and ask him this

97. I.e., Justin. 98. Justin, 2 Apol. 2. 99. Latin term for a writ of legal divorce. 100. Q. Lollius Urbicus, urban prefect of Rome 146–ca. 160 c.e.

book 4

203

one question: whether he was a Christian. And Ptolemaeus, being a lover of truth whose attitude was neither duplicitous nor given to false speech, confessed himself to be a Christian, was put in chains by the centurion, and was subject to punishment for a long time in prison. 10 Finally, when the man was led before Urbicus he was likewise asked a single question: whether he was a Christian. And again, knowing all the good things that were his through the teaching that comes from Christ, confessed the teaching of divine virtue. 11 For one who denies does so either because he has rejected the thing he is being accused of or runs away from confessing it because he knows himself not to merit it and to be other than the thing he is accused of being. Neither is the case for the true Christian. 12 And when Urbicus ordered him led away, a certain Lucius, who was also a Christian, seeing that the judgment was delivered so irrationally, said to Urbicus, “What is the charge? How can you punish this man when he has not been found guilty as an adulterer, fornicator, murderer, thief, robber, or even of anything unjust at all, but only for confessing the appellation of the name Christian? Your judgment, O Urbicus, is not fit for Emperor Pius nor the philosopher son of Caesar, nor the sacred Senate.” 13 And Urbicus said nothing in reply, but said to Lucius, “You, too, seem to me to be one.” And when Lucius said, “Absolutely,” he immediately ordered him to be led away. But he confessed that he was thankful, for he said that he was leaving wicked despots such as this and going to meet a good Father and King, God. And a third person came forward and was sentenced to be punished.

It is after this that Justin appropriately and accordingly adds the statement we mentioned before, saying: “I, too, expect to be plotted against by one of those I have named,” and the rest. W HAT WO R K S O F J U S T I N HAV E C OM E D OW N T O U S

chapter 18. This man [Justin] has left behind many written records of a well-educated mind diligent about divine matters, and which are full of what is useful; to them we shall direct lovers of learning, usefully taking note101 of those that have come to our knowledge. 101. Parasēmainomai: literally, “to place marks beside”; an example of Eusebius encouraging his readers to imagine processes of composition, since making marginal marks within texts and collecting noteworthy passages for later use would have been how Eusebius compiled the material for the HE.

204

the ecclesiastical history

2 One is a public oration addressed to Antoninus, named Pius, and his sons and the Roman Senate, on behalf of the doctrines we hold, while the second contains an apology on behalf of our faith, which he made to his successor and namesake, Antoninus Verus, the events of whose reign we are going through at present.102 3 And another To the Hellenes, in which he holds forth at length upon many questions investigated both by us and by the philosophers among the Greeks and discusses the nature of demons; these there is no pressing need to quote now. 4 And, in turn, another composition of his addressed to the Hellenes has come down to us, which he titled Refutation, and besides these another, On the Monarchy of God, which he put together not only from the writings of our people, but from Hellenic books as well.103 5 In addition, he has written Psaltes, and a scholikon On the Soul,104 in which he discusses at length various questions concerning the topic named in the title, and sets down the opinions of the Greek philosophers, and also promises to refute them and that he will set down his opinion in another work. 6 And he composed a dialogue against the Jews, which he held in Ephesus against Trypho, the most famous among the Jews of that time.105 In it divine grace in a certain way urged him on to the doctrine of the faith, and he mentions how he had previously applied himself diligently to philosophical teachings, and what a spirited inquiry he made in search of truth. 7 In this work he recounts how the Jews collaborated against the teaching of Christ, and holds forth against Trypho on these very points:106 Not only did you not recant what you wickedly did, but at that time you selected picked men and sent them from Jerusalem throughout the

102. To be identified with the works that now go by the titles 1 Apology and 2 Apology. 103. The three texts just listed (To the Hellenes, Refutation, On the Monarchy of God) are often identified with three works falsely attributed to Justin, respectively, Oratio ad Graecos, Cohortatio ad Graecos, De monarchia, though recent scholarship has shown that the situation is much more complex; see discussion in Carriker, Library of Eusebius, 222. Note also the contrast Eusebius makes at the end of this sentence, showing that he conceives of ecclesiastical writings as something akin to an ethnic literature. 104. Neither of these works is extant; perhaps Psaltes treated the Psalms. A “scholikon” was an introductory school-text. 105. Known today by the title Dialogue with Trypho. 106. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 17.

book 4

205

whole earth, saying that a godless heresy of the Christians had appeared and accusing us of what all who are ignorant say about us, with the result that you are the cause of injustice not only for yourselves, but quite simply, for all other people as well.

8 He also writes that even up to his day the prophetic gifts shined upon the church, and has mentioned the Apocalypse of John, saying plainly that it is from the apostle, and mentioned certain prophetic utterances as he levels the charge against Trypho that Jews, in fact, excised them from the scripture.107 Many other works of his labors are handed down among many brothers, 9 and to the men of old, the man’s discourses also seemed worthy of attention. Consequently, Irenaeus calls his words to mind, adding these very words in the fourth book of Against Heresies:108 And Justin says it well in his composition against Marcion, that he would not be convinced by the Lord himself if he spoke of another god besides the demiurge.

And in the fifth book on the same subject [he adds] this in these words:109 And he said it well, that before the advent of the Lord, Satan never once dared to blaspheme God, for he did not yet know of the judgment against him.

10 Let what has been said be sufficient encouragement for lovers of learning to study this man’s discourses. Such are the matters relating to him. W HO L E D T H E C H U R C H E S O F T H E R OM A N S A N D A L E X A N D R IA N S I N T H E R E IG N O F V E RU S

chapter 19. When the reign we are considering was already entering its eighth year,110 Soter succeeded Anicetus, who had been bishop 107. 108. 109. 110.

Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 82. Against Heresies 4.6.2. Against Heresies 5.26.2. 168 c.e.

206

the ecclesiastical history

of the Romans’ church for eleven full years, and also, after Celadion had headed the community of the Alexandrians for fourteen years, Agrippinus assumed the succession. W HO T H E [ B I SHO P S ] O F A N T IO C H W E R E

chapter 20. And Theophilus became well known as the sixth in succession from the apostles in the Antiochenes’ church, the fourth, after Hero, being Cornelius, and after him, Eros receiving the episcopacy fifth. O N T H E R E N OW N E D E C C L E SIA ST IC A L W R I T E R S I N T H E I R DAY

chapter 21. In this period Hegesippus also flourished in the church—he whom we know from what we said about him previously, and Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, as well as both Pinytus, another bishop of those in Crete, and Philipp, and in addition to them Apolinarius, and Melito, Musanus, and Modestus, and above all Irenaeus.111 And the orthodoxy of their sound faith in the apostolic tradition has come down in written form to us, too. O N H E G E SI P P U S A N D W HAT H E M E N T IO N S

chapter 22. Now, then, Hegessipus has left a quite full record of his views in the five books of hypomnēmata that have come to us. In them he indicates that he met together with many bishops when sent on a journey even as far as Rome, and that he received the same teaching from all of them. One can, moreover, listen to him as he adds, after some statements about the letter of Clement to the Corinthians:112 2 And the church of the Corinthians abided in the right doctrine up to the time when Primus was bishop in Corinth. I met with him when sailing to Rome and spent a fair number of days with the Corinthians, during which we were supplied by right doctrine. 3 When I was in 111. Apollinaris and Melito: see 4.26; Musanus: see 4.28; Modestus: see 4.25. 112. Fragments of Hegesippus’s Hypomnēmata. The letter of Clement mentioned here is usually identified with the text known today as 1 Clement.

book 4

207

Rome I made a succession list up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus, and Soter succeeded Anicetus, after whom was Eleutherus. In succession and in each city it was exactly as the law, the prophets, and the Lord preach.

4 The same [writer] includes the beginnings of the heresies of his day, with these words: And after James the Just was martyred, as also was the Lord, and for the same statement,113 a son of his own uncle, Simon, the son of Clopas, was in turn appointed bishop. All nominated him because he was another first cousin of the Lord. On account of this, they used to call the church “virgin,” for it had not yet been defiled by vain hearsay. 5 But Thebouthis, because he was not made bishop, began to undermine it by way of the seven heresies that exist among the people, and from which he came. From them came Simon, from which come Simonians, and Clebius, from which come the Clebians, Dositheus, the Dosithanians, and Gorthaius, the Gorthians and Masbotheans. From these [come] the Menandrianists and Marcionists, and Carpocratians and Valentinians, Basilidians and Saturnilians. Each of them, in a manner peculiar to itself and different from the others, surreptitiously introduced his own opinion, 6 and from them come pseudo-christs, pseudo-prophets, and pseudo-apostles who divided the unity of the church with corrupting doctrines against God and against his Christ.

7 The same [writer] yet further recounts the ancient heresies that existed among the Jews, saying: There were different opinions within the circumcision, among the sons of the Israelites, who were against the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galilaeans, Hermerobaptists, Masbotheoi, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.114

8 And he wrote many other things, portions of which we have already mentioned when we set down his narratives at the appropriate points [in our narrative]. And he sets down some [passages] from the Gospel

113. See the passage of Hegesippus quoted above at 2.23.10–13, where James makes a statement about the Son of Man that parallels Jesus’s statement to the priests at Mark 14:61–62. 114. The idea of there being several heresies or sects among the Jewish people is reminiscent of Josephus’s accounts of Jewish sects (Antiquities 18.1; War 2.119–66).

208

the ecclesiastical history

According to the Hebrews both in Syriac and especially in the Hebrew language,115 which shows that he himself came to believe from among the Hebrews, and he mentions other things as coming from unwritten Jewish tradition. 9 But not only he, but also Irenaeus and the whole chorus of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon “all-virtuous Wisdom.” And concerning what are called “apocrypha,” he recounts that some of them were forged by certain heretics during his time. But we must move on to another [writer]. O N D IO N YSI U S , B I SHO P O F C O R I N T H , AND THE LET TERS HE WROTE

chapter 23. Now, about Dionysius it must first be said that he was entrusted with the throne of the episcopacy of the community in Corinth, and that he shared his inspired love of labor not only with those under his supervision, but unselfishly with those in other places, making himself most useful to all in the general letters he inscribed to the churches.116 2 The first of these is a letter of instruction on orthodoxy, which treats the subjects of both peace and unity, to the Lacedaemonians; a letter encouraging faith and the way of life that is in accordance with the gospel, to the Athenians, in which he accuses them of having little of it by all but abandoning the Logos since the time of their bishop Publius’s martyrdom, which occurred during the persecution of that period. 3 He mentions Quadratus, who became their bishop after the martyred Publius, testifying that through his diligence they gathered together and received a rekindling of faith. In addition to these matters, he indicates that Dionysus the Areopagite, who according to the 115. It is not clear what relationship this text may have to gospels in Aramaic described by Irenaeus, Jerome, and Epiphanius; see A. F. J. Klijn and G. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973). 116. Dionysius of Corinth’s writings are known only from Eusebius’s references to them here. His list of letters suggests that he is working from a manuscript with the letters collected in the order listed. His descriptions (e.g., “letter of instruction on orthodoxy . . . to the Lacedaemonians”) probably repeat the headings of the letters as transmitted in his collection.

book 4

209

events shown in Acts was led to the faith by the apostle Paul, was the first appointed to the episcopacy of the community in Athens. 4 Another letter of his to the Nicomedians is handed down, in which he combats the heresy of Marcion by comparing it to the rule of truth. 5 And writing to the church residing in Gortyna together with the rest of the communities throughout Crete, he receives the bishop Philipp, testifying to the manly virtues of the church under his supervision, and reminds them to be on guard against the perversion of the heretics. 6 And writing to the church residing in Amastris together with those throughout Pontus, he mentions the fact that Bacchilides and Elpistus encouraged him to write; he includes exegeses of the Divine Writings, and intimates that the name of their bishop was Palmas. He offers them many exhortations on marriage and chastity, and orders them to extend the right hand of friendship to those who turn back from any apostasy, whether by mistake or, in fact, from heretical error. 7 With these is counted another letter to Knossos, in which he asks Pinytus, the bishop of the community, not to impose a heavy, compulsory burden concerning chastity upon the brothers, and to keep in mind the weakness of average people.117 8 Writing in response to this letter, Pinytus expresses his wonder and receives Dionysius, but also asks in return that Dionysius at some time provide more solid food, to nourish the people under him once more with more advanced letters, so that they would not to the very end have to study words as though they were infants’ milk, and, growing old, be lost in childish pursuits. In this letter, the orthodoxy of Pinytus’s faith, his concern for the welfare of his subordinates, and his erudition and understanding concerning divine matters are revealed as though in a most accurate image. Furthermore, a letter of Dionysius to the Romans is also handed down, addressed to Soter, who was then the bishop. Nothing is like setting down the passages in which he approves the custom of the Romans that was preserved up to the persecutor in our day; he writes this: 10 For this has been your custom from the beginning: to provide a variety of benefactions to all mothers and to send resources to all the churches in every city, thereby refreshing the poverty of those in need,

117. Hoi polloi: “the many,” with definite classist overtones.

210

the ecclesiastical history and providing for those brothers in the mines, with the provision that you, Romans who keep the Roman custom handed down from your fathers, have always sent. Not only has your blessed bishop Soter maintained this custom; he has even increased it, providing the abundance that is sent to the saints, and greeting the brothers who come [to Rome] with blessed words, as a loving father does his children.

11 In the same letter he also mentions the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, indicating that from the outset and based on ancient custom it has been read in the church. He says, therefore: Today we celebrated the holy day of the Lord, during which we read your letter, which we will always read for admonishment, as we do the letter sent to us before by Clement.

12 The same [writer] furthermore says this concerning the fact that his own letters were fraudulently tampered with: When brothers asked me to write them letters, I wrote to them. And the apostles of the devil have loaded them with weeds—some things they have taken out, others they have added in. Woe is laid out for them! And it is no wonder indeed if some have also attempted to falsify the lordly writings,118 when they have attempted it with writings that are not nearly as great.

13 And besides these there is another of Dionysius handed down, which he sent to the most faithful sister, Chrysophora, in which he writes of things correspondingly appropriate [i.e., to her]119 and gives her rational food. Such are the matters relating to Dionysius. O N T H E O P H I LU S , B I SHO P O F A N T IO C H

chapter 24. Of Theophilus, whom we have pointed out as a bishop of the church of the Antiochenes, three elementary compositions To Autolycus are handed down, and another which has the title Against the Heresy of Hermogenes, in which he has made use of testimonies

118. Kyriakai graphai: the phrase “lordly writings” is not entirely clear, and may refer to writings containing sayings of Jesus, or may refer more generally to writings about/related to Christ. 119. I.e., to her situation, her gender, or, probably, both.

book 4

211

from the Apocalypse of John.120 And there are also some other instructional books of his that have been handed down. When, in fact, the heretics were also at that time no less engaged in ruining the pure seed of the apostolic teaching, like weeds, the shepherds of the churches everywhere were beating them off from Christ’s sheep just as though they were some kind of savage beasts. At one moment they restrained them by offering counsel and exhortation to the brothers, at another they stripped down for more open contest against them, correcting them in face-to-face questions and rebuttals that were not written, but also, moreover, with the most precise refutations in the form of written hypomnēmata. The fact that Theophilus soldiered against these [heretics] together with the other [bishops] is clear from a discourse against Marcion upon which he has exerted no dishonorable labor, and which has itself even still now been preserved along with the others we have mentioned. Maximinus, moreover, succeeded this [Theophilus] as the seventh [bishop] from the apostles in the church of the Antiochenes. O N P H I L I P P A N D M O D E ST U S

chapter 25. Philipp, then, whom we know from the statements of Dionysius was bishop of the community in Gortyna, has himself produced a most diligent discourse against Marcion, and Irenaeus likewise, and Modestus, who in a manner most exceptional compared to the others has exposed the man’s error to everyone. And there are many others, whose labors have been preserved even still now among many of the brothers.121 O N M E L I T O A N D W HAT H E M E N T IO N S

chapter 26. During this period both Melito, bishop of the community in Sardis, and Apolinarius, bishop of that in Hierapolis, flourished with distinction, and they each addressed an apologetic discourse to him who has already been mentioned as being Roman emperor during 120. To Autolycus is extant, but the work against Hermogenes and the “discourse against Marcion” mentioned below are not. 121. Of these only Irenaeus’s Against Heresies has survived.

212

the ecclesiastical history

these times. 2 Of their works that have come to our knowledge the following are ascribed to Melito: two books On the Pascha, [one] On Polity and Prophets, the discourse On the Church and On the Lord’s Day, still further On Human Faith, On Creation, On the Obedience of Faith of the Senses, and in addition to these, On Soul and Body, On Baptism, On Truth, On Faith, and The Birth of Christ, and his discourse On Prophecy,122 and On Soul and Body, On Hospitality to Strangers, and The Key, and the [works] On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John, and On the Embodiment of God, and finally his petition, To Antoninus.123 3 Now, in the beginning of On the Pascha he indicates the time he composed the work, in these words:124 When Servilius Paulus was governor of Asia, at the time when Sagaris was martyred, a major question arose in Laodicea concerning the Pascha, for it was about to occur, and this [treatise] was written.

4 Clement of Alexandria mentions this discourse in his discourse On Pascha, which he says he himself was prompted to compose by the writing of Melito. 5 But in the book to the emperor, he recounts that things such as these were done against us under him:125 For that which had never occurred is now happening: the race of the god-fearing are persecuted, driven from throughout Asia by dogmata [ordinances]. For shameless accusers and those who lust after others’ property have taken their launching point from these decrees, and now they openly commit theft, night and day plundering those who have committed no injustices.

6 And after other things, he says: If, in fact, this is done because you have ordered it, then it is a thing well done, for a just emperor would never counsel something unjust, and we will gladly bear the privilege of such a death. This petition alone we

122. Reading a well-attested variant against Schwartz; Schwartz’s text here would be translated “and the discourse/book of his prophecy.” 123. The only portions of this impressive list of works to survive are a homily On Pascha (whether it is to be identified with the On Pascha from which Eusebius quotes next is still debated) and the fragments of the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius that Eusebius quotes below. 124. Fragment of Melito, On Pascha. 125. The following three passages are fragments of Melito, Apology.

book 4

213

bring to you, that you yourself first take cognizance of those who are engaged in such love of contention, and justly adjudicate whether they are worthy of death and punishment, or salvation and respite. But if, in fact, this counsel and this new ordinance have not come from you—one that is not even fit for barbarian enemies—even more so do we ask you not to overlook us who are subject to what is nothing but common theft!

7 He continues after this, saying: For the philosophy current among us first grew among barbarians, but flowered among your nations during the great reign of your ancestor Augustus, and it became an auspicious good for your empire. From that time on, the power of the Romans increased in greatness and splendor. You have become the prayed-for successor of that imperium, and so you shall be, along with your son, protecting that philosophy that was nourished together with the empire and began with Augustus.126 This philosophy your ancestors honored along with the other modes of worship, 8 and this is a great sign of the fact that the logos127 current among us increased for the better along with the empire that began so well: nothing wicked opposed it from the time of Augustus’s reign, but on the contrary it was met with every splendor and honor according to the prayers of all [the emperors]. 9 Of all of them, only Nero and Domitian, who had been dissuaded by some malicious man, wished to subject the doctrine current among us to slander, and thanks to them false accusations against such people came to flow by irrational habit. 10 But your pious fathers corrected the ignorance of those people, often rebuking many people in writing, whomever dared some new [lie] about them. Your grandfather Hadrian shows this in the many letters he wrote to various recipients, and even to Fundanus the proconsul who governed Asia. Your father—with you serving with him in the administration of all affairs—wrote to the cities concerning the fact that no innovation should be introduced concerning us—among these are letters to the Larissans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and to all the Hellenes. 11 But because you have the same attitude as they do concerning them,128 and are even more philanthropic 126. Melito influenced Eusebius’s own arguments for the synchronicity of the Roman Empire and the advent of Christianity (e.g., DE 139d–140b). 127. Logos is difficult to translate in this passage, for it conveys the “account” (i.e., the “gospel”) and the “doctrine” or “philosophy” current among Christians, as is clear from the preceding sentence. 128. “Them” refers to the Christians; in the previous sentence Melito has used “us.”

214

the ecclesiastical history and more philosophical, we are convinced that you will do all we request of you.

12 This stands in the aforementioned discourse, but in the Eclogues129 written by him, he himself begins the prooimion by making a catalogue of the agreed-upon writings of the old covenant, which it is also necessary to list here; he writes thusly: 13 Melito to brother Onesimus, greetings. Since you have often asked, in the diligence you have about discourse,130 to have extracts from both the Law and the Prophets concerning the Savior and our whole faith, and also wished to learn with accuracy about the ancient books—both how many there are and their order—I undertook eagerly to do this, knowing your diligence concerning the faith and your love of learning when it comes to discourse, and that you judge these matters to be the most important in your yearning for God, as you struggle in the contest for eternal salvation. 14 So, then, when I came to Anatolia and arrived at the place where this was preached and practiced, and learned accurately the books of the old covenant, I drew up an ordered list and sent it to you. These are the names [of the books]: five [books] of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy); Joshua Nave, Judges, Ruth, four [books of] Kingdoms, two [books] of Chronicles; Psalms of David; Proverbs of Solomon and Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve [in a single book]), Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From these I have made the Extracts, extending to six books.

Such are the words of Melito. O N A P O L L I NA R I S

chapter 27. Of the many works of Apollinaris preserved among many [brothers], those that have come to us are as follows: the discourse to the aforementioned emperor, five books To the Hellenes, 1 and 2 Concerning Truth, and To the Jews 1 and 2, and after these he

129. Based on the passage that follows, Melito’s Eclogues may have served as a source and/or model for Eusebius’s Prophetic Eclogues, which was likewise a selection of biblical passages. 130. Or “the Logos.”

book 4

215

wrote against the heresy of the Phrygians,131 which had been concocted not long before, and was at that time, though, beginning to sprout when Montanus together with his false prophetesses was originating this perversion. ON MUSANUS

chapter 28. And of Musanus, whom we listed in passing previously, an admirable discourse is in circulation, written to certain brothers who had fallen into the heresy of the so-called Encratites,132 which was at that time beginning to grow and introduce its strange and destructive false opinion into life. O N T H E H E R E SY A S S O C IAT E D W I T H TAT IA N

chapter 29. Word has it that Tatian, whose statements about the marvelous Justin, when he states that he was a student of the martyr, we set down shortly before, emerged as the leader of this deviance. Irenaeus indicates this in the first book of Against Heresies, writing thus about both him and the heresy associated with him:133 2 Descendants of Saturninus and Marcion, the so-called Encratites preached un-marriage, rejecting the ancient creation of God and subtly accusing him who has created humanity male and female. They also introduced abstinence from what they call animates,134 being ungrateful to God who has made all things, and they contradict the notion of the first-created man’s salvation. 3 And this [heresy] was invented by them just recently, when a certain Tatian first introduced this blasphemy. He had been a hearer of Justin, and as long as he was present with Justin, he evidenced nothing of this, but after Justin’s martyrdom he was apostatized from the church. Flattering himself with the notion that he was a teacher and puffed up with thinking he was more distin131. It is not clear if this should be read as a title (Against the Heresy of the Phrygians) or whether it is simply descriptive; see also 5.19.2. 132. “Encratites,” so named after their practice of enkrateia, or mastery of the passions. 133. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.28.1. 134. I.e., creatures with souls; the Encratites practiced a vegetarian diet.

216

the ecclesiastical history guished than the rest, he established his own type of teaching, concocting myths about certain invisible eons, similar to those posited by Valentinus, and proclaimed, much like Marcion and Saturninus, that marriage is corruption and fornication, and, on his own, made up the idea of denying Adam’s salvation.

4 This is what Irenaeus says about that time, but a little later a man by the name of Severus strengthened the aforementioned heresy, and became the reason those who are motivated by it have the name Severians, from him. 5 Now they use the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospels, but they interpret the concepts in the sacred writings in their own particular way. They blaspheme the apostle Paul, and reject his letters, and they do not accept the Acts of the Apostles. 6 Their previous leader Tatian, moreover, put together (I know not how) a certain combination and collection of the Gospels, and named this the Diatessaron, which is even still now in circulation among some.135 But they say that he dared to paraphrase some of the Apostle’s words, as correcting their verbal style. This man has left behind a large crowd of compositions; of them, his discourse To the Hellenes is mentioned by many as especially famous. In it he discusses the periods of time from the very beginning, and shows that Moses and the Hebrew prophets lived prior to those renowned among the Hellenes. This, indeed, seems to be the best and most helpful of all his writings. And such were the matters during this period. O N BA R D E S A N E S T H E SY R IA N A N D T H E B O O K S O F H I S T HAT A R E C U R R E N T

chapter 30. During the same reign, as heresies increased in Mesopotamia, Bardesanes, a most capable man and most articulate in the language of the Syrians, presented dialogues against Marcion and other leaders of various opinions, along with many other compositions, in his native language and script.136 Members of his inner circle, 135. The Diatessaron was a harmonization of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Its use was prevalent in Syriac-speaking churches into the fourth century. 136. Bar Daisan (literally, “son of the Daisan,” the river along which Edessa is situated). Parts of his Book of the Laws of Countries (which Eusebius knows by the title On Fate [PE 6.10]) are extant.

book 4

217

and as one who was so gifted in discourse he had many, translated them from the Syrian language into Greek. 2 Among these are a most capable dialogue To Antoninus, On Fate, and others they say that he composed in response to the persecution of that time. 3 This man previously belonged to the Valentinian school, but he came to form negative opinions about it and refuted most of its characteristic mythopoetics, and seems to have to some extent turned himself back to the more correct attitude, but nonetheless he did not completely wash off the stain of his old heresy. In this period, moreover, Soter, the bishop of the church of Romans, died.

Book 5

OV E RV I EW

Book 5 covers approximately two and a half decades. In the first sentence, Eusebius brings his chronology up to the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius, 177 c.e. The book ends during the episcopacy of Zephyrinus in Rome, 201 c.e. The bulk of the book concerns the themes of persecution and martyrdom and the orthodox confrontation with heresy. In chapters 1–4, Eusebius recounts the martyrdoms of 177 c.e. in Lugdunum and Vienne, quoting extensively from a letter of the Gallic churches to Asia and Phrygia (5.1.2); this important text is preserved only by Eusebius. Another section (chapters 14–20) concerns the Montanists. This variety of second-century Christianity emphasized prophecy and an imminent, apocalyptic eschatology. Montanus, Priscilla, and Aquila, the prophets that orthodox heresiologists considered the founders of the heresy, hailed from Phrygia, hence the usual appellations for the group in heresiological literature—Cataphrygians or, simply, the Phrygian heresy. The final portion draws on letter collections to paint a picture of orthodox bishops working in harmony to maintain unity of liturgical practice and combat heresy. Eusebius is especially interested in depicting episcopal harmony concerning the date of the celebration of Easter. This controversy was alive and well in Eusebius’s own day, and his historical narrative buttresses his own position.

218

book 5

219

SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The Gallic Martyrs Eusebius quotes a letter from the churches of Vienne and Lugdunum (present-day Vienne and Lyon on the Rhône in southeastern France) to the churches of Asia and Phrygia. The letter is extant only in the fragmentary quotations here in book 5, though Eusebius may preserve the majority of the text. The Christian community in Gaul had a significant Greek-speaking population, and some of its leadership (most notably the bishop and heresiologist Irenaeus) were from Asia, which helps to explain the ties between the communities evidenced by the letter. The letter stood at the front of a dossier of related letters sent from the Gallic communities to Asia and Phrygia, on the one hand, and Rome, on the other (5.3.4). The letters to Asia and Phrygia, written by confessors in prison, were directed against Montanism. There was also a letter to Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, probably on the same subject, but which Eusebius quotes because it praises Irenaeus, who was still a presbyter (5.4.1–2). Eusebius mentions all of these letters as “attached” to the martyrological letter, which shows that he is working from an existing collection. The Gallic letter is significant as a source on late second-century Christianity and, like the martyrdom of Polycarp in book 4, for its influence upon the construction of an orthodox ideology of martyrdom. The Polycarp narrative and the account of the Gallic martyrs had such influence in part because of their prominent inclusion in the History. The Gallic martyrs narrative, again like the Polycarp story, originated in a specific local context. Eusebius’s most significant rhetorical manipulation of both texts is to universalize them. This is nowhere clearer than in Eusebius’s statement introducing the Gallic letter, which asks the reader to infer the global from the local: “Myriads of martyrs became famous, as one can infer from what happened among one people” (5.pr.1). Anti-Montanist Sources The material Eusebius presents in chapters 16–19 represents the bulk of extant textual evidence on second-century Montanism. At 5.16.16, Eusebius states that the orthodox writers of the late second century provide him with many sources for his account. In fact, he quotes

220

the ecclesiastical history

from three, though his sources reference other works that Eusebius does not seem to have possessed himself. In chapters 16–17 he presents long quotations from a work known by convenience as the Anonymous Anti-Montanist; the title and author are unknown. It was composed at the request of an Abercius Marcellus and is said to be based on the anonymous author’s investigation of and public disputations with Montanists in the area of Ancyra (5.16.4). The quoted sections include an account of Montanist origins, ad hominem polemics against the prophets Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, and refutations of Montanist claims concerning prophecy and martyrdom. In chapter 18, Eusebius quotes from a work by Apollonius written forty years after Montanus began prophesying. He says that this text quoted and refuted Montanist prophecies and made ad hominem attacks on Montanus and Montanist prophets, but Eusebius quotes examples only of the latter theme. According to Eusebius’s Chronological Canons, Montanus began prophesying in the eleventh year of Lucius Verus and Commodus, or 171 c.e.; he may be backdating from Apollonius. Epiphanius (Panarion 48.1.1–2) states that Montanus began his prophecy in the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, or 157 c.e. By ca. 200 c.e., the writings of Tertullian and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas show that Montanism had spread to North Africa, so it seems reasonable to conclude that Montanus was active in the mid-150s to ca. 170, and Priscilla and Maximilla into the 170s. Eusebius’s third source is a letter of Serapion, bishop of Antioch in the late second and early third centuries. Eusebius is most interested in the subscriptions of bishops attached to the letter (5.19.3–4), much as he is interested in other epistolary documents (e.g., the letters on the Quartodeciman controversy in book 5 and against Paul of Samosata in book 7) that he reads as early examples of (and as precedent for) the conciliar practices familiar to him in the early fourth century. The Quartodeciman Controversy Chapters 23–25 constitute the most substantial body of evidence for what is known as the Quartodeciman (Latin for “fourteenth”) controversy of the later second century. The controversy concerned the date of the celebration of Pascha (Easter). Early Christians inferred from the Gospels (e.g., John 19:14; 20:1) that Jesus was tried and crucified on the fourteenth of the Jewish month of Nisan, with Passover beginning with

book 5

221

the arrival of 15 Nisan at sundown, and that the resurrection occurred on the “third day,” or 16 Nisan. Churches in Asia followed the Jewish lunar calendar to calculate the start of the Paschal cycle on 14 Nisan, with the Paschal celebration culminating in the Feast of the Resurrection two days after 14 Nisan. In other communities, especially in the West, the Feast of the Resurrection was celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and thus the crucifixion was always commemorated on a Friday. This calculation was still related to the Jewish calendar, since the fourteenth/fifteenth of the lunar month of Nisan theoretically occurred during a full moon. Eusebius states that synodical documents from Palestine, Rome, Pontus, Gaul, Osrhoëne, and Corinth all legislated the “Western” practice (5.23.3). The Quartodecimans are represented in Eusebius’s narrative by a letter of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus in Asia, to Victor of Rome, defending the Asian tradition by appealing to apostolic authority (5.24.1–8). Eusebius says that Victor, in turn, wanted to excommunicate the Asian churches, but was dissuaded from doing so by other bishops who argued that unity was more important than liturgical consistency. His source here is a letter from Irenaeus (5.24.12–17). Irenaeus was a native of Asia, and so was in a position to mediate between the “Asian” and “Western” traditions, and his letter appeals to an earlier détente between Polycarp of Smyrna and one of Victor’s predecessors, Anicetus of Rome. The Quartodeciman controversy was alive and well at the time Eusebius wrote the History. In the Life of Constantine he describes how the Council of Nicaea legislated the “Western” practice, and includes a letter from the emperor Constantine on the subject (VC 3.18). Eusebius makes his Palestinian predecessors prominent in his account of the second-century controversy. The synod of Palestinian bishops is first in the list at 5.23.4–5, and he quotes from the document to conclude his discussion (5.25.1). On the controversy and the history of calculating the date of Easter, see A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

Martyr acts traditionally ascribed to the late second and early third centuries, especially the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas and Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (two texts from North

222

•

•

•

the ecclesiastical history

Africa unknown to Eusebius); English translations of these and other martyrdom texts: E. Rebillard, Greek and Latin Narratives about the Ancient Martyrs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) Epiphanius of Salamis’s (fl. 370s–403 c.e.) account of Montanism in his Panarion 48.1.1-49.3.4; English translation: F. Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III, De Fide, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2013) The works of Tertullian (fl. 190s–early 200s c.e.); complete works in English translation: ANF vols. 3–4 The works of Clement of Alexandria; complete works in English translation: ANF vol. 2, as well as Fathers of the Church series (Catholic University of America Press)

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 5

The number and character of those in Gaul who passed through the contest on behalf of piety in Gaul in Verus’s time That the God-beloved martyrs extended the right hand of friendship and provided for those who had fallen in the persecution What kind of vision appeared to the martyr Attalus in a dream How the martyrs recommended Irenaeus in a letter That God sent rain from heaven to Marcus Aurelius Caesar thanks to the prayers of our people A catalogue of those serving as bishop in Rome That even up to that time miraculous powers were being effected through the faithful How Irenaeus mentions the divine writings Those serving as bishops during the reign of Commodus On Pantaenus the philosopher On Clement of Alexandria On the bishops of Jerusalem On Rhodon and the disagreements among the Marcionites that he mentions On the Cataphrygian false prophets 223

224

the ecclesiastical history

On the schism that occurred in Rome in the time of Blastus What is mentioned about Montanus and the false prophets with him On Miltiades and the works he composed How Apollonius refuted the Cataphrygians and what he mentions [about them] From Serapion on the heresy of the Cataphrygians What Irenaeus discussed in writing with the schismatics in Rome How Apollonius was martyred in Rome What bishops were well known in this period On the question raised in this period about Pascha On the disagreements in Asia How a unitary decision was proclaimed by all concerning the Pascha The fine works of Irenaeus that have come down to us And [the fine works] of the rest of those who flourished in that period On those who first proposed the heresy of Artemon, and what kind of people they were and how they dared corrupt the holy writings [ P R O O I M IO N ]

Soter, the bishop of the Roman church, ended his life in the eighth year of his leadership; Eleutherus succeeded him as the twelfth from the apostles. This was in the seventeenth year of the emperor Antoninus Verus.1 At this time, when the persecution against us was stirred up again more vigorously in certain parts of the world thanks to the instigation of the populace in each city, myriads of martyrs became famous, as one can infer from what happened among one people and

1. The seventeenth year since the succession of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus: 177 c.e. This persecution is dated to 167/8 in the Chron. There is no notice in the HE of Lucius Verus’s death in January 169 (there is in the Chron.). But if the Gallic martyrs are to be dated to 177, then Eusebius should mention Marcus Aurelius as well. Perhaps Eusebius recognized an error in his dating of the Gallic martyrs in the Chron. but did not succeed in making the full correction when he imported his data into the HE.

book 5

225

which has come to be handed down in writing to subsequent generations as truly deserving of indelible memory. 2 Now, then, the complete written account that fully describes these events has been included in our Collection of Martyrs, and it contains an account that is not only historical, but instructive as well. Here, however, I will set down [only] what I have selected as being pertinent to the present task. 3 Now, others who have created historical accounts would offer, in written form, victories in war, trophies against enemies, the prowess of generals, and the manly courage of soldiers who have polluted themselves with blood and myriad murders for the sake of children, fatherland, or some other superfluity. 4 By contrast, our description of the politeuma2 that accords with God will inscribe on eternal plaques the most peaceful wars [fought] on behalf of the peace of the soul, and those who in these wars displayed manly courage on behalf of truth, rather than fatherland, and for piety, rather than loved ones, the struggles and long-suffering courage of the athletes of piety, their trophies [won] against demons, their victories against the invisible opponents, and besides all this, their victory crowns, which will be remembered forever.3 T H E N UM B E R A N D C HA R AC T E R O F T HO SE I N G AU L W HO PA S SE D T H R OU G H T H E C O N T E S T O N B E HA L F O F P I E T Y I N G AU L I N V E RU S’ S T I M E

chapter 1. The place, then, was Gaul, where the arena for all this was prepared. The metropolises celebrated above all the rest in that 2. Politeuma: no single English word captures the full range of meaning of this important term. It refers both to the “legislated way of life” of a given community and to the corporate body of that community. There is also an echo of Phil. 3:19–20, which contrasts the community of believers and their antagonists (“Their minds are set on earthly things, but our politeuma is in heaven”). 3. Eusebius contrasts ecclesiastical history with traditional historiography. The two are similar insofar as they describe the character of a polity through accounts of struggle and triumph. They differ insofar as the Christian polity is defined by ascetic virtue and struggles with cosmic forces. Thus, Eusebius defines Christians ambivalently, as a distinct people and polity that, like other peoples and polities, have a history, but a people and polity that, unlike all other peoples and polities, uniquely transcend the banal and mundane.

226

the ecclesiastical history

region were Lugdunum and Vienne; through both flows the river Rhône, which waters the whole region with its ample stream. 2 The most distinguished churches in that region, then, sent a writing concerning the martyrs to the [churches] throughout Asia and Phrygia. They recount what happened among them in this manner. 3 I will set down their words:4 Those servants of Christ sojourning in Vienne and Lyons in Gaul to those brothers throughout Asia and Phrygia who have the same faith and hope of redemption as we, peace, grace, and glory from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

4 Then, after offering a prooimion, they begin the discourse with these [words]: Now, then, the magnitude of the oppression in this place, the extent of the Gentiles’ rage against the saints, and what the blessed martyrs endured, we are not capable of describing accurately in speech nor can they be comprehended in writing. 5 For the adversary attacked with all [his] might, offering already a kind of preview of when he will come with impunity. He was present through it all, training his followers and giving them practice exercises against the servants of God, so that we were not only shut out of buildings, baths, and agoras, but we were universally banned from appearing in any place whatsoever. 6 But the grace of God took up command in response, marshaled together the weak, and braced them with firm supports capable by their endurance of absorbing all the rage of the enemy that was directed against them. They advanced en masse, bearing up under every form of reproach and chastisement. They considered the many things they suffered to be little, and strove eagerly toward Christ, showing, in actuality, that “the sufferings of the present time are unworthy compared to the glory that shall be revealed among us.”5 7 First, they nobly endured everything that the whole populace heaped upon them, insults, blows, being dragged through the streets, robbery, having stones thrown at them, and imprisonment, and everything the wild mob enjoyed doing to them, as they would to enemies and foes.

4. From here through 5.3.4, Eusebius quotes and summarizes the Letter of the Churches of Lyon and Vienne. 5. Rom. 8:18.

book 5

227

8 Then they led them into the agora. They were interrogated by both the chiliarch6 and the leading men of the city in front of the whole mob, confessed, and were locked in the prison house until the governor arrived. 9 Afterward, they were led before the governor, and once he had employed every form of cruelty against them, one of the brothers, Vettius Epagathus, being full of love for God and for neighbor, came forward. His way of life was so carefully regimented that even though he was young, he was made equal to the witness of the elder Zachariah. For he had walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless and tirelessly served his neighbor without hesitation, having great zeal for God and teaming with the Spirit.7 Being such a person, then, he could not endure the judgment that was being made against us, but was enraged that he even asked that he himself be heard, to present a speech of defense on behalf of the brothers, to the effect that there is nothing atheist or impious against us. 10 But those surrounding the tribunal cried out against him, for he was also a man of distinction. And when the governor had no patience for the just request he had made, but only asked him this—whether he was a Christian—and when he confessed it in a voice that rang clear, he was also assumed into the ranks of martyrs, and he was called the Advocate of Christians, for he had the Advocate in himself, the spirit of Zachariah, which he evidenced through the fullness of love when he was ready to offer a defense—and his own soul—on behalf of the brothers.8 For he was and is a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb wherever he leads. 11 Then the rest were separated, those who were ready and willing became the first martyrs, and they with all eagerness fulfilled the confession of martyrdom. Those who were not ready, untrained, and still weak revealed themselves, being unable to bear the strain of a great competition; those who aborted9 were about ten in number. They caused great pain and immeasurable sorrow for us, and

6. The Greek for tribunus militum, “military tribune,” who ranked just under the commander (legate) of a legion; some chiliarchs also served on the staff of provincial governors. 7. Luke 1:16. 8. The reference to the Advocate (Paraclete) suggests that the compilers of this text were Montanists. In John 14:16, Jesus says, “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate (paraclete), to be with you forever.” Montanists interpreted the paraclete in this passage, together with the “spirit of truth” in John 16:12–13, as the prophetic spirit that inspired Montanus and other prophets. 9. I.e., their birth into new life via martyrdom was “aborted.”

228

the ecclesiastical history

undercut the desire of the rest who had not been arrested. Although they experienced all these terrors, they nevertheless stood by the martyrs, and did not abandon them. 12 But at that point we all were greatly distraught on account of the lack of clarity of [their] confession, not dreading the punishments that were impending, but fearing that someone might fall away while we looked forward to the end. 13 Each day, however, those who were worthy were arrested, filling out their number, so that all the diligent people from the two churches, and especially those who were the foundation of our communities, were rounded up. 14 But some Gentile household slaves belonging to our people were also apprehended, since the governor issued a public order that all of us should be investigated. And they, by Satan’s ambush, dreaded the tortures that they saw the saints suffering, and when the soldiers urged them, they falsely accused us of Thyestean banquets and Oedipean intercourse, and other things it is not right for us to say or think—nor even to believe that anything so wretched ever occurred among human beings.10 15 When these accusations were spread around, everyone acted like wild animals against us, so that even if some had previously acted in a more measured way on account of friendship, at that point they became exceptionally harsh and gnashed their teeth at us. But what was said by our Lord was fulfilled—that “a time will come when all who kill you will suppose he offers service to God.”11 16 Then, finally, the martyrs endured punishments beyond all description, for Satan was using them, enviously striving to draw out some blasphemous statement. 17 Everyone’s anger—the crowd, the governor, the soldiers—was aimed without restraint against Sanctus the deacon from Vienne; Maturus, one newly enlightened, but a noble competitor; Attalus, a Pergamene by race, who had always been the pillar and foundation of the community; and Blandina, through whom Christ demonstrated that what appears worthless, without distinction, and contemptible to humans is judged worthy of great glory to God, on account of the love for him that is revealed by real power, and not boasted of in appearance. 18 For when we were all afraid, and her mistress in the flesh,12 who herself was a competitor among the martyrs, was struggling such that she seemed like she might be unable to give a free and bold confession because of the weakness of the body, Blandina was filled with so much 10. Thyestean banquets, i.e., cannibalism; Oedipean intercourse, i.e., incest. 11. John 16:2. 12. I.e., her human employer or owner.

book 5

229

power that those who were punishing her with each type of torture in succession, from morning till evening, released her and handed her over, themselves confessing that they were defeated and no longer had anything they could do to her. And they marveled that she was still breathing, for her whole body had been broken and turned inside out. And they testified that even one type of the tortures [they had used] was sufficient enough to drive out one’s soul, much less the kinds and degree they had given her. 19 But the blessed woman was rejuvenated like a noble athlete by her confession, and her refreshment, rest, and failure to feel the pain of what was happening to her came from saying, “I am Christian, and we do nothing wrong.”13 20 Sanctus, for his part, endured every outrage that humans can think to commit, beyond measure and beyond the ability of any human being. Although the lawless hoped by the persistence and great extent of the tortures to hear something untoward come from him, he put up so much resistance against them that he did not speak his own name, nor his race, the city he was from, nor whether he was slave or free, but to every question he answered in the Roman language: “I am Christian.” Instead of his name, instead of his city, instead of his race, instead of everything, this was what he confessed over and over again; the Gentiles heard from him no other utterance. 21 At this both the governor and the torturers became greatly irritated with him, so that when they no longer had anything they could do to him, they pressed hot metal plates against the most vulnerable parts of his body. 22 These they burned, but he remained unbent and firm, solid in his confession, quenched and empowered by the heavenly spring of the water of life that comes from the womb of Christ.14 23 His meager body bore witness to what had occurred—it was all wounds and gashes and contorted, having lost its external human form. But in him Christ suffered, accomplishing great glories, foiling the Adversary and presenting a model for the rest—that there is nothing fearful where there is the love of the Father, nothing painful where there is the glory of Christ.15 24 After a few days, the lawless ones tortured the martyr again, thinking that since his body was swollen and burned, if they brought

13. Compare the story of Perpetua, a female martyr who is portrayed as a victorious male athlete (Martyrdom of Perpetua 3.2). 14. Compare Irenaeus’s description of Christ as nursing mother (Against Heresies 4.38.1). 15. Note that the martyr’s imitation of Christ extends to identification with Christ. Compare Ignatius’s identification with the eucharistic bread (Letter to the Romans 4).

230

the ecclesiastical history

the same instruments of torture to bear they could overcome him, for now he could not bear the touch of hands, or that if the torture killed him, it would put fear into the rest. Not only did no such thing happen to him, but contrary to every human expectation, he raised his head up once again, and his meager body became erect once more during the tortures that followed, and he resumed his previous form and the use of his limbs, so that through the grace of Christ the second round of torture became for him not torture, but healing.16 25 And the Devil, thinking that he had already swallowed Biblis— one of those who had denied—but wanting to condemn her through blasphemy as well, led her to punishment, requiring her to say ungodly things about us, as she was vulnerable and already unmanned.17 26 But she became sober again during torture and, so to speak, awoke from a deep sleep, reminded by the temporary chastisement of the eternal punishment in Gehenna, and in a turnabout recanted the blasphemies [she had confessed], saying: “How could people such as these eat children, to whom it is not allowed even to eat the blood of irrational animals?” And after this she confessed herself a Christian, and was added to the ranks of the martyrs. 27 But when the tyrannical modes of torture had been foiled by Christ through the endurance of the blessed [ones], the Devil conceived other machinations: detention in prison and darkness and the most grievous conditions, stretching their feet in the stocks, drawing them out to the fifth hole, and other outrages, which enraged assistants are accustomed to do—and being filled by the Devil, they prepared these [tortures] for those who were imprisoned. Consequently, the majority were killed in the prison, as many as the Lord wished to depart in this way, revealing his glory. 28 For some, who had been tortured so keenly that it did not seem possible, even with full medical attention, that they could still be alive, endured in the prison deprived of all human care, but encouraged by the Lord and empowered in both body and soul, urging and encouraging the rest. Those who were young and who had just been arrested and whose bodies had not yet been mistreated could not bear the weight of incarceration, but died inside [the prison]. 29 The blessed Pothinus, who had been entrusted with the service of the episcopacy in Lugdunum and was over ninety years old and very feeble in body, was barely breathing because of the aforementioned 16. Contrast the failed martyr Quintus, who “goes soft” at 4.15.7. 17. Anandron: unlike Blandina, who embodies the masculine virtues of a victorious athlete, Biblis’s initial denial is indicative of the loss of masculine virtue.

book 5

231

bodily weakness, but he rallied with eagerness of spirit on account of his vehement desire for martyrdom. He was dragged to the tribunal, weakened by body, age, and illness. But his soul was still in him, that by it Christ might triumph. 30 He was brought to the tribunal by the soldiers, as those who held power in the city marched alongside, and when the whole crowd let out all sorts of shouts, as though he was really the Christ, he rendered fine testimony. 31 When he was asked by the governor who the god of the Christians might be, he said: “If you are worthy, you will know.” At this he was dragged away without mercy and suffered all kinds of beatings. Those near him abused him on all sides with their fists and their feet, with no regard for his age, while those further away hurled whatever they had in their hands at him, and all considered it a great offense and impiety if anyone was left out of the violence being done against him; for they even thought that by doing this they would vindicate their gods. And he was thrown in the prison barely breathing, and after two days breathed his last. 32 Then, indeed, a great dispensation from God occurred, and the immeasurable mercy of Jesus revealed itself, as has rarely occurred among the brotherhood, but is not lacking in Christ’s art.18 33 For those who had been deniers during the first round of arrests were now arrested themselves and had a share in the terrors, for now their denial was no help to them. For those who confessed what they were, were imprisoned as Christians, no other charge being brought against them, while the rest were detained as murderers defiled with blood, and were given twice the punishment of the others. 34 The grace of martyrdom, the hope for the promises, the love for Christ, and the Paternal spirit buoyed up the former, while conscience tormented the latter so greatly that even their faces stood out from all the rest when they were led out. 35 For the one group went out [to martyrdom] cheerfully, with the combination of grace and glory in their expressions, so that their chains hung on them as fitting adornment, as on a bride adorned with fancy golden fringe, and scented with the fragrance that is also Christ’s, so that some supposed they had been anointed with worldly myrrh.19 The others were dejected, humbled, ugly, and full of every disgrace, but still further, were reproached by the Gentiles as sordid and unmanly; they were charged with being murderers, but had 18. Technē: “art,” “skill.” Jesus is described as having technical knowledge, like a physician, carpenter, or other practitioner (see, e.g., Plato, Charmides 165c and Euthydemus 281a). 19. In John 19:39, myrrh is used to anoint Jesus.

232

the ecclesiastical history given up the right-honorable, glorious, and life-giving Name. When they saw this, the others were reinforced, and those who were arrested confessed without hesitation, and taking no thought of Devilish reasoning.

36 They say in addition, amid some other things: After this, at last, the testimonies of their departures [from life] took every form. Weaving different colors and all sorts of flowers, they presented a single crown to the Father. It was necessary, then, that the noble athletes endure variegated struggles and, being greatly victorious, receive the great crown of immortality. 37 Now, then, Maturus, Sanctus, Blandina, and Attalus were led to the beasts for public execution and to a public spectacle of the Gentiles’ inhumanity, for the day of the beast battles was scheduled just for our people. 38 In the amphitheater, Maturus and Sanctus again endured every sort of punishment as if they had suffered nothing whatsoever previously, but rather as if having prevailed over the rival in many contests already and competing for his crown, they submitted again to being led through processions in which they were beaten, as was customary there, being taunted by the beasts, and whatever else the enraged populace yelled out from every direction, finally demanding the iron chair from which the savor of their roasted bodies wafted over them. 39 They did not stop at this, but raged yet further, wanting to defeat the endurance of these men, but from Sanctus heard nothing beyond the statement of confession he had been saying all along. 40 And so, once their souls had endured the great contest for a long while, they reached the end, having become on that day a spectacle for the cosmos in place of all the various forms of single combat.20 41 Blandina, for her part, was hung on a wooden stake and offered as food for the beasts that were set upon her. As she hung there, she was seen to have the form of a cross and her strenuous prayer provided the competitors with great encouragement, for in her contest they saw with their external eyes, through the sister, the one who was crucified on their behalf, so that the sight could persuade those who trust in Him that all who suffer for the glory of Christ will always have communion with the living God.21

20. In other words, the combat of the martyrs against the Devil and his human agents replaced (and was a more ennobling spectacle than) gladiatorial combats. 21. Note how Blandina is not only identified with Christ, but becomes an instructive icon.

book 5

233

42 And at that point, since not one of the beasts would go after her, she was taken down from the stake and taken back to the prison again, and prepared for another contest. This was so that, when she was victorious in more commonplace [struggles], she would make the condemnation against the crooked serpent undeniable, and urge on the brothers. This small, weak, and despised woman had put on Christ, the invincible athlete, prevailing over the Adversary through many rounds by her struggle, being wreathed with the crown of immortality.22 43 Now the crowd demanded Attalus vociferously (for he was known by name), and entered as a well-prepared competitor thanks to his good conscience, since he was nobly trained in the Christian system23 and had always been a witness among us for the truth. 44 He was led around the perimeter of the amphitheater, and a sign was carried before him on which was written, in Roman: “This is Attalus the Christian.” Though the populace was utterly bursting with passion against him, the governor learned that he was Roman, and ordered him taken back with the rest of those who were in the prison whose cases he had sent in writing to Caesar and was awaiting his reply.24 45 In the meantime, things were not idle or fruitless for them, but through their endurance the immeasurable mercy of Christ manifested itself, for through the living the dead were made alive, and martyrs granted favor to those who had not been martyred, and there was great joy for the virgin mother, who had thought them dead abortions, but was receiving them back alive.25 46 For through them [the martyrs] the majority of those who had denied reassessed, were conceived again in the womb, rekindled with the fire of life, and learned to confess. Now, alive and having been reinforced, they went forward to the tribunal to be interrogated once again by the governor, while the God who wishes not the death of the sinner but is merciful toward repentance26 enjoyed the sweetness. 47 For Caesar had written back that they should be crucified, but that any who denied should be released, since it was the start of a festival there, and the place was crowded with all of the Gentiles who congregate for it.

22. Compare Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicitas 3.2. 23. Syntaxis: “system” of thought and the “order” or “ranks” of those who follow it. 24. Roman citizens had a right of appeal to the emperor. 25. The “virgin mother” here is the church. She receives back those she feared might forsake martyrdom, but who have been reinvigorated to obtain eternal life in martyrdom, as is clear from what follows. 26. Ezek. 33:11.

234

the ecclesiastical history

The governor led them to the tribunal, publicly displaying the blessed ones and leading them in a procession in front of the crowds. Then he rehearsed it all again, and whomever he thought possessed Roman citizenship he ordered beheaded, while the rest he sent to the beasts. 48 But Christ was greatly glorified by those who had previously denied, who at that moment, against the expectation of the Gentiles, confessed. For they had even been questioned on their own, for at that point they were going to be released. As they confessed, they were added to the ranks of the martyrs. But those who never had any strength of faith, had never touched the bridal garment, nor had any notion of the fear of God remained outside, blaspheming the Way27 by their betrayal, but the rest were all joined to the church. 49 And while they were being questioned, a certain Alexander, a Phrygian by race and a physician by training who had spent many years in Gaul and was known to almost everyone for his love toward God and his frankness [on behalf] of the Logos (for he was not without a share of apostolic gift), was standing near the tribunal and was urging them with gestures to confess, and to those who were standing around the tribunal he looked like he was having labor pains.28 50 But the crowd, vexed by the confession of those who had previously denied, cried out that Alexander was responsible for it, and when the governor sent for him and questioned him as to who he was, all he said was, “Christian.” The governor became enraged, and condemned him to the beasts. And the next day he went out with Attalus, for as a favor to the crowd the governor had given Attalus to the beasts once again. 51 They also achieved their goal, after experiencing every instrument of torture found in the amphitheater and enduring a great contest. Alexander let out not even a sigh or murmur, but in his heart spoke with God. 52 Attalus, for his part, when he was set upon the iron chair and burned and the savor wafted from his body, he said to the crowd in the Roman language: “Behold, what you are doing is eating human beings, but we do not eat humans, nor do we do any other evil thing.”29 And when he was asked what name God has, he answered: “God does not have a name like a human being.” 27. Compare Acts 24:14. 28. Note the continued use of birth metaphors, and Alexander’s embodiment of phenomena traditionally gendered feminine. 29. I.e., he is mocking the crowd, who had accused Christians of cannibalism (see 5.1.14).

book 5

235

53 After all of these [martyrs], on the final day of single combat Blandina was brought in again with Ponticus, a young boy about fifteen years old. They had also been brought in daily to watch the others being tortured, and they were compelled to swear by their idols, and because they remained unmoved and considered them nothing, the crowd was so enraged against them that they had no pity for the boy’s age and showed no shame respecting Blandina’s womanhood. 54 Instead, they subjected them to all the terrors and led them in a circuit through every torture, each time demanding that they swear, but they were unable to force them do so. Ponticus was urged on by the sister, so that even the Gentiles saw she was encouraging and strengthening him. After enduring every torture nobly, he gave up the spirit. 55 Last of all, the blessed Blandina—like a wellborn mother who has urged her children and sent them victorious to the king, and who has also herself suffered through each of her children’s contests—was eager to join them, rejoicing and celebrating in her exodus, as though being called to a marriage feast, and not being thrown to the beasts.30 56 And after all of the beatings, after the beasts, after the torture by fire, she was finally placed in a wicker restraint and given to a bull. She was amply gored, and no longer felt what was happening because of her hope in and possession of that with which she had been entrusted31 and because she was in conversation with Christ. And she was sacrificed, and all of the Gentiles confessed that never had they seen a woman suffer such awful and numerous tortures. 57 But this did not satisfy their insanity and savagery toward the saints. For that wild and barbarous tribe, egged on by a wild beast,32 could not be appeased, and their hubris made a new start on the bodies. 58 The fact of their being defeated did not shame them, because they lacked human reason. Instead, their rage burned like that of a beast, and unjust hate was shown by both the governor and the populace against us, in order that the text would be fulfilled: “Let the lawless be lawless still, and let the just be just still.”33 59 And so those killed in the

30. Compare Blandina as martyr-mother with the Maccabean mother of seven martyred sons (2 Macc. 7). 31. A reference to the “symbol of faith,” that is, the creed, entrusted to her at baptism. 32. The “wild beast” is the Devil; the “wild and barbarous tribe” is the Celts. Irenaeus also described the Celts as “barbarians” (Against Heresies 1.pr.3). 33. Rev. 22:11.

236

the ecclesiastical history

prison they threw to the dogs, and kept careful guard night and day so that we could not tend to any of the bodies. Then, in fact, they set out what remained after being eaten by the beasts and burned by fire, some bloated, some burned, and the heads of the others along with their body parts they likewise [exposed] and guarded with military protection for many days. 60 And some snorted and gnashed their teeth at them,34 seeking to exact some additional vengeance upon them, while others laughed and made fun, glorifying their idols and crediting them with the punishment of the [martyrs]. Even those who were more reasonable and seemed to sympathize a little chided them much, saying: “Where is their God, and what benefit did they get from worship,35 which they chose over their own souls?” 61 And so their responses were quite varied, but great grief took hold among us because we were not able to bury the bodies in the earth. Night presented no opportunity to us for this, nor could we persuade [the authorities] with money, nor did any entreaty shame them, but they took every precaution, as if there was some great advantage in their not obtaining a tomb.36

62 Next, after other matters, they say: So, then, the bodies of the martyrs, which had been set out as an example and exposed for six days, were afterward burned, turned to ashes, and swept by the lawless into the river Rhône that flows nearby, so that nothing remained of them any longer upon the earth. 63 And they did this as though they were capable of conquering God and depriving them of their rebirth, in order that, as they claimed, “they shall have no hope of the resurrection they are so persuaded of, and based on which they introduce a mode of worship foreign and new to us, despise terrors, and go to death prepared with joy. Now let us see if they rise again and if their god can help them and seize them from our hands!”

34. Compare the crowd stoning Stephen in Acts 7:54. 35. Thrēskeia: the text does not read “their” thrēskeia, and thus implicitly suggests that only the Christians practice authentic worship. See also worship/thrēskeia in the glossary. 36. Perhaps to prevent martyr cult at the burial sites. The unavailability of martyrs’ bodies is also a recurring theme in Eusebius’s sources and his Martyrs of Palestine; this may indicate the practices of local authorities and/or it may indicate reticence or ambivalence concerning martyr cult.

book 5

237

T HAT T H E G O D - B E L OV E D M A RT Y R S E X T E N D E D T H E R IG H T HA N D O F F R I E N D SH I P A N D P R OV I D E D F O R T HO SE W HO HA D FA L L E N I N T H E P E R SE C U T IO N

chapter 2. Such is what befell the churches of Christ during the time of the aforementioned emperor,37 and from this [account] it is also possible to deduce by reasonable inference what happened in the other provinces.38 It is proper to append other statements from the same writing, in which the equanimity and love of humanity of the aforementioned martyrs has been inscribed in these very words: 2 And they were such zealots and imitators of Christ—who being in the form of God did not consider it theft to be equal to God39—that having such glory and testifying not once or twice but frequently, and being drawn away again from the beasts and bearing burns, wounds, and lacerations all over [their bodies], neither proclaimed themselves to be martyrs, nor did they let us give them this name, but if any of us even in a letter or in a speech called them martyrs, they gave a harsh reproach. 3 They were happy to grant the title of martyrdom to Christ, the faithful and true martyr, first born of the dead, and leader of the life of God, and they called to mind the martyrs who had already departed and said: “Those are already martyrs who have been deemed worthy to have been taken up for their confession of Christ, who has placed a seal on their martyrdom with their exit [from this life]. We are but average and humble confessors.” And with tears they appealed to the brothers, asking them to extend prayers that they be perfected. 4 And they displayed in fact the power of martyrdom, speaking with great frankness to the Gentiles, and made their nobility evident by their endurance, fearlessness, and calm. But from the brothers they begged off the title of martyrs, because they had been filled with fear of God.”40

37. I.e., Marcus Aurelius. 38. Eusebius globalizes the local evidence. 39. Phil. 2:6. 40. The communities in Lyon and Vienne were theorizing whether or not death was a requirement for martyrdom, or whether it was sufficient to “testify” (martyrein) to being a Christian at the risk of death.

238

the ecclesiastical history

5 And again after brief remarks they say: They humbled themselves under the mighty hand by which they are now exalted greatly.41 At that time they gave a defense for all, while accusing no one. They freed all, but bound none. And on behalf of those who carried out the dreaded [tortures] they offered prayer, just like Stephen, the perfect martyr: “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”42 But if he made this request on behalf of those who stoned him, [imagine] how much more [he asked] on behalf of the brothers!

6 And again, after other things, they say: This, their greatest battle against him [the Devil], was fought with the authenticity of their love, so that the Beast was choked and vomited up those he earlier thought he had swallowed alive. For they did not boast against those who had fallen, but what they possessed in abundance, this they imparted to those who needed it, having motherly affections, and poured out many tears for them to the Father. 7 They asked for life, and he gave it to them, and they shared it with their neighbors; utterly victorious, they departed to God. Always loving peace, they also commended peace to us. With peace they left to go to God, leaving their mother behind without pain, and their brothers without division or conflict, but joy, peace, concord, and love.

8 Let this [passage] about the loving concern of those blessed brothers for those who had fallen be included here beneficially, on account of the inhuman and unmerciful attitude of those who after these [events] attacked the members of Christ without mercy.43 W HAT K I N D O F V I SIO N A P P E A R E D T O T H E M A RT Y R AT TA LU S I N A D R E A M

chapter 3. The same writing about the aforesaid martyrs contains another account worthy of memory, which no one would object to our bringing to the knowledge of readers. It goes like this.44 2 One of them, Alcibiades, was living a life of utter simplicity, and was previously not partaking of anything at all, but using only bread and water, 41. 42. 43. 44.

Compare 1 Pet. 5:6. Acts 7:60. I.e., subsequent persecutors; especially the Diocletianic persecutors. Rather than quoting the letter, Eusebius summarizes the story of Alcibiades.

book 5

239

and was trying to keep doing the same while in prison. Attalus, after he completed his first contest in the amphitheater, had it revealed to him that Alcibiades was not acting well by not using the creations of God and was providing a scandalous example for others. 3 But Alcibiades was persuaded, and shared in everything freely, and gave thanks to God. For they had not been overlooked by God’s grace, but the Holy Spirit was their adviser. Such is this matter.45 4 But, at the same time, the partisans of Montanus, Alcibiades, and Theodotos were first broadcasting their notions about prophecy among many people (for the many other miracles coming from divine grace that were still being accomplished in various churches during this period contributed to the belief among many that they were prophesying). And when a dispute arose concerning the men just referenced, again the brothers in Gaul presented their own reverent and most orthodox judgment about them, and attached various letters of the martyrs perfected among them, which they had inscribed while still in chains to the brothers in Asia and Phrygia, and not only to them but also to Eleutherus, then the bishop of Rome, thus acting as ambassadors for the sake of the peace of the churches.46 HOW T H E M A RT Y R S R E C OM M E N D E D I R E NA E U S I N A L E T T E R

chapter 4. These same martyrs wrote to the bishop of Rome just referenced in recommendation of Irenaeus, who was at that time a presbyter of the community in Lugdunum, providing many testimonies about the man, as statements of this type show:47

45. The account of the Gallic martyrs is also heresiological. Some have taken Alcibiades to be an “Encratite,” but the story does not accuse him of any specifically named heresy. “Not using the creations of God,” however, was one of the ethical errors of which Irenaeus accused Encratites (Against Heresies 1.28.1). 46. Eusebius’s synopsis papers over the Montanist characteristics of his source. He wishes to present the Gallic martyrs text and the letters he is about to quote below as products of a homogenous Gallic church in full communion with Rome, but they evidence a more complex situation. 47. Letter of Lyon and Vienne to Eleutherus, likely appended ot the martyr-narrative just quoted in Eusebius’s manuscript.

240

the ecclesiastical history

2 Once again and always, we pray you receive our greeting in God, Father Eleutherus. We requested that our brother and fellow Irenaeus deliver these letters to you, and we ask that you receive him with hospitality, as one who is zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought one’s place gained one righteousness, as presbyter of the church, which is his place, we would rank him among the best.

3 What need is there to give a catalogue of the martyrs referenced in the letter, some of whom were perfected by beheading, others of whom were thrown as food to the beasts, and still others of whom went to their rest in the prison, and the number of the confessors who were still living? For whoever pleases can easily study these matters most fully by taking in hand the composition which itself is included in the collection of martyrs we have made, as I said. Such were affairs under Antoninus. T HAT G O D SE N T R A I N F R OM H E AV E N T O M A R C U S AU R E L I U S C A E S A R T HA N K S T O T H E P R AY E R S O F OU R P E O P L E

chapter 5. Now, word has it that when his [i.e., Antoninus’s]48 brother, Marcus Aurelius Caesar, was lining up in battle against Germans and Sarmatians, his army was pressed by thirst and was therefore in dire straits. But the soldiers of the legion called Melitene, through the faith that from then until now supported them in battle against enemies, knelt upon the ground in the manner of prayer customary among our people to offer supplications to God. Such a sight seemed incredible to their enemies, but word has it that something else more incredible grabbed them right away—a thunderbolt drove the enemy into flight and destruction, while a hard rain poured down upon the ranks of the army that had called upon the Divine, and which had been about to die of thirst. 3 This narrative is in circulation even among those writers who stand far from our doctrine49 who took up the task of writing about the period under discussion, and also by our [writers]. But the outsider historians, because they were not native to the faith, did include the miracle, though they did not confess that it came about by prayers 48. See note at 5.pr.1. 49. On this phrase, see also 2.8.1.

book 5

241

of our people.50 But our [historians], because they are friends of truth, relate the event in a simple and guileless manner. 4 One of them would be Apollinaris, who says that from that point the legion that had worked the miracle through prayer was named Thundering in the Roman language.51 5 Another trustworthy witness of these events is Tertullian, who when he delivered an apology on behalf of the faith to the Senate in the Roman language (which we mentioned earlier)52 confirmed the narrative with a greater and clearer demonstration. 6 He even writes that letters of the most intelligent emperor Marcus were still in circulation, in which the emperor himself testifies that in Germania his army that was about to perish from lack of water was saved by the prayers of the Christians. And he says that this emperor also threatened death against those who tried to accuse us. To this the aforementioned man adds this: 7 Where do these laws come from, then, which the impious, unjust, and uncouth use against us alone? Vespasian did not uphold them, even though he conquered the Jews. Trajan rejected them in part, forbidding that Christians be sought out. Neither Hadrian, even though he was a busybody when it came to everything meddlesome, nor he with the title Pius, sanctioned them.

But let these matters stand as one wishes; let us proceed to what follows next in sequence. A C ATA L O G U E O F T HO SE SE RV I N G A S B I SHO P I N R OM E

8 After Pothinus, who was all of ninety years old, was perfected along with the martyrs in Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded to the episcopacy of the community in Lugdunum that Pothinus had led. We learned that he had been a hearer of Polycarp in his early youth. 9 In the third book of

50. Compare Cassius Dio, Roman History 71.8–10 (who ascribes the miracle to an Egyptian magician, Harnouphis). 51. Apollinaris of Hierapolis; see 4.27 above; the legion is the Twelfth or “Thundering” Legion: Legio XII Fulminata. 52. What follows is found in Apology 5. See also 2.2.1–6, 2.25.4, and 3.33.3.

242

the ecclesiastical history

Against Heresies he includes the succession of the bishops of Rome up to Eleutherus, the events of whose time we are setting out, and as he would if he was working on the writing at that time, sets down the list, writing thus:53 chapter 6. The blessed apostles, then, laid the foundations and built the church, and placed the office of the episcopacy in the hands of Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his letters to Timothy.54 2 Anecletus succeeded him, and after him in third place after the apostles the episcopacy was allotted to Clement. He had seen the blessed apostles and spent time with them, and the Preaching of the apostles still piped in his ears, and he had the tradition before his eyes. And not only Clement—there were still many at that time who had been taught by the apostles. 3 Now, a not insignificant conflict developed among those in Corinth, when during the time of this Clement the church in Rome sent a most effective writing to the Corinthians,55 encouraging peace among them and renewing their faith and the tradition they had newly received from the apostles.

4 And after a few brief remarks he says: Evarestus succeeded this Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evarestus. Then Xystus was appointed sixth after the apostles, and after him Telesphorus, who also nobly became a martyr. Then Hyginus, then Pius, and after him Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now in twelfth place from the apostles Eleutherus has received the lot of the episcopacy. 5 In the same order and in the same succession, then, has the tradition in the church that is from the apostles and the Preaching of truth come down to us.

T HAT EV E N U P T O T HAT T I M E M I R AC U L O U S P OW E R S W E R E B E I N G E F F E C T E D T H R O U G H T H E FA I T H F U L

chapter 7. This is what Irenaeus recounts in the Refutation and Overthrow of What Is Falsely Called Knowledge, being five [books] in 53. Against Heresies 3.3.3. 54. 2 Tim. 4:21. 55. I.e., 1 Clement.

book 5

243

number, and which accord with the accounts we have detailed previously.56 In the second [book] of the same work he indicates that, in fact, even in his day divine signs and works of power continued in some churches, in these passages where he says:57 2 They58 fall so short of raising the dead, as the Lord and the apostles raised [the dead] through prayer. And as has often happened among the brotherhood, when necessity demands and when the whole church throughout a region demands it with fasts and great entreaty, the spirit of the dead person returns and the person is graced with prayers of the holy ones.

3 And again after other things he says:59 But if they even say that the Lord did such great things merely in appearance, we refer them to the prophetic [writings] and demonstrate from them that everything about him was predicted just so, and that they certainly happened, and [therefore] that he alone is the Son of God. On account of this in his name those who are truly his disciples, and receiving grace from him, bring it to perfection for the service of the rest of humanity, as each one has received the gift from him. 4 For some really and truly drive out demons, with the result that afterwards the very people who have been cleansed of the wicked spirits come to believe and be in the church, while others have foreknowledge of what will happen, and receive prophetic visions and messages. Still others heal those who are suffering through the imposition of hands and make them healthy, and of course, just as we said, the dead have been raised and remained with us for many years. What then? 5 It is impossible to number gifts that the church throughout the whole world has received in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and employs each day for the service of the Gentiles, neither swindling anyone nor making any profit. For as [each] receives a gift from God,60 so too does he offer the gift in service.

56. I.e., Irenaeus’s succession list agrees with the successions as Eusebius had recounted them to this point. 57. Against Heresies 2.31.2. 58. In Irenaeus these passages are part of a critique of heretics (“they”) who claim to perform miracles. 59. Against Heresies 2.32.4. 60. Matt. 10:8.

244

the ecclesiastical history

6 And in another place the same [Irenaeus] writes:61 Likewise we hear many brothers in the church who have prophetic gifts speaking through the Spirit in all sorts of tongues and bringing people’s secrets into the open for their benefit and expounding upon the mysteries of God.

Such is what [Irenaeus says] about the different gifts that continued for those who were worthy even up to the times under discussion.62 HOW I R E NA E U S M E N T IO N S THE DIVINE WRITINGS

chapter 8. When we began our work we made a promise saying that we would set down, at the appropriate time, passages from the ancient ecclesiastical presbyters and writers in which they have set down in writing the traditions they received about the registered writings.63 Since Irenaeus is among them, come, let us also set down his words. 2 First, then, those that pertain to the sacred gospels run thusly:64 Now Matthew, in fact, had promulgated a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the church in Rome. 3 But after their departure,65 Mark, Peter’s disciple and interpreter, has himself handed down to us in written form what Peter preached. And Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the gospel that Paul preached. Then John, the Lord’s disciple, who reclined on his chest, gave the gospel, when he was residing in Ephesus in Asia.

5 He says this in the aforementioned third book of the work we mentioned, but in the fifth book he writes thusly about the Apocalypse of John and the question of the numeric cipher of the name of the Antichrist:66 61. Against Heresies 5.6.1. 62. Eusebius is also making an implicit argument in anticipation of his presentation of the Montanists—namely, that while the gift of prophecy persisted in the late second century, it did so only among the “worthy,” that is, the orthodox. 63. Not mentioned in the opening of book 1 but announced at 3.3.3. 64. Against Heresies 3.1.1. 65. I.e., from life. 66. Against Heresies 5.30.1. Eusebius breaks the quotation midsentence.

book 5

245

These things being so, and with this number standing in all the careful and ancient copies, and with those who were eyewitnesses of John testifying to it and with reason teaching us that the number of the name of the beast appears according to a numeric cipher in Greek by means of the letters that it contains . . .

6 And continuing further he says about the same matter:67 We, then, do not make vain inquiries in an effort to offer firm proofs concerning the name of the Antichrist. For if it were necessary to proclaim his name openly at the present moment, it would have been uttered by the one having seen the revelation, for it was not long ago that the revelation appeared, but almost in our generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.

7 This is what the aforementioned [Irenaeus] recounts about the Apocalypse, but he also mentions the first letter of John, drawing many testimonies from it, and likewise the first letter of Peter. He also not only knew but even accepted the Shepherd’s writing,68 saying: “The writing, then, does well that says: ‘First of all, believe that God is one, the one who created and arranged all things,’ ” and what follows.69 8 And he uses some passages from the Wisdom of Solomon all but verbatim when he says: “But the vision of God is productive of incorruptibility, and incorruptibility makes us close to God.”70 And from the records of a certain apostolic presbyter,71 whose name he presents only in silence, he recalls and sets down interpretations of the Divine Scriptures. 9 He has also mentioned Justin Martyr and Ignatius, once again using testimonies drawn from their writings, and he promised to produce a specific work refuting passages drawn from Marcion’s writings. 10 And hear what he writes, verbatim, about the translation of the divinely inspired writings according to the Seventy:72

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72.

Against Heresies 5.30.3. I.e., the Shepherd of Hermas. Against Heresies 4.20.2. I.e., Against Heresies 4.38.3 has a verbal parallel with Wisdom 6:19. Or “elder.” I.e., the Septuagint; Against Heresies 3.21.1.

246

the ecclesiastical history

God became human and the Lord himself saved us, providing the sign of the virgin, but not as some of them are saying now, when they dare to retranslate the text: “Behold, the young woman will conceive in her womb and will bear a son”73—which is how Theodotion the Ephesian and Aquila of Pontus translate it. They were both Jewish proselytes; the Ebionites follow them,74 and say that he was begotten by Joseph.

11 After some brief remarks, he continues, saying:75 For before the Romans extended their rule, and when the Macedonians still held Asia, Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, had ambitions to adorn the library he had founded in Alexandria with whatever writings were held in the highest regard by all people, and asked the people of Jerusalem for their writings translated into the Greek language. 12 The people of Jerusalem, for their part, for they were at that time still subject to the Macedonians, sent to Ptolemy seventy elders who were the most skilled among them in the writings and both languages, and thus God worked his plan. 13 Ptolemy, though, wanted to make his own test of them, being on guard so that they could not contrive a way to conceal with their translation the true content of the writings.76 He separated them from one another, and ordered them all to write the same translation, and he did this for all of books. 14 When they all came at the same time before Ptolemy and they compared each translation with the other, God was glorified, and they were recognized as being genuinely divine, for when they were read publicly they were the same, with the same words and the same names, from beginning to end, so that even the Gentiles who were present knew that the writings had been translated according to the inspiration of God. 15 And it is no wonder that God effected this, considering that— after the writings were destroyed at the time of the people’s captivity under Nebuchadnezzar and when the Jews returned to their land after

73. Isa. 7:14. Theodotion and Aquila each produced a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and later exegetes frequently compared these translations with the Septuagint (see 6.16.1–17.1). The Hebrew word in question is almah, which the Septuagint translates with parthenos (virgin), but Theodotion and Aquila rendered neanis (young woman). See also Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 43. 74. I.e., by accepting these translations. 75. Against Heresies 3.21.2. Compare with parallel accounts in the Letter of Aristeas and Eusebius’s version in DE 8.1. 76. Or “the truth that is in the writings.”

book 5

247

seventy years, in the time when Artaxerxes was king of the Persians— he also inspired Esdras, the priest from the tribe of Levi, to set in order once again all the words of the prophets of previous generations and to restore to the people the legislation that had come through Moses.77

Such writes Irenaeus. T HO SE SE RV I N G A S B I SHO P S DU R I N G T H E R E IG N O F C OM M O DU S

chapter 9. After Antoninus’s reign lasted nineteen years, Commodus took up the imperium.78 In his first year, Julian was appointed bishop of the churches in Alexandria after Agrippinus had completed twelve years of service. O N PA N TA E N U S T H E P H I L O S O P H E R

chapter 10. At that time, a man renowned for his learning— Pantaenus—led the studies of the believers in that city [Alexandria], for by ancient custom a school of the sacred writings had been established among them.79 The school has lasted even to our day, and we have received [the tradition] that it is run by those who are most capable in reason and in the study of divine matters. The story is that among those of that period the aforementioned man was particularly brilliant, and also that he was prompted [to the philosophical life] by the philosophical training of those who are called Stoics. 2 They say that he exhibited such zeal in his ardent attitude concerning the Divine Logos that he was also distinguished as herald of the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles of the East, and was sent as far as the land of the Indians. For at that time there were still, in fact, many evangelists of the

77. See 1 Esdras 9:38–41 (LXX) (= Nehemiah 8:1-3), where Ezra presides over the reading of the Torah to the people after the return from exile and construction of the Second Temple. 78. March 180 c.e. 79. The exact nature of this “school”—including whether we are to understand this as a program in catechetical instruction or something more akin to a philosophical circle, and whether or not the school fell under the purview of the bishop—is much debated. See the overview of book 6.

248

the ecclesiastical history

Logos who took care to join in inspired zeal for imitating the apostles for the increase and building of the Divine Logos. 3 Pantaenus was one of these men, and he is said to have gone to the Indians. The story goes that there he found that the Gospel According to Matthew had preceded his arrival among those in that region who knew Christ, for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which they had preserved up to the time under discussion. 4 For his many virtuous deeds, Pantaenus ultimately came to lead the school in Alexandria, and produced treasure troves of remarks on the divine doctrines in living speech and in writing. O N C L E M E N T O F A L E X A N D R IA

chapter 11. At this time, Clement, who shared his name with the pupil of the apostles who long ago led the church of the Romans, was known for being well trained in the divine writings. 2 In the Hypotyposes that he composed he mentions Pantaenus by name as being his teacher, and he also seems to me to hint at this same man in the first book of the Stromateis, when, in the course of indicating the most eminent [members] of the apostolic succession—a succession to which he also belonged—he says this:80 3 This is not, therefore, a writing that has been crafted for the purpose of demonstration; rather, it is in the form of records protected in the storehouse for old age, an elixir against forgetting, an image made without artistry and a shadowy drawing of the palpable and ensouled words that I was deemed worthy to hear, and of blessed and truly remarkable men.81 4 One of them, the Ionian, was in Greece, and one in Magna Graecia; another was from Coele-Syria, another from Egypt. Still others were throughout the East: one was Assyrian, another in Palestine was a descendant of the Hebrews. But when I met the last, who was actually

80. Clement, Stromateis 1.11. 81. Here and in the portion of the introduction to the Stromateis that precedes the quotation, Clement is theorizing a question germane to both the Platonic and the Christian traditions: whether writing or speech is the preferred carrier of doctrine and tradition. Compare Papias’s comments in 1.39 and the classic Platonic discussion in the Phaedrus.

book 5

249

first in terms of his power, I found rest, and I hunted him out because he had hidden out of sight in Egypt. 5 But they all preserved the true tradition of the blessed teaching straight from Peter, James, John, and Paul, the holy apostles, child receiving it from father (but few were like those fathers), and passed it down, with God, to us as well, depositing these ancestral and apostolic seeds.

O N T H E B I SHO P S O F J E RU S A L E M

chapter 12. In their day, Narcissus, who is even now well known to many, was bishop of the church in Jerusalem, being fifteenth in succession since the siege against the Jews in the time of Hadrian, after which time, as we in fact indicated earlier, the church there first became comprised of Gentiles after previously being comprised of those from the circumcision, and Marcus was first bishop from among the Gentiles to lead them.82 2 After him, the succession lists of [the bishops] there hold that Cassian served as bishop, and after him Publius, then Maximus, and after these Julianus, then Gaius, after him Symmachus, and another Gaius, and again another Julianus, and after them Capito, Valens, and Dolichianus, and after all of them Narcissus, thirteenth from the apostles according to the sequence of the succession. O N R HO D O N A N D T H E D I S AG R E E M E N T S A M O N G T H E M A R C IO N I T E S T HAT H E M E N T IO N S

chapter 13. At this time Rhodon, an Asian by race,83 who as he himself recounts was taught in Rome by Tatian (whom we mentioned earlier84), composed various books, and among them he put together one against the heresy of Marcion. He recounts that in his day [the heresy] was divided into various schools of thought, and accurately 82. See 4.5.1 ff. 83. I.e., a native of the western third of Asia Minor, which included the Roman province of Asia. 84. See 4.28–29.1.

250

the ecclesiastical history

records who was responsible for the division and refutes the false reasonings thought up by each of them. Listen as he writes as follows: 2 On account of this, there came to be discord among them, as each in turn produced incoherent opinions in response to the others. For from among their herd, Apelles, who prides himself on his way of life and his venerable old age, confesses a single principle, and says that the prophecies are from a harmful spirit,85 and was duped by the utterances of a woman by the name of Philomena who was possessed by a daimōn. 3 Others—among them Potitus and Basilicus—introduced two principles, just like their captain himself.86 4 These men emulated the Wolf of Pontus in failing to discover the right way to distinguish things, just as that wretch failed to do, and in their indifference proclaimed two principles without support and without proof. Others after them steered them into even more dire straits, positing not only two but three natures; their leader and chief is Suneros, just as those who push his school of thought say.

5 The same man writes that he had words with Apelles, saying: For the venerable old man87 conversed with us, and as he uttered his many incorrect statements, he was refuted. He said, for example, that it is not necessary to elaborate the doctrine completely, but that each person should persist in what he had believed, for he proclaimed that those who placed their hope in him who was crucified will be saved, if only they are found to do good works. But of everything he taught the most obscure thing, as we said before, concerned God, for he said that there is one principle, just like our doctrine.88

6 Then, after he sets out Apelles’s whole opinion, he continues, saying: But when I said to him, “Where is this proof of yours; how are you able to say there is one principle? Tell us,” he said that the prophecies refute

85. Or “opposing spirit,” i.e., an evil daimōn. 86. Marcion’s two principles were the god of the Hebrew Bible (according to Marcion, the creator of the material cosmos, interested in justice and legalism) and the god proclaimed by Christ (the highest, transcendent god, invested in love and mercy). 87. I.e., Apelles. 88. Rhodon’s “confusion” about Apelles’s theology is feigned, for he would have been aware that Apelles and Marcion were monists—that is, like Rhodon, they held that the god proclaimed by Christ was the ontologically superlative principle (the “unbegotten God” at 5.13.7); they considered the demiurgical god of the Hebrew Bible a lesser being.

book 5

251

themselves because they have spoken nothing that is completely true. They are discordant and false, and stand in opposition to themselves. But how there is one principle, he said he did not know, but only that he was moved to think so. 7 Then, after I took an oath to speak the truth, he swore that he was telling the truth in saying that he did not know how the unbegotten God is one, but that he believed this. I laughed as I condemned him, because he said he was a teacher, but did not know how to support what he himself taught.

8 In the same writing he addresses Callistos and confesses that he had been taught in Rome by Tatian. He also says Tatian worked on a book titled Problems.89 In this work Tatian undertook to present what is unclear and hidden in the divine writings, and Rhodon himself in his own work promises to set out the answers to Tatian’s Problems. From him a treatise on the Hexaemeron is also in circulation. 9 This Apelles, however, uttered myriad impieties against the law of Moses, and in many writings blasphemed the divine words90 and made no small effort to refute and overturn them (so he thought). Such, then, on those matters. O N T H E C ATA P H RYG IA N FA L SE P R O P H E T S

chapter 14. The enemy of God’s church, of course, who hates what is good and loves evil even more, forsook no means or manner of scheming against humanity, and once again prompted foreign heresies to sprout up against the church. Among them, some slithered like venomous serpents through Asia and Phrygia, proudly boasting that Montanus was the Advocate91 and that the women who had come from him, Priscilla and Maximilla, were Montanus’s prophetesses. O N T H E S C H I SM T HAT O C C U R R E D I N R OM E I N T H E T I M E O F B L A ST U S

chapter 15. Others flourished in Rome, led by Florinus, who had fallen from the presbytery of the church, and along with him Blastus, 89. No longer extant. 90. Or “divine accounts,” i.e., the content of the Hebrew Bible. 91. “Paraclete”; see note 8 above.

252

the ecclesiastical history

who had similarly tumbled. They led many away from the church and brought them over to their opinion, both of them trying in their own way to innovate upon the truth. W HAT I S M E N T IO N E D A B OU T M O N TA N U S A N D T H E FA L SE P R O P H E T S W I T H H I M

chapter 16. Now, then, against the so-called Cataphrygian92 heresy, the power that is the defender of truth raised up a strong and unconquerable weapon in Hierapolis, Apollinaris, whom our account has mentioned earlier, and, along with him, many other eloquent men of that time. From them an extensive basis [of material] has been left behind for our narrative. 2 As he begins his writing against them, one of those just mentioned93 first points out that he conducted unwritten refutations against them, and composes a prooimion to that effect: 3 For long enough, Abercius Marcellus, my friend, you have demanded that I write a treatise against the heresy of those associated with Miltiades. I kept putting it off until now, not because I was having difficulty being able to refute the falsehood and bearing witness to the truth, but because I was afraid and on guard that I not seem to write or add anything94 to the account of the gospel of the new covenant, to which one who has chosen to live the way of life that is in accordance with the gospel itself is able neither to add nor detract. 4 But recently when I was in Ancyra in Galatia, and realized that the church in that region had been deafened by this New Prophecy, as they call it, but which, as will be shown, is quite certainly false prophecy, I, to the best of my ability, with the Lord’s help, held a discourse in the church for many days concerning these people and each of the ideas they tender. As a result, the church rejoiced and was encouraged to hold to the truth, while our rivals were for the moment driven off and our opponents left vexed.

92. The usual term in early Christian heresiology for the Montanists, literally, the “According to Phrygia” heresy; it casts the Montanists as a provincial, localized, and rural tradition, and orthodoxy as universal and metropolitan. 93. Eusebius does not know the writer’s name; the quotations that follow are thus all known under the title Anonymous Anti-Montanist, and are preserved only in Eusebius. 94. Gal. 3:15.

book 5

253

5 Then, when, the presbyters in the region requested us to leave behind a written record of what had been said against those who had opposed the account of the truth95 (our fellow presbyter Zoticus of Otrenos also being present) we did not do this, but we promised to write to them there, if the Lord granted it, and to send it to them with all diligence.

6 After describing what followed this in the beginning of his account, he goes on to state the source of the aforementioned heresy, recounting it in this manner: Their origin, therefore, and recent choice to create schism against the church had the following cause. 7 There is said to be a village in Mysia in Phrygia, called by the name Ardabav. There, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia,96 a certain new believer, Montanus by name, thanks to the unmeasured desire of his soul to hold the highest honor, allowed the Adversary to enter him, was carried away by the spirit, and fell into a possessed and ecstatic state. He began to act inspired and to speak and utter things in strange languages, prophesying contrary to the custom and succession that there has been in the church from the beginning. 8 Among those at that time who heard these illegitimate97 utterances, some were worried that he was possessed by a daimōn and had a spirit of error within him, and that he was distracting the masses. They censured him and banned him from speaking, for they recalled the Lord’s distinct reference to and warning to stay awake and be on guard against the appearance of false prophets.98 Others, however, as though seized by a holy spirit and a prophetic gift and becoming not a little proud, forgot the Lord’s distinct reference, invited in the maddening and wheedling little spirit that leads the populace astray, and were enchanted and led astray by it, so that it could not be kept silent. 9 By some art, or rather by some form of wicked skill, the Devil orchestrated destruction against those disobedient [to the Lord’s distinct warning]. Lauded by the honors they gave him, he egged them on

95. Logos of truth: i.e., the verbal account given by the Anonymous as an authentic tradent of the Word/Logos. 96. Gratus is not attested elsewhere, and the exact location of Ardabav is unknown. 97. Nothos: “illegitimate/bastard”; the same word is used in the account of accepted and unaccepted writings at 3.25. 98. Matt. 7:15.

254

the ecclesiastical history

and lit a fire in their deliberative faculty, which was already dead to the faith that accords with truth, with the result that he raised up some others—two women—and filled them with the illegitimate spirit, so that they spoke in an insane, disturbed, and strange manner, like the aforementioned [Montanus]. And though the [evil] spirit blessed those who welcomed it and took pride in it, and puffed them up with the greatness of its promises, it sometimes skillfully and believably passed judgment against them, in order that it might seem to be fond of giving reproach.99 But the number of the Phrygians who were deceived were few. But when that willful spirit taught [people] to blaspheme against the whole universal church under heaven, 10 because it did not honor the false prophet or allow him to enter her—for the believers throughout Asia and from all places in Asia had often gathered and examined the recent sayings and condemned and rejected the heresy as profane—then, in fact, they were expelled from the church and shut off from fellowship.

11 He recounts this in the first portion of the work, and throughout the writing he presses a refutation of the error associated with them. In the second book he says this about the death of the aforementioned [Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla]: 12 Since, therefore, they call us prophet-killers, because we do not accept their babbling prophets (for they say that these are the ones the Lord promised to send to the people),100 let us question them before God. You noble people, who among those who come from Montanus and the women and begin to utter prophecies was persecuted by the Jews or killed by the lawbreakers? No one! Were any of them condemned on behalf of the name and crucified? No, not at all! Or were any of the women ever beaten or stoned in the synagogues of the Jews? Not a one ever, at all! 13 Rather, Montanus and Maximilla are said to have ended their lives by another kind of death. The story is that each of them was driven by a crazy-making spirit to hang themselves, but not at the same time. At the time of each one’s death there were many reports that this was how they died, and that they had flown from life in the manner of the traitor Judas.101 14 Many reports hold that that wondrous man who was

99. I.e., in imitation of a genuine spirit. 100. That is, the “paraclete” (John 14:26) and the “spirit of truth” (John 16:12–13); believed by Montanists to be the spirit inspiring the New Prophecy. 101. See Matt. 27:1–10.

book 5

255

the first who acted as a trustee of their so-called prophecy was once taken and carried up into the heavens, went into a state of ecstasy and entrusted himself to a fraudulent spirit, was tossed down and died horribly. 15 They say that it happened that way. But we should not presume to know any of this for sure, since we did not see it, my friend. It is as likely as not that this is how Montanus, Theodotus, and the aforementioned woman died.102

16 Again, in the same discourse he says that the holy bishops of that time tried to expose the spirit in Maximilla, but were prevented by others who were clearly cooperating with the spirit. 17 He writes thusly: And do not let the spirit say, through Maximilla, as [we find] in the discourse that Asterius Urbanus reports, “I am persecuted like a wolf among the sheep. I am no wolf. I am word, spirit, and power.” Rather, let him clearly demonstrate and prove the power in the spirit, and compel those who were present at that time for the purpose of testing and exposing that prattling spirit to acknowledge it. They were proven men who were bishops—Zoticus from the village of Comanes and Julianus from Apameia—whose mouths the faction of Themiso muzzled, not allowing them to refute that false spirit deceiving the populace.

18 In the same [discourse] he says other things again after the refutation of the false prophecies of Maximilla, and at the same time indicates the time when he wrote this, and mentions her predictions, in which she prophesied that wars and uprisings were coming. He corrects their false statements, saying thus: 19 And how is this falsehood not already evident? It is more than thirteen years since the time when the woman died, and there has been neither a regional nor a general war [anywhere] in the world; rather, there has been permanent peace for Christians, by God’s mercy.

20 This is from the second [book] of the work. And from the third I will set down a few passages, in which he says this against those who boast that many of them were in fact martyred:

102. The preceding block of quotation illustrates well how different early Christian groups shared, and contested, the notion that true Christianity was a persecuted Christianity.

256

the ecclesiastical history

When, therefore, all these statements have been refuted, and they are at a loss, they try to take refuge in the martyrs, saying they have many martyrs and that this is a sure and trusty [sign] of the power of the prophetic spirit that speaks among them. But this, it seems, is actually the least true of everything [they say]. 21 For among the other heresies some have many who are martyrs, though we do not come to agree with them based on this, nor do we confess that they have the truth. And the best example is the Marcionites, named after the heresy of Marcion, who say they have many who are martyrs of Christ, but nevertheless they do not confess Christ himself according to the truth.

22 And briefly after this he continues, saying: This is why, moreover, when those from the church who are called to bear witness for the true faith happen to meet with any of the so-called martyrs from the heresy of the Phrygians, they separate from them and do not share in fellowship with them when they die, because they do not want to join with the spirit that came through Montanus and the women. And that this is true is evident in our own day in Apameia on the Meander, when those of the party of Gaius and Alexander from Eumeneia were martyred.

O N M I LT IA D E S A N D T H E WO R K S H E C OM P O SE D

chapter 17. In this writing he also mentions the writer Miltiades as one who also wrote a discourse against the aforementioned heresy, and after he sets down some passages from it, he continues, saying: We have excerpted this having found it in a writing of those who were attacking the writing of the brother Alcibiades, in which Alcibiades demonstrates that it is not necessary for a prophet to speak in ecstasy.

2 Continuing further in the same writing he lists those who have prophesied according to the new covenant, among whom he numbers a certain Ammia and Quadratus, saying thusly: But the false prophet [speaks] in an ecstatic state, which grants license and makes him reckless, for it begins with willful ignorance, but it turns into involuntary insanity of the soul, as was said before. 3 None of those who were prophets according to the old or the new [cove-

book 5

257

nants] can be shown to have borne the spirit in this manner—not Agabus or Jude, not Silas or the daughters of Philipp, nor Ammia in Philadelphia, nor Quadratus, nor any others they might boast of who do not belong to them at all.

4 And again, after brief remarks, he says this: For if, as they say, the women associated with Montanus received the prophetic gift after Quadratus and Ammia in Philadelphia, then let them prove who among them succeeded those after Montanus and the women. For the Apostle deems that the prophetic gift must exist in the whole church until the final coming.103

5 Such, then, says this [writer]. The Miltiades he mentions, though, has left us other records of his own work concerning the divine oracles, in the discourses he composed To the Hellenes and To the Jews, treating each subject separately in two treatises, and he also produced an apology to the worldly rulers on behalf of the philosophy he followed. HOW A P O L L O N I U S R E F U T E D T H E C ATA P H RYG IA N S A N D W HAT H E M E N T IO N S [ A B O U T T H E M ]

chapter 18. When the so-called Cataphrygian heresy was still flourishing throughout Phrygia, Apollonius, an ecclesiastical writer, also presented a refutation, providing a specific writing against them, in which he presented a word-for-word critique showing that the prophecies they present are false and exposing the way of life of the leaders of the heresy for what it was. Hear in these very words what he says about Montanus: But who this teacher is, his works and teaching show. This is a man who taught the undoing of marriages, who legislated fasting, who named Pepouza and Tymion—which are but tiny cities in Phrygia— Jerusalem,104 who wanted to gather together people from everywhere there, who appointed dealers in goods, who devised a way to receive gifts in the name of offerings, and who gave salaries to those who 103. Eph. 21:11; 1 Cor. 1:7. 104. Montanus prophesied that the eschatological kingdom of the new Jerusalem would arrive in these Phrygian towns.

258

the ecclesiastical history preached his doctrine, in order that, thanks to gluttony, the teaching of that doctrine would prevail.

3 That is what he says about Montanus; and continuing on about his prophetesses he writes thus: We have proven, then, that these first prophetesses abandoned their husbands after they were filled by the spirit. How, then, can they lie and call Priscilla a virgin?

4 Then he continues, saying: Does not all of scripture seem to you to ban a prophet from receiving gifts and money? So, then, when I see a prophetess who has received gold, silver, and expensive clothes, how will I not reject her?

5 And, continuing on about one of the confessors from their faction, he says this: Yet Themiso, too, who was clothed with sufficient greed and who did not endure making the sign of confession, but with a load of money was able to avoid arrest, should have [for this reason] taken a humble attitude in response to this. But he boasted of being a martyr and dared, in imitation of the Apostle, to compose a general letter instructing those who held to faith stronger than he had, and to contend using vain words, and to blaspheme against the Lord and the apostles and the holy church.

6 And again, about another of their faction honored as a martyr, he writes thus: But let us say no more. Let the prophetess tell us about the affairs of Alexander, who called himself a martyr, and with whom she shares [ritual] meals and to whom many kneel in reverence. We need not mention his thievery and other things he has dared and for which he has been punished—the back alley knows.105 Which one of them can forgive the other’s sins? 7 Does the prophetess forgive the sins of the thief, or the martyr the greed of the prophetess? For though the Lord has said not to possess gold, silver, or two cloaks,106 they have committed wrong by doing the

105. Literally, the “back of the house” where untoward, ignoble, and licentious things happen. 106. Matt. 10:9–10.

book 5

259

complete opposite with the possession of these forbidden things. For we will show that those they call prophets and martyrs do not shake down only the wealthy, but even the poor, orphans, and widows. 8 And if they have the courage, let them pause on this point and discuss it, so that if they are refuted, they might stop from sinning any more. For the fruits of the prophet must be tested, 9 and the tree is known by its fruit.107 But that those who wish to may know about the affair of Alexander: he was put on trial under the proconsul Aemilius Frontinus108 in Ephesus, not on account of the name,109 but for the thefts he dared commit, being already a transgressor. Then, he laid false claim to the name of the Lord and was released, having led the faithful of that place astray. And his own community, where he was from, did not receive him on account of his being a thief. And those who want to learn about the affairs related to him have the public archives of Asia. 10 The prophet, who spent many years with him, is ignorant of this. We could present similar stories about many others, and if they want to risk it, let them endure the refutation.

11 And again, in another place in the work he adds this about the prophets upon whom they pride themselves: If they deny that their prophets accept gifts, let them agree to this—that if they can be confuted as having accepted them, they are not prophets. And we can provide myriad demonstrations that this is the case. But all the fruits of a prophet must be tested. Tell me: does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet paint his eyes? Does a prophet love adornment? Does a prophet play dice games? Does a prophet collect interest on loans? Let them confess whether this is true or not, and I will show that they have done these things.

12 This same Apollonius recounts in the same writing that forty years had passed between the writing of his treatise and the time when Montanus had ventured his pretended prophecy. And again, he says that Zoticus, 13 whom the former writer mentioned,110 tried, when Maximilla was pretending to prophesy in Pepouza, to refute the spirit

107. Matt. 12:33. 108. Proconsul of Asia ca. 184/5 c.e. 109. I.e., Christian; the text is asserting that being condemned specifically on the charge of being a Christian is a sine qua non of authentic martyrdom. 110. Zoticus: fellow presbyter of the Anonymous (5.16.5).

260

the ecclesiastical history

that was working in her, but was, however, prevented by those who were well disposed toward that woman’s [utterances]. And he mentions Thrasea, one of those martyred at that time. 14 He also says, as if repeating a tradition, that the Savior commanded his apostles not to depart Jerusalem for twelve years,111 and uses testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, and he recounts that, by divine power, a dead man was raised by John himself in Ephesus, and he says some other things, with which he sufficiently and quite completely corrects the error of the aforementioned heresy. Such [writes] Apollonius. F R OM SE R A P IO N O N T H E H E R E SY O F T H E C ATA P H RYG IA N S

chapter 19. Serapion, who word has it was bishop of Antioch after Maximinus during the period under discussion, mentions the writings of Apollinaris against the aforementioned heresy. He has mentioned him in his own letter to Caricus and Pontius, in which he also corrects the said heresy, adding this: 2 But that you may also know that the activity of the fake order of this so-called New Prophecy is abominated by the whole brotherhood throughout the world. I have also sent you writings of Claudius Apollinarus, the bishop in Hierapolis of Asia who became most blessed.

3 Moreover, the subscriptions of various bishops have been handed down in this letter of Serapion. One of them has signed just so: “I, Aurelius Quirinius, martyr, pray you be in good health”; and another in this way: “Aelius Publius Julius, bishop from the colonia Debettus in Thrace; as God lives in the heavens, [I swear] that the blessed Sotas who was in Ancialus wished to cast the demon out of Priscilla, and the hypocrites did not allow him.” 4 And the autograph notations of a great number of other bishops who were in agreement with these are also handed down in the aforesaid letters. Such were the matters relating to these people.112 111. An agraphon, a saying attributed to Jesus but not recorded in canonical writings. 112. Or “Such were affairs during this period.”

book 5

261

W HAT I R E NA E U S D I S C U S SE D I N W R I T I N G W I T H T H E S C H I SM AT IC S I N R OM E

chapter 20. And against those in Rome who were debasing the sound order of the church, Irenaeus composed various letters. He addressed one to Blastus, On Schism, and another to Florinus, On Monarchy or the Fact That God Is Not the Maker of Evils, for Florinus, in fact, seemed to defend this opinion. Again, because Florinus was drawn to the error associated with Valentinus, Irenaeus composed the careful work On the Ogdoad, in which he indicates that he himself had known the first succession from the apostles.113 2 In this treatise, toward the end of the book, we find a most elegant notice of his, and we must repeat it in this writing; it goes this way: I admonish you, who shall make a copy of this book, by our lord Jesus Christ and his glorious return, when he will judge the living and the dead, that you collate what you copy, and correct it against this copy from which you are copying, with all diligence, and that you likewise copy this oath and place it in the copy.114

3 Moreover, let him have said this and let us have received it beneficially, so that we may have those ancient and truly holy men as the best model of the most diligent scruples. 4 In the letter to Florinus that we mentioned above, Irenaeus again, in fact, mentions the fact that he met Polycarp, saying: If I may put it simply, Florinus, these doctrines do not come from a sound attitude. These doctrines are in discord with the church, and push those who are persuaded by them into great impiety. These doctrines the heretics who stand outside the church have never dared to proclaim. These doctrines the presbyters who came before us, who were companions of the apostles, did not hand down to you.

113. I.e., that he had known those, like Polycarp, who claimed to be the first successors of the apostles; see 5.20.4. On the Ogdoad is otherwise lost. 114. This is a colophon, or notice placed at the end of a work by a copyist, or as here, by the author. The presence of a colophon such as this in a manuscript was supposed to ensure the authenticity of the copy.

262

the ecclesiastical history

5 For I knew you when I was still a boy in lower Asia, with Polycarp, when you were doing splendidly in the kingly hall,115 and trying to garner his respect. 6 For I remember the events of that time better than what has happened recently (for what we learn as children grows up together with the soul, and is united to it), so that I can describe the place where the blessed Polycarp sat as he dialogued, and his exits and entries, and the character of his life and the form of his body, and the dialogues he gave to the crowd, and the fact that he proclaimed that he lived with John, and the rest who had seen the Lord, and that he recalled their words, and what it was he had heard from them about the Lord, and about his powers, and about his teaching, and that Polycarp received [it] from eyewitnesses of the life of the Logos and proclaimed everything in accordance with the writings. 7 And at that time, on account of the mercy of God that was given me, I listened to it all diligently, recording it not on papyrus, but in my heart. And by the grace of God, I always ruminate on them truly, and I am able to testify before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter heard any such thing, he would scream and cover his ears, and in his customary way say: “O Good God, have you kept me alive so long so that I have to put up with this?!” He would flee from where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. 8 And this can be clearly evidenced from his letters, which he sent to nearby churches, to support them, or to some of the brothers, admonishing and encouraging them.

Such writes Irenaeus. HOW A P O L L O N I U S WA S M A RT Y R E D I N R OM E

chapter 21. During the same period of the reign of Commodus things became easier for us, when with divine grace, peace spread to the churches throughout the whole inhabited world. Then the salvific Logos led every soul from every race of humanity to the pious worship

115. As seen in what follows, the “kingly hall” (basilikē aulē) refers to the place where public preaching and instruction (and perhaps liturgical services) took place; compare the term basilikos oikos (“kingly house,” but usually translated “basilica”) used in the fourth century to describe Christian buildings like the basilica at Tyre (see 10.4.1– 72).

book 5

263

of the God of the Universe, and even many of those in Rome who were renowned for wealth and family actually advanced toward their own salvation, together with whole households and entire families. 2 This was unbearable for the demon who hates the Good and is malignant by nature, and so he stripped down for competition again, and devised a variety of machinations against us. In the city of the Romans, then, he led Apollonius to the tribunal, a man renowned among the believers of that time for education and philosophy, and raised up one of his devoted servants at the time to accuse the man. 3 But that wretch came to the court at the wrong time, because according to imperial order those who acted as informers in such cases were not allowed to live, and so, straightaway his legs were broken, for the judge, Perennius, rendered this sentence against him. 4 But, when the judge unctuously entreated him many times and asked him to give an account before the Senate, the most god-beloved martyr delivered a most eloquent apology before them all on behalf of the faith to which he bore witness. He was perfected by beheading, as it were by senatorial decree, for an old law was in force among them that those who had entered the judgment hall and refused to change their attitude could not be released. 5 Now, then, whoever is pleased to read the statements this man made to the judge, and the answers he gave to Perennius’s inquiry, and the whole apology he presented to the Senate, can find it in our Collection of Ancient Martyrs. W HAT B I SHO P S W E R E W E L L K N OW N I N T H I S P E R IO D

chapter 22. In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus,116 Victor succeeded Eleutherus,117 who had served in the episcopacy thirteen years, in which year, too, Demetrius was appointed to the service of the communities in Alexandria after Julianus has completed ten years. During their time, the Serapion just mentioned,118 who was the eighth bishop of the church of Antiochenes after the apostles, was well known. Theophilus led Caesarea in Palestine, and Narcissus similarly, 116. 189 c.e. 117. I.e., in Rome. 118. 5.19.1.

264

the ecclesiastical history

mention of whom was made in this discourse above,119 still performed the service of the church in Jerusalem. During the same period Bacchylus was bishop of Corinth in Greece, and Polycrates was bishop of the community in Ephesus. And in all likelihood myriad others, in addition to these, distinguished themselves during this period. As is reasonable, though, we have listed by name those whose orthodox faith has come down to us in written form. O N T H E QU E S T IO N R A I SE D I N T H I S P E R IO D A B OU T PA S C HA

chapter 23. During this period, a question of no small concern was stirred up.120 The communities of all of Asia considered it necessary, as though it was ancient tradition, to observe the feast of the Savior’s Pascha on the fourteenth of the month in which the public notice was given by the Jews to sacrifice the [paschal] lamb, so that the fasts must end on that day, whatever day of the week it happened to be. But it was not the custom to celebrate it this way for the churches throughout all the rest of the inhabited world, which observed the custom that still holds sway in the present, that no other day is proper for ending the fasts besides the day of our Savior’s resurrection. 2 And so synods and meetings of bishops were held about this matter, and all of them, with a single viewpoint, proclaimed ecclesiastical doctrine in writing through letters [sent] to those everywhere, that never on a day other than the Lordly Day121 should the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead be celebrated, and how on this day alone we should observe the end of the paschal fasts. 3 A writing is still in circulation to this day from those throughout Palestine who met at that time, and over whom Theophilus, the bishop of the community in Caesarea, and Narcissus [bishop] of the [community] in Jerusalem, presided, and likewise another [writing] on the same question from those in Rome, which indicates that Victor was bishop, and from the bishops of Pontus, over whom Palmas, as the most senior, presided, 4 and from the communities of Gaul, which 119. 5.12.2. 120. On what follows, see the overview of book 5. 121. I.e., Sunday in the Roman week.

book 5

265

Irenaeus oversaw, and, moreover, from those in Osrhoëne and the cities there, and from Bacchylus, bishop of the church of the Corinthians, writing privately,122 and from many others who professed one and the same opinion and judgment, having laid down the same vote. And they all had one definition, as indicated above. O N T H E D I S AG R E E M E N T S I N A SIA

chapter 24. But Polycrates led the bishops of Asia who were recalcitrant in following the ancient custom that had previously been handed down to them. Polycrates himself even lays out the tradition that had come to him in a work he addressed to Victor and the Roman church, in these words:123 2 We, then, observe the day without fraud, neither adding nor taking away. For throughout Asia many leading lights have gone to their rest, who will rise on the day of the Lord’s arrival, when he will come with glory from the heavens and seek out all of the holy ones: Philipp, one of the twelve apostles, who went to his rest in Hierapolis, and his two daughters who grew old as virgins, and his other daughter who lived her life in the Holy Spirit and died in Ephesus. 3 And John, too, who reclined on the Lord’s chest, and who became a priest wearing the petalon, a martyr, and a teacher; 4 he went to his rest in Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, too, both bishop and martyr. And Thraseas, both bishop and martyr from Eumenia, 5 who went to his rest in Smyrna. What need is there to speak of Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who went to his rest in Laodicea, and the blessed Papirius, too, and Melito the eunuch who always lived his life in the Holy Spirit and who lies in Sardis, waiting for the visit from heaven, when he will rise from the dead? 6 All of these observed the day of the fourteenth for the Pascha, in accordance with the gospel, deviating in no way, but following the rule of faith. But, I, Polycrates, the least among all of you, [observe] according to the tradition of my kinsfolk, some of whom I have followed after [as bishop]. Seven of my kinfolk were bishops, and I am eighth. And

122. I.e., writing on his own rather than on behalf of a synod, like the other letters just mentioned. 123. This is another portion of the same letter of Polycrates to Victor quoted earlier at 3.31.3.

266

the ecclesiastical history

my kinfolk always observed the day when the [Jewish] people set aside the leaven. 7 Now, then, brothers, I being sixty-five years old in the Lord and having spent time with brothers from the whole inhabited world and having gone over all the holy writing, am not scared by those who bully me, for those greater than I have said: “One must obey God rather than human beings.”124

8 He goes on about the bishops who were present with him as he wrote and who were of the same opinion, saying this: I could mention the bishops present with me, who you requested be summoned by me, and whom I so summoned—if I write their names they would be a great multitude. And they, knowing the meager man that I am, consented to the letter, knowing that I do not bear my gray hair in vain, but that I have always lived my life in Christ Jesus.

9 In response to this, the president of the Romans, Victor, immediately tried to cut off the communities of all of Asia together with the neighboring churches from the common unity, for acting in a heterodox way, and made a public proclamation through letters announcing that all the brothers there were utterly without fellowship. 10 But this was not satisfying to all the bishops. In fact, they responded by asking him to keep in mind the matters of peace and unity and love toward neighbors, and their statements, which startled Victor, are in circulation. 11 Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the brothers he led in Gaul. He states the necessity of celebrating the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection on the Lordly Day alone, but nonetheless rightly exhorts Victor extensively that he should not cut off whole churches of God that follow a tradition based on ancient custom, and to these statements he adds this: 12 For the dispute is not only about the day, but also about the very form of the fast. For some think they must fast for a single day, others two, and still others many days. Some measure their “day” as forty hours, counting day and night. 13 Such variation among those keeping [the feast] does not just happen now, in our time, but did even long before, in the time of those who came before us, when, so it seems, they were more concerned with commanding a practice that was simple and 124. Acts 5:29.

book 5

267

familiar to common people than with [calendrical] precision, preserving it for posterity, and they lived in peace nonetheless, and we live in peace with one another, and the disagreement over the fast proves the concord of our faith.

14 To this he also appends a story, which I will fittingly include, and which goes like this: Among these, too, were the presbyters125 before Soter, who presided over the church that you now guide, I speak of Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus, and Xystus. They did not observe it, nor did they enjoin it for those after them, and though they did not observe it, they nonetheless maintained peace with those from communities where it was observed when they visited, even though observing it was more offensive to those who did not observe it. 15 But never were any cast out based on this form [of observance], but those presbyters before you who did not follow this observance sent gifts of thanks to those from communities who did. 16 And, when the blessed Polycarp spent time in Rome with Anicetus, and they disagreed with each other on some other minor matters, they immediately made peace, for on this point they did not desire there to be any strife between themselves. For Anicetus was not able to persuade Polycarp not to follow this observance, when he had always observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles with whom he was associated, nor, for that matter, did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to follow this observance, saying that it was proper for [Anicetus] to follow the elders who had come before him. 17 With matters thus resolved, they shared in fellowship with each other, and in the church Anicetus conceded the Eucharist to Polycarp, obviously out of humility, and they took leave of each other in peace and with the whole church being at peace, both those who followed the observance and those who did not.

18 By acting as peacemaker in this way, Irenaeus wore his name well,126 when he enjoined and diplomatically brokered so much on behalf of the peace of the churches. But he discussed the opposing positions not only with Victor, but also with many different leaders of churches, in letters concerning the question that had been raised.

125. Irenaeus uses the word “presbyters” to refer to the bishops preceding Victor. 126. Eirēnē means “peace”; Eirēnaios (Irenaeus) means “man of peace.”

268

the ecclesiastical history HOW A U N I TA RY D E C I SIO N WA S PROCLAIMED BY ALL CONCERNING T H E PA S C HA

chapter 25. Those in Palestine, moreover, whom we recounted just above—Narcissus and Theophilus and with them Cassius, bishop of the church in Tyre, and Clarus, [bishop] of the one in Ptolemais, and those who gathered together with them—discussed at length the tradition about the Pascha that had come down to them through the succession of the apostles, adding this in these very words at the end of the writing: Please try to send copies of our letter to every community, lest we be liable to those who easily lead their own souls astray. We declare to you that in Alexandria they do things on the same day as we do, for we have supplied letters to them and they also to us, to the effect that we celebrate the holy day harmoniously and jointly.

T H E F I N E WO R K S O F I R E NA E U S T HAT HAV E C OM E D OW N T O U S

chapter 26. But in addition to the writings and letters of Irenaeus that have been referenced, a most concise and compelling discourse of his to the Hellenes is in circulation, which is entitled On Knowledge, and another that is dedicated to a brother by the name Marcian, a Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, and a book of various discussions, in which he mentions the Letter to the Hebrews and the so-called Wisdom of Solomon, setting down certain passages from them. Such are [the writings] of Irenaeus that have come to our knowledge.127 When Commodus ended his imperium after thirteen years, Emperor Severus took power not all of six months after the death of Commodus, with Pertinax coming in between.128

127. Of the works mentioned here, only an Armenian version of the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching is extant. 128. 193/4 c.e.

book 5

269

A N D [ T H E F I N E WO R K S ] O F T H E R E ST O F T HO SE W HO F L O U R I SH E D I N T HAT P E R IO D

chapter 27. Many written records of the diligent virtue of the ancient ecclesiastical men of that time are preserved even to this day by many people. Among those that we ourselves know of would be the [writings] of Heraclitus On the Apostle,129 those of Maximus On the Origin of Evil, which is a question much discussed among heretics, and those On the Fact That Matter Is Generated, and those of Candidus On the Hexamaeron, and those of Apion on the same subject, likewise those of Sextus On the Resurrection, and a treatise on another subject by Arabianus, and the [writings] of myriad others whose dates we are not in a position to provide, nor offer a narrative record of them in [our] writing because there is no information. And works from many others, whose names we are unable to list, have come to us; they are orthodox and ecclesiastical, as indeed each one’s interpretation of the divine writings evidences. Nevertheless who they were is unclear to us, because the names of those who wrote them are not supplied.130 O N T HO SE W HO F I R S T P R O P O SE D T H E H E R E SY O F A RT E M O N , A N D W HAT K I N D O F P E O P L E T H EY W E R E A N D HOW T H EY DA R E D C O R RU P T T H E HO LY W R I T I N G S

chapter 28. In a work by one of them written against the heresy of Artemon, which Paul of Samosata tried to renew again in our day, a story is in circulation that pertains to the narratives we are investigating. 2 For he critiques the aforementioned heresy—which says that the Savior was a mere human being—as being something newly invented, since those who introduced it wanted to make it seem venerable for 129. I.e., a treatise on the Pauline corpus. 130. He is describing writings that he considers orthodox in content, but which are acephalous, or lacking headings indicating authorship. Eusebius always prefers to have secure indications of authorship, but the Anonymous Anti-Montanist quoted earlier (5.16.3–17.4) is an example of an acephalous work that Eusebius does use, and the anonymous treatise against Artemon he quotes below is another.

270

the ecclesiastical history

being ancient, and after presenting many other things to refute their lying blasphemy, the work recounts this, verbatim: 3 For they say that all the apostles themselves received and taught that which they now claim, and [they claim] that the truth of the Preaching was observed up to the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop in Rome after Peter, but that the truth had been counterfeit from the time of his successor, Zephyrinus. 4 What they said might approach plausibility if the divine writings had not contradicted them first. And there are also writings from certain brothers, elders during the time of Victor, which they wrote both against the Gentiles on behalf of the truth and against the heresies of that time—I speak of the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and many others, in which they all speak of Christ as God. 5 For who does not know the books of Irenaeus, Melito, and the rest, which proclaim the Christ is God and human? 6 And what about the psalms and odes written from the beginning by faithful brothers, which speak of him as God when they hymn the Christ as the Logos of God? How, then, when ecclesiastical thought has proclaimed this for so many years, can one admit that those up to the time of Victor preached the way these people claim they did? How are they not ashamed to lay these false charges on Victor, when they know precisely that Victor declared Theodotus the shoemaker, leader and father of this Goddenying apostasy, to be out of fellowship, when he first claimed that the Christ was a mere human? For if Victor, according to them, thought as their blasphemy teaches, how could he have cast out Theodotus, the inventor of that heresy?

7 Such were affairs relating to Victor. But around the ninth year of Severus’s reign131 Zephyrinus was appointed successor to Victor, who had presided in the service for ten years. The writer of the aforementioned book on the founder of the heresy just mentioned adds another event that happened in the time of Zephyrinus, writing thus, in these very words: 8 I would like to remind many brothers, therefore, of something that happened in our day, which I think, if it had happened among the Sodomities, even they would have noticed. There was a certain confessor, Natalius, who did not live long ago but in our own time. 9 This man was

131. Ca. 201 c.e.

book 5

271

led astray at that time by Asclepiodotus and another Theodotus, a money changer. They were both students of Theodotus the shoemaker, who was the first separated from fellowship by Victor (who, as I said, was then the bishop) for this notion, or rather this thoughtlessness. 10 Natalius was persuaded by them to be called bishop of this heresy—for pay—so he received fifty denarii from them each month. 11 Once he had joined them, he was often warned by the Lord through visions, for our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is compassionate, did not want one who had borne witness to his own sufferings to be cast outside the church and destroyed. 12 But since he was little moved by the visions, being enticed by the fact that he held first chair among them and the greed that destroys many, he was at last beaten by holy angels for a whole night, and tortured in no small way, so that, at dawn, he rose, dressed in sackcloth, sprinkled himself in ashes, and in all earnestness fell down before Zephyrinus the bishop in tears, and groveled at the feet not only of the clergy, but the laity, too, pouring out his tears on the compassionate church of merciful Christ. After making many supplications and showing the wounds he had received from the beatings, he was just barely returned to fellowship.

13 To this I will append other statements from the same writer concerning the same people; they go like this: They have recklessly corrupted the divine writings, they have set aside the rule of ancient faith, and they do not know Christ. What the divine writings say, they do not seek, but lovingly labor at whatever form of syllogism can be found as support for ungodliness. And if anyone presents them with a passage of divine writing they examine whether they can use a form of conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism.132 14 They abandon the holy writings of God, and spend their time on geometry, since they are of the earth and speak from the earth and are ignorant of him who comes from above. Some of them lovingly labor at the geometry of Euclid, and they marvel at Aristotle and Theophrastus. They probably kneel in veneration of Galen. 15 Is it even necessary to mention how far they stand from faith, drawing on the arts of the 132. It was a heresiological commonplace to characterize heresy as too similar to or too dependent on Hellenic philosophy and science; see, e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.pr.1; 2.26.1; Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics 7. The anonymous writer is also deploying the well-worn trope of describing one’s intellectual adversaries as trafficking in mere rhetoric, rather than genuine philosophical discourse (see any of the polemics against sophistry in Plato, especially the Gorgias).

272

the ecclesiastical history unbelievers for the opinion of their own heresy and tainting the simple faith of the divine writings with the impurities of the atheists, to sweeten it for sale?133 On account of this they recklessly applied their hands to the divine writings, claiming to correct them. 16 And that I am not making a fraudulent charge against them, he who so desires can learn. For if anyone wishes to gather the copies of each of them and compare them against one another, in many instances you would find that they disagree. 17 Those of Asclepiades are in discord with those of Theodotus, and it is possible to obtain many [copies] on account of the fact that their students have proudly copied out each of what they call corrected versions (really, mulitated versions). But again, the copies of Hermophilus do not sing the same note as these. The [copies] of Apolloniades are not in harmony with each other, for it is possible to compare the copies prepared by them earlier with those that were altered again later, and you will find them singing out of tune throughout. 18 This mistake is one of such daring that in all probability they are not even ignorant of it. For either they do not believe that the divine writings were uttered by the Holy Spirit, and thus they are unbelievers, or they think themselves to be wiser than the Holy Spirit, in which case what are they doing other than acting under the influence of daimones? They cannot deny that this daring deed is their doing, when the copies have been written in their own hands, and they did not receive the writings in such a form from those by whom they were instructed, and they have no copies to show based on which they made these changes.134 19 But some of them did not think to debase the writings, but simply denied the Law and the Prophets, and on the pretext of lawless and godless teachings have sunk into the lowest depths of destruction.

Let the narrative, then, stand thus.

133. The idea that heresies emerged out of “radical syncretism” is still repeated in some textbooks. Recent scholarship instead emphasizes that all varieties of early Christianity emerged within the matrix of broader Greco-Roman intellectual and cultural traditions, and, in turn, that no understanding of philosophy, rhetoric, medicine, and so forth in the Greco-Roman world is complete without attending to the evidence of early Christianity. 134. I.e., they have altered texts on the pretext of correcting them. The author is asserting both that the corrected copies do not agree with one another and that the correctors cannot produce the manuscripts upon which they claim to base their corrections.

Book 6

OV E RV I EW

Book 6 covers about fifty years, from the middle of the reign of Septimius Severus through Decius (ca. 203–ca. 251 c.e.). The narrative now focuses on Alexandria and two of Eusebius’s heroes from that city: the scholar Origen and the bishop Dionysius. At 6.32.1–3 he describes how Pamphilus and his circle (Eusebius among them) labored to collect Origen’s works. He boasts of the pinakes (catalogues) listing Origen’s books; the first half of book 6, in effect, is a kind of annotated bibliography of Origen in narrative form. Eusebius also had a large collection of the letters of Dionysius (fl. 230s–264 c.e.). They provide a window into the life of Alexandria and its bishop in the mid-third century. Along with the letters of Cyprian of Carthage (which Eusebius did not know), Dionysius’s writings are a major source on early Christianity in the mid-third century. We can see Eusebius dovetailing the two poles of book 6—Origen and Dionysius—in chapters 35–39. He introduces Dionysius as successor in Alexandria in 6.35, relates several events in the life of Origen that overlap with the beginning of Dionysius’s episcopacy, then continues, basing his narrative on Dionysius’s letters from 6.40.1 through the end of the book. Dionysius remains his central source for the first twenty-six chapters of book 7.

273

274

the ecclesiastical history SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The School of Alexandria The traditional pattern of education is described in ancient sources as following a progression from instruction in basic literacy, further instruction in letters under the guidance of a grammarian, and, finally, instruction and training in the art of rhetoric with a respected rhetor. Those interested in the philosophical life might, additionally, attend the public talks of a philosophical master, with some devoting themselves to philosophy by becoming part of the master’s inner circle of disciples. The circle of students under the direction of an elementary instructor, grammarian, rhetor, or philosopher was termed a school (didaskaleion), but one should keep in mind that these were not institutions of education in the modern sense. A “school” in the ancient world is best thought of as a network of relationships between students and a teacher. Schools persisted over time when a master teacher was succeeded by another, usually one of his inner circle of pupils. The majority of ancient “schools” were evanescent: when a teacher moved, died, or stopped teaching, the “school” ceased. Exactly where the “school” of Alexandria fits within the traditional model of late ancient education remains a question. Eusebius describes an intellectual circle in Alexandria devoted to the study of “the sacred writings,” and claims that it had existed continuously (5.10.1). He also describes the school as having a “succession” (diadochē) of leaders. In claiming that the school had a succession, Eusebius uses the same vocabulary that non-Christian intellectual circles used to refer to successive leaders. In this way, then, Eusebius is describing something akin to the circle of a master philosopher, like Plotinus or Longinus, to name two contemporaries.1 The Thanksgiving Oration for Origen, written in the mid-third century by one of Origen’s students, describes Origen’s circle as something that looks very much like other “schools” of philosophy in the third century—that is, a philosophical master surrounded by an inner circle of intimate students (gnorimoi), with a cadre of “hearers” less intimately and exclusively associated with the master.

1. Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus, written ca. 300 c.e., offers a vivid portrait of life in a philosophical circle in the third century, and can be compared with Eusebius’s account of Origen in book 6.

book 6

275

Succession is also the concept that Eusebius applies to bishops and apostles, and the reader should take note of the ways in which the successions of Christian teachers overlap and intersect with the successions of apostles and bishops. Although Eusebius portrays the succession of the Alexandrian school as being under the direct auspices of the Alexandrian bishop, intellectual circles like Origen’s appear to have been relatively independent of direct episcopal control. Origen’s teaching, like that of other philosophical teachers, would have been his own undertaking, with the aid of wealthy patrons like Ambrose who supported Origen’s work. The Christian philosophical masters that Eusebius mentions— Origen, Pantaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Lucian of Antioch, and so forth—were, at least initially, laymen. The conflict between Origen and Demetrius (6.8.3–5) suggests that the popularity and success of Christian philosopher-teachers like Origen could be taken as a threat to a bishop’s authority. It was as a result of these conflicts that Origen eventually emigrated to Caesarea, where he was supported not by the bishop, but had the material support of his patron, Ambrose (6.26.1; 36.2). The first successor Eusebius names is Pantaenus, whose tenure he dates to ca. 190s–ca. 210s c.e., followed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Heraclas, and Dionysius (these last two eventually becoming bishops of Alexandria). In book 6, Eusebius claims that catechumens (those in training to receive baptism) were taught by a teacher appointed for the task by the bishop of Alexandria, and names Origen as being assigned this role (6.3.1). Close reading of the account in book 6 suggests that at least two types of education were going on in Alexandria: the studies of an intellectual circle focused on Christian philosophy and “the sacred writings,” and the training of catechumens, which had as its rough analogue intermediate studies with a grammarian or the early stages of learning with a rhetor. According to Eusebius’s account, for a time at least the leadership of both was in the hands of the same person—Origen. For a detailed account of Origen and the Christian “school(s)” of Alexandria, see E. Watts, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), especially chap. 6. On schooling in Egypt, see R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Eusebius’s position after the Diocletianic persecution—intellectual successor to Pamphilus (and Origen) and episcopal successor to

276

the ecclesiastical history

Agapius—was odd, arguably unprecedented. Before and during the Diocletianic persecution, Pamphilus’s circle does not seem to have had any formal episcopal oversight. The Martyrs of Palestine and the History portray a group of intellectuals that looks much more like Origen’s circle as described in Gregory’s Thanksgiving Oration than the court of later fourth-century scholar-bishops, such as Ambrose or Augustine. After the persecution, Eusebius was a strange doublediadoch: successor both to the episcopacy and to the intellectual tradition embodied by Pamphilus. Despite how the History would have it, these were not the same succession, and their compatibility is one of Eusebius’s central arguments. In book 7, Eusebius constructs himself and some of his important allies as scholar-bishops who unite in themselves the dual succession of the Origenian-Alexandrian tradition and the episcopacy. The Life of Origen and His Writings The first portion of book 6 is a mini-hagiography of Origen. Pamphilus and Eusebius considered themselves Origen’s successors, and thus were invested in the biography of the man they considered their scholarly ancestor. They took pride as custodians of Origen’s biblical commentaries and the Hexapla, Origen’s six-column synoptic presentation of different Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible along with the original Hebrew. Eusebius’s account of Origen here, and the Thanksgiving Oration for Origen, are the most important sources for Origen’s biography. It should be kept in mind that one of Eusebius’s prime aims was apologetic. During the first decades of the fourth century, Origen’s orthodoxy had come under suspicion. Between 307 and 310, Pamphilus and Eusebius composed an Apology for Origen in response to antiOrigenists from Egypt who had been condemned to the mines at Phaeno during the Diocletianic persecution. Pamphilus and Eusebius excerpted and commented upon selections from Origen’s works in order to prove the orthodoxy of his writings. In book 6 of the History, Eusebius is defending the orthodoxy of Origen’s life. Throughout, we can see Eusebius parrying a number of critiques—the most notorious being reproaches of Origen’s castration (6.8.1–6). Perhaps more significant to Eusebius, though, was the fact that Origen did not die during the persecution. Consequently, Eusebius strives to connect Origen

book 6

277

with martyrs and martyrdom: Origen’s father was martyred, and his mother prevented Origen from following in his footsteps (6.1.1–2.6); his students became martyrs, but God preserved Origen (6.3.1–7); Origen confessed and suffered torture under Decius, but did not die until the persecution was over (6.39.5; 7.1.1). In this last instance, by defending Origen Eusebius may have also been implicitly defending himself. According to the anti-Origenist Epiphanius of Salamis, Eusebius had been imprisoned in Egypt during the Diocletianic persecution, but the rumor circulated that he had capitulated (Panarion 68.8.3–4). Eusebius must also explain Origen’s association with the unorthodox, particularly the wealthy woman who was Origen’s patron in his youth, Paul (a “heretic” [6.2.13–14] who lived together with Origen in her home), and Ambrose, Origen’s patron during the height of his career and a former Valentinian (6.18.1). Origen’s complicated relationship with Hellenic literature and philosophy is also a key topic. Origen’s critics—both Christian and nonChristian—also took issue with his relationship to Hellenic learning and philosophy. Gregory’s Thanksgiving Oration, Eusebius, and the late thirdcentury Platonist Porphyry of Tyre all agree that Origen read and taught Platonic and Stoic literature. If Porphyry’s account, quoted by Eusebius (6.19.6–7), is correct, Origen had been a student of the early third-century philosopher Ammonius Saccas. Ammonius also taught Plotinus, Porphyry’s teacher and the “father” of Neoplatonism. Porphyry drew a sharp contrast between Origen and Ammonius; Origen represented a miscegenation of Hellenic philosophy, while Ammonius (and by extension, Plotinus and Porphyry himself) represented the authentic successors of Hellenism. Eusebius’s account of Origen is noteworthy for the way it negotiates Origen’s relationship with Hellenic learning. According to Eusebius, Origen had a traditional education and taught grammar at the same time he taught catechumens. Later, “without a doubt in his mind” he decided to give up grammar as “out of tune with training in divine instruction,” selling his library of non-Christian works and devoting himself solely to the study of biblical texts (6.2.15; 6.3.8). The Decian Persecution Eusebius introduces Decius as a persecutor at 6.39.1. Almost all of his evidence about the Decian persecution comes from Dionysius of Alexandria’s letters. Modern scholars likewise rely heavily on Dionysius,

278

the ecclesiastical history

along with the letters of Cyprian, which provide information about matters in the West. The other key source is the Martyrdom of Pionius, which Eusebius possessed (see 4.15.47), but does not use in his account of the events of Decius’s reign. Where earlier persecutions were sporadic and local, and never organized directly by emperors or the imperial court, the Decian persecution was, at least theoretically, an empire-wide phenomenon. What the Christian sources describe as a targeted attack, however, might be better described as the consequence of measures that never really had Christians in mind. Upon his succession, Decius seems to have ordered all citizens of the empire to participate in public sacrifices for the wellbeing of the emperor and empire. Thanks to the constitutio Antoniniana—the decree of Caracalla in 212 c.e. that granted citizenship to all free people in the empire—this requirement fell upon many. The notion that imperial subjects should demonstrate loyalty by participating in sacrifices on behalf of the emperor and empire was not innovative. The requirement that some obtain certificates (libelli) proving they had participated was. Around forty-five libelli survive. Christians became martyrs when they refused to obey the order to sacrifice. The letters of Dionysius and Cyprian show that bishops and other clergy were targeted as the public representatives of Christian communities, in efforts to force broader compliance. On the Decian persecution, including translations of libelli, see R. Selinger, The Mid-Third-Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2002). Dionysius of Alexandria Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria from late 248 to 264. Eusebius is most interested in Dionysius’s descriptions of martyrdom and his contributions to debates about the proper treatment of Christians who lapsed during persecution. Eusebius probably had several collections of Dionysius’s letters, in separate codices. He mentions texts in the order in which he finds them in his manuscripts, rather than the chronological order in which they were written. For more detailed notes on the intricacies of the Dionysian material, see the companion commentary to this volume. The only complete study of Dionysius and his works in English is still C. Feltoe, The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904). On Eusebius’s use of

book 6

279

codices of Dionysius’s works, see A. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden: Brill, 2003). PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S • •

•

•

•

•

The works of Clement of Alexandria The works of Origen of Alexandria; English translation: many versions, including ANF vols. 4 and 9, the Fathers of the Church series (Catholic University of America Press) and the Ancient Christian Writers series (Paulist Press) Gregory Thaumaturgus, Thanksgiving Oration for Origen; English translation: M. Slusser, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Life and Works (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1998) Cyprian of Carthage, Letters; complete letters in English translation: G. W. Clarke, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, 4 vols., Ancient Christian Writers 43, 44, 46, 47 (New York: Paulist Press, 1984–89) The works of Novatian; English translation: R. DeSimone, Novatian (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1974) Pamphilus and Eusebius, Apology for Origen; English translation: T. Scheck, St. Pamphilus: Apology for Origen (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2010)

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 6

On the persecution during the reign of Severus On Origen’s childhood asceticism That he was an ambassador for the doctrine of Christ while still young How many of those taught by him went on to martyrdom On Potimiaena On Clement of Alexandria On the writer Judas On what Origen did recklessly On the miracles of Narcissus On the bishops of Jerusalem On Alexander On Serapion and the works of his that are current On the writings of Clement What writings he mentions On Heraclas How Origen was diligent about the divine writings On Symmachus the translator On Ambrose 280

book 6

281

What is mentioned about Origen What works of the writers of that time are current What bishops were well known during this period What [works] of Hippolytus have come to us On Origen’s diligence and that he was deemed worthy of the ecclesiastical presbyterate What exegeses he wrote in Alexandria How he mentions the registered writings What the bishops thought of him That Heraclas succeeded to the episcopacy of the Alexandrians On the persecution in the reign of Maximinus On Fabian, that he was miraculously chosen by God as bishop of the Romans Who the pupils of Origen were On Africanus What exegeses Origen wrote in Caesarea in Palestine On the deviation of Beryllus Affairs in the reign of Philipp That Dionysius succeeded Heraclas in the episcopacy What other works Origen labored upon On the disagreement of the Arabians On the heresy of the Elkesaites On affairs in the reign of Decius On what happened to Dionysius On those who became martyrs in Alexandria itself What Dionysius recounts about other martyrdoms On Novatus, what sort of person he was and on the heresy associated with him A story about Serapion from Dionysius A letter of Dionysius to Novatus On the other letters of Dionysius

282

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E P E R SE C U T IO N DU R I N G T H E R E IG N O F SEV E RU S

chapter 1. When Severus2 set in motion a persecution against the churches, the athletes [competing on behalf of] piety offered brilliant martyrdoms in every location, but were especially abundant in Alexandria. God’s athletes were sent there from throughout Egypt and the whole Thebaid, as to a great stadium, and through their patient endurance of various kinds of torture and death, came to wear the crowns [of victory] that are given by God. Among them was Leonidas, the man said to be the father of Origen, who was beheaded, leaving behind his child, who was very young. How intense Origen’s resolve for the Divine Logos was after this it is not out of place to recount briefly, especially when his story is famous among most people. O N O R IG E N ’ S C H I L D HO O D A S C E T IC I SM

chapter 2. There is a great deal one could say, if he were at leisure to commit the man’s life to writing, but a composition about him would be a subject unto itself. Nonetheless, for the present context, we have abbreviated most of it as briefly as is possible, and will go over a few of the matters relating to him, presenting what is evidenced by certain letters and the accounts of his closest [students], who lived even into our day.3 2 In my opinion, even the events of Origen’s life when he was still, so to speak, in swaddling clothes are worthy of remembrance. This was when Severus was in the tenth year of his reign, and Laetus was governor of Alexandria and the rest of Egypt, and Demetrius had recently received the episcopacy of the communities there, after Julianus.4 3 At that time, when the flame of persecution had been kindled to great heights, and myriads were coming to wear the victory crowns of martyrdom, such a strong desire for martyrdom took possession of Origen’s soul, even though he was still just a boy, that he eagerly desired to meet with danger and to jump and rush into the

2. Septimius Severus, April 193–February 211. 3. I.e., claiming that his sources are letters of Origen and the accounts of his inner circle of students (e.g., Firmilian of Cappadocian Caesarea and Gregory Thaumaturgus). 4. 202 c.e.

book 6

283

contest. 4 In fact, he was not far at all from leaving this life, but for the fact that divine and heavenly providence, taking thought for the aid of many,5 placed an impediment in his way in the form of his mother. 5 First she begged him with words, telling him to spare her motherly feelings toward him, but when she saw him becoming more vehement after he learned that his father had been arrested and was being held in prison, and that he had become wholly fixed on martyrdom, she hid all his clothing, forcing him to remain at home. 6 Then, since there was nothing else he could do, and because he was not the sort who could be deprived of that eagerness that was beyond his years, he sent his father a letter encouraging martyrdom, in which he exhorts him saying, verbatim: “Take care not to have any other thought on our account.”6 Let this be the first written proof of Origen’s childhood sagacity and his most genuine god-fearing disposition. 7 For he had already established solid entry points from which to pursue studies of the faith, having been trained in the divine writings while still a child. His study of these had not been average, for his father had made sure that attention to them was not secondary to encyclical education.7 8 Above all, he urged him to be trained in sacred studies before attending to Hellenic learning, requiring him to give summaries and recitations each day. 9 The child did not do this unwillingly, but strove at it especially diligently,8 so that simple and obvious readings of the sacred words were not enough for him. Already at this early age he sought something fuller and worked hard for the deeper insights, and so kept presenting his father with questions for discussion, making careful inquiry as to what the divinely inspired writing might intend to indicate.9 10 To his face, his father made a show of rebuking him, urging him not to seek anything beyond his years or further afield than the evident meaning, but to himself he rejoiced greatly and confessed great 5. I.e., so that Origen, by living a long life, could be a teacher and example to many. 6. From an otherwise unknown letter of Origen. 7. “Encyclical education”: roughly the equivalent of modern elementary studies— the basic training in grammar, geometry, music, and so forth preparatory to rhetoric or philosophy. 8. Children were assumed to be resistant to education and to require corporal punishment. 9. Eusebius describes Origen as already undertaking the figurative exegeses for which he became famous (and controversial).

284

the ecclesiastical history

thanks to God, the cause of all good things, that he had been deemed worthy to be the father of such a child. 11 They say that he often used to stand over the sleeping child, bare his breast, and kiss it reverently, just as though the Divine Spirit had been consecrated within, and considered himself blessed for his blessed offspring. These and other things akin to them are remembered about Origen when he was a child. 12 When his father had been perfected in martyrdom, Origen, being not all of seventeen years old, was left alone along with his mother and six younger siblings. 13 Moreover, because his father’s property had been seized by the imperial fisc, he along with his relatives stood in need of life’s necessities. But he was deemed worthy of God’s divine economy10 and obtained the right hand of friendship and relief from a certain wealthy woman who was well respected for her way of life and in other respects, though she was also honoring a man famous among the heretics in Alexandria at that time. He was an Antiochene by race, and the woman just mentioned treated him especially well and had him as an adopted son living with her. 14 But though Origen had to spend time with him, in this situation he gave clear evidence of his orthodoxy as respects the faith, for indeed, though myriad crowds—not only of heretics but also of our people—gathered around Paul (for this was the man’s name) because he seemed to be good at eloquence, Origen could never be convinced to be present with him for prayer, thus maintaining the rules of the church while still a child and being “disgusted”—he himself uses the very word somewhere11—with the teachings of the heretics. 15 He had been advanced in Hellenic learning by his father and after his death gave his complete attention even more diligently to training in letters, so that he had good preparation in grammar, and not long after his father’s death, having applied himself further, he was able to provide for the necessities [of life] required for someone his age.12

10. Oikonomia hē ek theou: Eusebius describes Origen’s upbringing as being part of the divine economy. 11. Presumably in one of Origen’s letters. 12. I.e., Origen became a teacher of grammar. This would have involved teaching students grammar, pronunciation, and introductory lessons in things like figures of speech through the reading of culturally canonical texts, especially Homer.

book 6

285

T HAT H E WA S A N A M BA S S A D O R F O R T H E D O C T R I N E O F C H R I S T W H I L E ST I L L YOU N G

chapter 3. As he was devoting himself to this pursuit, as even he himself recounts somewhere in writing,13 there was no one in Alexandria dedicated to catechetical teaching,14 for all of them had been driven away by the threat of the persecution, and some from among the Gentiles who wanted to become hearers of the word of God approached him. 2 Plutarch is indicated to have been the first, who after living a good life was also adorned with divine martyrdom, and the second was Heraclas, Plutarch’s brother, who himself fully displayed in his person the philosophical and ascetic life, and was deemed worthy of the episcopacy of the Alexandrians after Demetrius. 3 Origen was eighteen years old when he led the school of catechetical instruction and rose to prominence during the persecutions when Aquila was governor of Alexandria.15 This was also when his name became especially famous among all those who were encouraged toward the faith by the friendship and kindness he showed to all the holy ones,16 both those who were unknown people and those who were well known. 4 He was present with them not only when they were in prison or up to the point when the final sentence was pronounced, but even after this when the holy martyrs were led out for death, using very bold speech and coming close to meeting with the danger himself. In fact, the Gentile populace often became so maddened at him when he showed such audacity and greeted the martyrs boldly with a kiss that they were close to stoning him, except for the fact that every time he obtained the aid of God’s right hand and miraculously escaped. 5 This same divine and heavenly grace protected him again and again, so often one cannot even say, when plots were made against him at that time because of his great eagerness and boldness

13. Presumably in one of Origen’s letters. 14. The lessons given to catechumens—those in training to become full initiates through baptism. See Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Orations for an example of catechetical instruction ca. 350 c.e. 15. Ti. C. Subatianus Aquila, attested as prefect of Egypt in a papyrus dated 206 c.e. (P.Oxy. VIII, 1100). 16. “Holy ones,” i.e., the martyrs.

286

the ecclesiastical history

concerning the doctrine17 of Christ. So great, indeed, was the war waged against him by the unbelievers that soldiers were placed around the house where he lived, on account of the multitude of those who were being catechized by him in the matters of the sacred faith.18 6 Thus was the persecution against him kindled daily, so that he could no longer stay anywhere in the whole city, but went from house to house, pressed on all sides by the multitude of those who were coming to him for his divine teaching. And as regards praxis his right action offered especially marvelous [evidence] of a most genuine philosophy 7 (as they say, “as was his word, so was his manner” and “as was his manner, so was his word”);19 it was especially because of this that, with divine power cooperating in him, he led myriads to [emulate] his zeal. 8 But when he saw that many pupils were coming, and because the work of catechesis had been entrusted to him alone by Demetrius, the president of the church, and because he considered the teaching of grammatical studies to be out of tune with training20 for divine instruction, without a doubt in his mind he broke off the work of teaching grammatical studies, inasmuch as it was of no use for and contrary to sacred studies. 9 Then, based on the fit notion that he should have no need of aid from others, he was satisfied if whatever written works of ancient literature21 that he previously owned and had loved to study diligently brought him just four obols a day from those who bought them. And for many years he lived this philosopher’s life,

17. Logos: “doctrine,” “word,” or even, perhaps, “preaching.” 18. Whether the soldiers are stationed as protection or in order to arrest him or his catechumens is ambiguous. 19. I.e., “he walked the walk and talked the talk”; compare Plato, Republic 400d, where the discussion concerns the relationship between the content (words) of poetry and the way it is performed (rhythm/meter). 20. Askēsis: for Eusebius, Christian scholarship is always also an ascetic exercise; the sense is that catechumens are being trained in body, soul, and mind for baptism. 21. What works Eusebius imagines here is unclear. A grammarian would have taught canonical texts like Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, Euripides’s tragedies, Demosthenes, and so forth. Eusebius seems, though, to imagine a wholesale purge of all of Origen’s non-Christian books. This is striking, given that Pamphilus’s/Eusebius’s library contained non-Christian works that probably came to Caesarea when Origen brought his collection from Alexandria.

book 6

287

removing from himself every material thing [conducive to] the desires of youth. He filled every day with ascetic labors of no small order, and set himself to studying the divine writings throughout most of the night. He firmly maintained, as far as is [humanly] possible, a mode of life most philosophical. Sometimes he exercised himself with fasting, at others with measured periods of sleep, which in his diligence he never took on a sleeping mat, but on the floor. 10 Most of all, he thought it necessary to follow the Savior’s evangelical sayings that exhort not having two cloaks or shoes and, moreover, having no concern about the future.22 11 And because he had a determination beyond his years and persevered in the cold and naked and drove on to the height of exceeding poverty, he truly shocked those around him with the labors he contributed to the divine teaching, vexing the myriads who begged him to share in their possessions. He, though, did not make any concessions in his perseverance.23 12 It is said, for instance, that he walked the earth many years without any shoes at all, and that for many years he also abstained from using wine and anything else besides necessary food, to the point that he risked ruining and destroying his innards. 13 Indeed, he provided such fine examples of philosophical life to those who saw him that he understandably incited many of his pupils to have the same zeal, so that even some of those of no meager standing among unbelieving Gentiles who possessed learning and philosophy were brought over by the teaching he offered. And these people, who had received through him the genuine faith regarding the Divine Logos, distinguished themselves at the time of the persecution in that period, so that some of them were even arrested and perfected in martyrdom. HOW M A N Y O F T HO SE TAU G H T B Y H I M W E N T O N T O M A RT Y R D OM

chapter 4. The first of these was the Plutarch mentioned earlier.24 As he was being led off to death, that man who is the subject of our discourse was together with him right up until the end of his life, and 22. Matt. 10:10; 6:34. 23. Or “He did not give in to their persistence.” 24. See 6.3.2.

288

the ecclesiastical history

was once again almost killed by his fellow citizens, because he appeared [to them] to be responsible for Plutarch’s death. 2 After Plutarch, the second of Origen’s pupils to show himself to be a martyr was Serenus, who provided proof by fire of the faith he had received. 3 Heraclides was the third from the same school to become a martyr, and after him the fourth was Hero. The former was still a catechumen, the latter was newly enlightened25; both were beheaded. In addition to them, Serenus (a different one than the first mentioned) was proclaimed the fifth athlete of piety from the same school. The story is that he was beheaded after enduring a great deal of torture. And among the women, Herais, who was still a catechumen, “received baptism by fire,” as Origen himself says somewhere,26 and departed life. O N P O T I M IA E NA

chapter 5. He led away the famous Potimiaena, about whom many stories are still sung to this day among the people of her land. She fought myriad contests on behalf of the sanctity and virginity of her body (things in which she excelled) against those who were enamored of her (for indeed, her soul and her bodily beauty were in full bloom). Finally, after myriad tribulations she was subjected to tortures that are dreadful and awful to describe, and at last was perfected through fire, along with her mother, Marcella. 2 They say, in fact, that the judge, whose name was Aquila,27 after subjecting her whole body to harsh torments, finally threatened to hand her over to the gladiators so they could violate her body. But after briefly considering the situation, she was asked what her decision was, and uttered a response in which she seemed to them to say something impious.28 This was the woman— who received her sentence as soon as she spoke—that Basilides, being one of those serving in the army, led away to death. But as the mob kept trying to harass her and insult her with licentious words he showed her great mercy and humane treatment. She, for her part,

25. I.e., “newly baptized.” 26. Presumably in one of his letters, no longer extant. 27. Ti. C. Subatianus Aquila, see 6.3.3 above. 28. I.e., she made a statement [about Christ? the traditional gods?] that was perceived by the judge and crowd as impious.

book 6

289

accepted the sympathy he showed her, and told him to have courage, for she was about to depart and would make a request for him from her own Lord, and would in short order repay him for what he had done for her. 4 Saying this, she made a noble exit, as hot pitch was gently and slowly poured over different parts of her body, from the bottom of her feet to the top of her head. 5 Such was the contest fought by this maiden praised in song.29 A short time later, Basilides was on some occasion asked by his fellow soldiers to take an oath, and he resolutely declared that it was absolutely impossible for him to swear an oath, for he was Christian and he confessed so openly. At first they thought he was playing a joke, but when he persisted in affirming it they led him before the judge. In his presence he confirmed his position, and was imprisoned. 6 When the brothers in God visited him, wanting to know the cause of his sudden and unexpected zeal, it is said he replied that Potimiaena had come to him at night three days after her martyrdom, set a crown on his head, and said that she had appealed to the Lord on his behalf, and that she had obtained her request quickly, and that he would be received soon. Upon hearing this, the brothers gave him the seal in the Lord,30 and the next day he distinguished himself in martyrdom for the Lord, and was beheaded. 7 And the story is told that many others in Alexandria came to the doctrine of Christ during the time of those we have been discussing, because Potimiaena also appeared to them as they slept, and called them. But let this suffice on this topic. O N C L E M E N T O F A L E X A N D R IA

chapter 6. Clement succeeded Pantaenus, and was in charge of catechesis in Alexandria long enough that Origen was also one of his pupils. In fact, when Clement was recording his Stromateis he set out a chronology in the first book, encompassing the times up to the death of Commodus.31 So it is clear that he worked on the book during the reign of Severus, whose times our present discourse is recounting.

29. A heroic epithet. 30. I.e., they baptized him. 31. Clement, Stromateis 1.144–47.

290

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E W R I T E R J U DA S

chapter 7. In this period Judas, another writer, discoursed in writing on the seventy weeks in Daniel, and brought his chronography to a close in the tenth year of Severus’s reign. He also thought that the much-rumored advent of the Antichrist was already drawing near— so strongly did the persecution against us at that time upset the reasoning of many.32 O N W HAT O R IG E N D I D R E C K L E S SLY

chapter 8. At this time, when Origen was performing the work of catechesis in Alexandria, he had done a thing characteristic of an incompletely developed and young mind, but which nonetheless also constituted great evidence of faith and self-control. 2 For he took the passage “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven”33 more simply and youthfully, and taking it in mind both to fulfill the salvific utterance and, on account of the fact that he was of a young age and teaching divine matters not only to men but also to women, to preclude the unbelievers from suspecting anything shameful, he was driven to perform the salvific utterance with actions, taking care to escape the notice of most of his inner circle of students. 3 But it was not possible for him to conceal such an action even though he wanted to. Demetrius, indeed, came to know of it later, when he was presiding over the community there. He was greatly amazed by what he had ventured to do, and approved his determination and the authenticity of his faith, told him to have no fear, and now urged him even more to take up the work of catechesis. 4 This was how he acted at the time. Not long after, though, when he saw that Origen was doing well and that he was a great, illustrious man and famous among everyone, he suffered a human passion and tried to indict [the act] as most outrageous to the bishops throughout the inhab32. The “seventy-weeks in Daniel”: the eschatological and messianic prophecy given to Daniel (Dan. 9:20–27). Judas, writing in the reign of Septimius Severus, seems to have interpreted the passage as suggesting the eschaton was imminent. Writing a century later, Eusebius, antipathetic to millenarianism, takes this opportunity to point out Judas’s mistake. 33. Matt. 19:12.

book 6

291

ited world. This was after the most approved and distinguished bishops in Palestine—both of Caesarea and Jerusalem—confirmed Origen to be worthy of the highest honor among the presbyters, and placed their hands upon him to ordain him to the presbyterate.34 5 It was then, once he had come to be greatly honored, and had made no small name and reputation for himself among people everywhere for his virtue and wisdom, that Demetrius turned the thing Origen had done as a boy into an awful slander, because he had no other accusation he could make, and even dared to include those who had advanced Origen to the presbyterate in his accusations. 6 This occurred a bit later. At that time, however, Origen was fulfilling the work of the divine teaching without fear, for all who came to him, night and day, and devoting all his effort unhesitatingly to the divine studies and to his pupils. 7 When Severus had held power for eighteen years, Antoninus, his son, succeeded him.35 At this time, one of those who had displayed their manliness in the persecution and who after participating in the contests by giving confessions had been preserved by God’s providence—Alexander, whom we just mentioned when speaking above about the bishop of the church in Jerusalem36—was deemed worthy of the aforementioned episcopacy because he had distinguished himself by his confessions on behalf of Christ, while Narcissus, his predecessor, was still in this life.37 O N T H E M I R AC L E S O F NA R C I S SU S

chapter 9. The citizens of that community remember many other miracles, preserved in traditions passed down by the brothers in the succession, and among them is this marvel that they recount was performed through him. 2 They say that during the all-night paschal vigil the deacons ran out of oil. At this, terrible discouragement seized the whole crowd. Narcissus ordered those who were maintaining the lights to draw water and bring it to him. This was no sooner said than

34. For an alternative account of Origen’s castration, see Epiphanius, Panarion 64.3.11–13. 35. Caracalla succeeded Septimius Severus February 211. 36. At 6.8.4. 37. The reason for this anomaly in the succession is explained in 6.11 below.

292

the ecclesiastical history

done. He prayed over the water and asked them to pour it into the lamps with genuine faith in the Lord. After they had done this, by a miraculous and divine power that defies all reason, it changed from water into something having the natural qualities of oil, and for a very long time, from that day until ours, a little bit has been preserved by the brothers there, as evidence of that miracle. 4 They list many other things about this man’s life that are worthy of memory, among them this. Some contemptible specimens of humanity who could not bear the vigor and rigor of his way of life, and fearing that they would be caught and be subjected to judgment (for they were well aware of their myriad evils), stitched together a plot in anticipation and spread an awful slander against him. 5 Then, to convince those who heard [the slander], they confirmed the accusations with oaths. One swore, “May I die by fire,” another, “May my body be wasted by an ill-omened disease,” and a third, “May my eyes be maimed.” But not one of the faithful gave his mind over to them, even though they swore these oaths, because Narcissus’s self-control and utter virtuousness in all things was famous among everyone. 6 He, however, because he had no patience at all for the wickedness of the aforementioned men, and moreover, because he had for a long time been adhering diligently to the philosophic life, left the whole multitude of the church, and lived out of sight in deserted and unknown rural areas for many years.38 7 But the great eye of justice never looked away from what they had done, and quick as can be visited upon those impious men the ruinous curses they had sworn against themselves. The first was burned up along with his whole family thanks to nothing other than a small ember that fell on his house and set the whole thing on fire. The other was all of a sudden covered from head to toe by the disease with which he had threatened himself. The third, seeing what calamities had befallen the others and being terrified of the inescapable judgment of the God who watches over all, confessed to everyone what he had plotted along with the other two. But he felt so repentant and was ravaged by so much wailing that he could not stop crying, so much so that both his eyes were destroyed. Such punishments are what these men received for their false statements.

38. An early description of an ascetic retreating to the solitude of the desert.

book 6

293

O N T H E B I SHO P S O F J E RU S A L E M

chapter 10. But since Narcissus had withdrawn,39 and his whereabouts were completely unknown, the presidents of the neighboring churches came to the decision to go about appointing another bishop. His name was Dios. He presided for a short time, and Germanion succeeded him, and Gordios succeeded him. In his time, Narcissus reappeared from somewhere, as though come to life again, and was asked by the brothers to assume the presidency once again. Everyone esteemed him even more for his withdrawal and philosophy, and above all for the judgment God had deemed worthy to mete out for his sake. ON ALEX ANDER

chapter 11. And when he could no longer serve, having reached a healthy old age, God’s plan called the aforementioned Alexander,40 who was bishop of another community, to serve together with Narcissus, by means of a revelation that appeared to him in a vision at night. 2 At this, as if in accordance with an oracle, he made a journey from the land of the Cappadocians, where he had first been deemed worthy of the episcopacy, to Jerusalem, for the sake of prayer and investigation of the places.41 The people there received him most graciously, and would not let him return home again, in accordance with another revelation they had seen at night and which uttered an identical and absolutely clear utterance to those of them who were especially diligent. For it indicated to them that they would receive the bishop God had foreseen for them when they went outside the gates. This they did, and, with the joint approval of the bishops who were managing the nearby churches, compelled him by force to remain. 3 Alexander

39. The verb is anachōreo, used in ascetic literature of the fourth century to describe an anchoritic monk’s withdrawal from society into solitude. 40. See 6.8.7. 41. Euchēs kai tōn topōn historias heneken: it is not certain whether this phrase should be read as describing a practice like the Holy Land pilgrimages of the mid- to late fourth century (e.g., like those recorded in the Bordeaux Itinerary and the Itinerary of Egeria), or if it describes the kind of ethnographic tourism we find in mid-third-century texts like Julius Africanus’s Cestoi, in which Africanus collects historical and ethnographic accounts (historiai) from across the Near East.

294

the ecclesiastical history

himself, in fact, even mentions that Narcissus presided with him, in personal letters42 to the Antinoites, which are preserved by us even now, writing this verbatim at the end of the letter: Narcissus greets you, who before me managed the post of bishop here and who is now reckoned with me in the prayers,43 having lived 116 years; he asks you, as do I, to be of one mind.

These matters were thus. 4 When Serapion took his rest, Asclepiades succeeded him in the episcopacy of the church in Antioch, and during the persecution became distinguished himself for his confessions. 5 Alexander has also mentioned this man’s appointment, writing thus to the Antiochenes: Alexander, slave and prisoner of Jesus Christ, to the blessed church of the Antiochenes, greetings in the Lord. The Lord has made my bonds light and easy, for I have learned during my time in prison that Asclepiades, who is most suitable by reason of his faith, had been appointed to the episcopacy of the holy church of you Antiochenes.

6 He indicates that this letter was delivered by Clement,44 writing in this manner toward the end: I send these letters to you, my brother lordships, through Clement, the blessed presbyter, a virtuous and approved man, whom you know of and will become familiar. When he was present here in accordance with the providence and oversight of the Master he strengthened and increased the Lord’s church.

O N SE R A P IO N A N D T H E WO R K S O F H I S T HAT A R E C U R R E N T

chapter 12. Other written records, the evidence of Serapion’s training in letters, are probably preserved by others, but the only ones that have come down to us are those to Domnus, a man who around the 42. I.e., writing in his person, not on behalf of the community. 43. I.e., the prayers for the bishop offered in the liturgy. 44. Eusebius takes this as a reference to Clement of Alexandria (see 6.6.1 and 6.13.1– 14.8), but it could refer to an (otherwise unknown) presbyter of the same name in the church of Jerusalem.

book 6

295

time of the persecution had fallen away from the faith in Christ into Jewish will-worship, and those to Pontius and Caricus, ecclesiastical men, and other letters to other people, and another composition of his, Concerning the So-Called Gospel According to Peter, which he wrote to refute the false statements in it, because some in the community in Rhosus had strayed into heterodox teachings on the pretext of the said writing. There is good reason to set down brief passages from it, in which he sets out the opinion he had about the book; he writes thus: 3 For we, brothers, accept Peter and the other apostles as we do Christ, but the false writings that circulate in their name we, being acquainted with them,45 reject, knowing that we did not receive such [writings]. 4 For I visited you, and assumed that you all had been given the right faith, and I did not review the gospel they put forward in Peter’s name, but said that if this was the only thing that seemed to cause mean-spiritedness among you, it may be read. But now, I have learned, from what I have been told, that their mind has fallen into the hole46 of some heresy, and I am eager to come to you once again. So, brothers, expect me shortly. 5 But we, brothers, having ascertained what kind of heresy Marcian47 belonged to (he who contradicted even himself, not knowing what he said, as we have learned from what you wrote to us), have been able—thanks to others who had studied this same gospel, that is, thanks to the successors of its originators, whom we call Docetists (for most of their ideas come from this teaching) and using what we obtained from them—to go over it and found that most of it was of the right doctrine of the Savior, but some things stray beyond it, which we have also appended for you.

Such are the [matters relating to]48 Serapion. ON THE WRITINGS OF CLEMENT

chapter 13. Clement’s Stromateis are preserved by us,49 all eight books, which he deemed worthy of the heading “The Stromateis of 45. Or “we who are experienced.” 46. Reading with Lawlor and Oulton against Schwartz. 47. Marcian is probably not to be identified with Marcion of Pontus; Serapion is mentioning a heresy he has become aware of Syria more recently, thanks to the letter from Rhosus. 48. Or “[writings of].” 49. I.e., Eusebius possesses copies in his library.

296

the ecclesiastical history

Gnostic records according to the true philosophy, by Titus Flavius Clement.” 2 His discourses titled Hypotyposes50 are equal in number, and in them he mentions Pantaenus by name as his teacher, and sets down what he has received from his writings and [nonwritten] traditions.51 There is also his Protreptic to the Hellenes and the three books of what is titled The Pedagogue, and Who Is the Rich Man Who Is Saved? (thus is another of his discourses titled), and the work On Pascha and lectures On Fasting and On Slander, and the Protreptic for Endurance, or To the Newly Baptized, and the one entitled Ecclesiastical Rule, or Against the Judaizers, which he dedicated to Alexander, the aforementioned bishop.52 4 In the Stromateis he has made a “quilt” not only from the divine writings but also from the writings of the Hellenes, when there was anything said in them that seemed useful, and he mentions the doctrines of many [peoples], disclosing those of the Hellenes as well as those of the barbarians, and furthermore corrects the false doctrines of the heresiarchs, and lays out many investigations, providing us with an example of capacious learning. With all this he mingles the doctrines of the philosophers, and hence has fittingly given it the title Stromateis, which corresponds to the plan of the work.53 6 In this work he has also made use of testimonies from the disputed writings: from the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, and the letter to the Hebrews, and those of Clement and Jude. 7 And he mentions the discourse of Tatian, To the Greeks, and Cassian as having also made a chronography, and moreover he mentions Philo, Aristobulus, Josephus, Demetrius, and Eupolemus, Jewish writers, because they all provide written proof that Moses and the race of 50. The work is no longer extant. 51. Clement must have claimed to set out the traditions of Pantaenus as he knew them from writings and from unwritten teachings. Clement theorized on the relative value of writing and oral tradition in the preface to the Stromateis (1.1). 52. Of the works listed here, the Stromateis, Protreptic Discourse to the Hellenes, The Pedagogue, and Who Is the Rich Man Who Is Saved are extant. 53. Stromateis means “patchwork quilts,” and refers to the structure of the text, which consists of “patchworks” of different topics and quotations from various texts. Clement describes his plan in Stromateis 1.1–2. Clement’s compilation influenced the form of Eusebius’s writing, which also selects from and redeploys a variety of orthodox, heterodox, Jewish, and Hellenic literature.

book 6

297

the Jews is older than the origins of the Hellenes. And the man’s discourses, which we have described, are full of useful learning. In the first of them he mentions about himself that he lived close to the succession of the apostles, and in these books he also promises to write on Genesis. 9 And in his discourse On Pascha he confesses that he was compelled by his friends to hand down in writing the traditions he had heard from the ancient elders,54 for posterity, and in it he mentions Melito, Irenaeus, and some others, whose statements he sets down. W HAT W R I T I N G S H E M E N T IO N S

chapter 14. In the Hypotyposes, to summarize, he offers abbreviated discussions of the whole of the registered divine writings, without passing over the disputed [writings]—I mean Jude and the rest of the general letters, and the Letter of Barnabas, and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.55 2 And he says that the Letter to the Hebrews is Paul’s, but was written for the Hebrews in the Hebrew tongue, and that Luke faithfully translated it and gave it to the Hellenes, hence the same tone is found in this translation and in Acts. And it makes sense that “Paul, an apostle”56 is not written at the beginning, 3 he says,57 for when he was writing to the Hebrews who were prejudiced against him and suspicious of him, he quite intelligently did not [want] to put them off at the beginning, by putting down his name.

4 Then, continuing, he adds: Now, as the blessed elder58 used to say, because the Lord, being the apostle59 of the Almighty, was sent to the Hebrews, Paul, on account of 54. Or “ancient presbyters.” 55. On Eusebius’s vocabulary here, see the overview of book 3. 56. I.e., the form of address Paul tends to use in his letters; see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:1, Gal. 1:1, etc. 57. The two direct quotes and the quotation in indirect discourse that follow all come from the Hypotyposes. 58. Probably Pantaenus; see 6.13.2. 59. “Apostle” (apostolos) comes from the Greek verb apostellō (to send), and so Clement calls both Jesus and Paul “apostles” because both were “sent” to different constituencies.

298

the ecclesiastical history

modesty, since he was sent to the Gentiles, does not describe himself as “apostle” of the Hebrews, on account of his respect for the Lord and because his writing to the Hebrews was extra, being as he was the preacher and apostle of the Gentiles.

5 Again in the same books Clement sets down a tradition of the elders of long ago about the order of the Gospels, which runs like this.60 They said that the first of the Gospels to be written were those that have the genealogies, 6 while that according to Mark came about by this [divine] plan.61 When Peter had publicly preached the Logos in Rome and spoken the Gospel by means of the Spirit,62 those who were present, being many, asked Mark to record what Peter had said in writing, since Mark had accompanied him for a long way and had remembered his sayings. He did so, and gave the Gospel to those who requested it. 7 When Peter learned of this, he neither prevented it nor encouraged it. Moreover, John, the last, understood that the more bodily [matters] had [already] been shown in the Gospels, and at the encouragement of his inner circle composed a gospel that was divinely inspired by the Spirit. Such is what Clement writes. 8 But the Alexander noted previously63 mentions Clement again, along with Pantaenus, in a letter to Origen, as being men who were very familiar to him, writing thusly: For this too is the will of God, as you know, that the friendship that has come down to us from our forefathers remain unshaken, and become even warmer and stronger. 9 For we know that those blessed fathers who went before us, to whom we will go in a short time, Pantaenus, truly blessed and lordly, and the holy Clement, who was my master and my aid, and any other, if there be others such as they. Through them I became your friend, you who excel in all things and who are my lord and brother.

So much on these matters. 10 Now, then, Adamantius64 (for this was another name given to Origen), traveled to Rome when Zephyrinus was governing the church

60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

Here through 6.14.7 Eusebius quotes the Hypotyposes in indirect discourse. Oikonomia: see “divine economy” in the glossary. Or “in the Spirit.” Alexander of Jerusalem; see 6.8.7. Literally, “man made of adamant,” a mythically strong and unbreakable stone.

book 6

299

of the Romans during that period, as he himself writes somewhere, “praying that we may see the most ancient church of the Romans.”65 11 He spent a short time there, then returned to Alexandria and fulfilled his accustomed work of catechesis with complete earnestness, since Demetrius, the bishop of the people there, was still urging him and all but begging him to offer this aid for the brothers without hesitation. O N H E R AC L A S

chapter 15. But he saw that he himself did not have time for both the deeper study of divine matters and the examination and interpretation of the sacred writings, and for the catechesis of those who came to him, gathering around him so that he could not breathe—for groups of people kept coming one after another, from dawn to dusk, to be part of his school full of pupils. So he divided the crowd and chose Heraclas, one of his inner circle who was earnest in divine matters and was, furthermore, a most eloquent man and not without a share in philosophy, and set him up to share the work of catechesis. To him he assigned the initial introduction for those just being introduced to the basic principles, while he kept the instruction of those who had them for himself. HOW O R IG E N WA S D I L IG E N T A B OU T THE DIVINE WRITINGS

chapter 16. Origen undertook such an accurate examination of the divine words that he even learned the Hebrew language and made the original writings preserved among the Jews in the Hebrew wording itself his own possession,66 and searched out the versions of the sacred writings of other translators besides the Seventy, and went beyond the well-worn translations—those of Aquila, Symmachus, and

65. From another lost letter of Origen. 66. The sense is that Origen owned his own copies and that he enjoyed intellectual mastery over them. This can be compared with Origen’s use of the metaphor of despoiling defeated enemies to describe the Christian appropriation of Hellenic traditions in his Letter to Gregory and his accounts of studying Hebrew with Jewish teachers in his Letter to Julius Africanus.

300

the ecclesiastical history

Theodotion—to find others, searching out what had long escaped notice—in what recesses I know not—and bringing it out into the light. 2 About these, on account of their being utterly unknown and not knowing who [had made the translations], he indicated only, for example, that he found this one in Nicopolis near Actium, and that one in some other place. 3 Indeed, in the Hexapla of the Psalms, after the four famous versions he includes not only a fifth, but a sixth and a seventh translation, and he has indicated that one was found in Jericho in a wine cask during the time of Antoninus, the son of Severus. 4 He gathered all of these in the same [place], dividing them by cola and placing them opposite each other along with the Hebrew signifiers themselves,67 and has left us the copies68 of what is called the Hexapla, and also arranged the version containing Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, together with the Seventy, separately, in the Tetrapla.69 O N SYM M AC H U S T H E T R A N SL AT O R

chapter 17. It must be noted about these translators, moreover, that Symmachus was an Ebionite. The heresy of the Ebionites has this name because they say that the Christ was the child of Joseph and Mary, assume him to be a mere human being, and cling firmly to following the law in a more Jewish way, as we learned in an earlier part of this narrative.70 And written records by Symmachus are still in circulation today, in which he seems to hold the aforementioned heresy

67. Hē hebraiōn sēmeiosis: translating this as “Hebrew signifiers” and the earlier phrase hebraiōn stoicheia as “Hebrew wording” leaves ambiguous (as does the Greek) whether Eusebius means that the Hexapla contained the Hebrew in Hebrew characters, a transliteration, or both. 68. Usually taken to mean that Eusebius claims to possess Origen’s autograph copies. 69. The Hexapla (i.e., the “In-Six”) and Tetrapla (the “In-Four”) were innovative study aids in which Origen set out the texts of the Hebrew Bible synoptically, in parallel columns, by cola (that is, the basic grammatical sense-unit in Greek prose). The work is no longer extant, but it is known through the work of later scholars who made use of it when writing their own biblical commentaries; see A. Grafton and M. Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), esp. chap. 2. 70. See 3.27.2.

book 6

301

because he holds forth against the Gospel According to Matthew. Origen indicates that he had gleaned these details along with other of Symmachus’s interpretations of the writings from a certain Juliana, who, he says, had received the books from Symmachus himself. O N A M B R O SE

chapter 18. At this time, too, Ambrose, who held the doctrines of Valentinus’s heresy, was refuted by the truth of which Origen served as the ambassador, and, as it were, had his mind illuminated by the light, and assented to the doctrine of ecclesiastical orthodoxy.71 2 And many other educated people, since Origen’s fame was spoken of everywhere, came to him, trying to test the man’s prowess in the sacred doctrines. And myriads of heretics and not a few of the most eminent philosophers were eager to meet with him, and he was all but responsible for their learning divine studies and matters pertaining to foreign philosophy.72 3 For he would give beginning instruction to whomever he saw had natural aptitude, and gave instruction in geometry, arithmetic, and the other preliminaries to philosophical studies, and [then] introduced the schools of thought that exist among the Hellenes themselves, discussing their writings and offering commentary and speculating on each one. Consequently, he was proclaimed a great philosopher even among the Hellenes themselves. And many of the less advanced he encouraged to take encyclical studies, saying that they would gain not a few good habits for the speculation and investigation into the divine writings. Hence he considered it especially necessary that he himself be well trained in worldly and philosophical studies. W HAT I S M E N T IO N E D A B OU T O R IG E N

chapter 19. The Hellene philosophers who were in their prime during his time are witnesses to his accomplishment in these matters,

71. Ambrose was Origen’s literary patron in Alexandria and later, when he relocated to Caesarea. 72. Compare Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 16.1. “Foreign philosophy” translates hē exōthen philosophia, literally, “the philosophy from outside,” that is, “outside” the Christian community/tradition.

302

the ecclesiastical history

and we find the man mentioned often in their writings, in some cases dedicating their discourses to him, in others referring their own work to his judgment, as to a teacher. 2 Is it even necessary to mention this, when even Porphyry, who was stationed in Sicily in our day and set out writings against us in which he has tried to impugn the divine writings, has mentioned those who had interpreted them?73 Since he was unable to level even the slightest charge against the doctrines and was at a loss for words he turned to abusing and slandering the exegetes—and among them Origen especially. 3 He says that he knew Origen in his youth, and tries to slander him, but without knowing it actually provides [positive] testimony. On the one hand, when it is impossible for him to say otherwise, he declares the truth; on the other hand, he also lies, when he thinks can get away with it. And at one moment he charges him as a Christian, but at other times describes his attention to philosophical studies. 4 Hear, now, what he says, verbatim:74 In fact, some, being desirous to find a solution to the despicable aspects of the Jewish writings rather than reject them,75 turned to interpretations incompatible and out of tune with what has been written, offering not a defense on behalf of what is outlandish but rather approval and praise for what [they would say] is proper.76 For they offer interpretations, boasting that things that Moses states quite clearly are enigmas and divining their meanings like oracular utterances full of hidden mysteries, bewitching the critical faculty of the soul with nonsense. 73. Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234–ca. 305 c.e.): student of Plotinus and editor of his Enneads, and a major Platonic philosopher of the later third century. Though his polemical works against Christians do not survive in full, they were quoted by Eusebius and other Christian apologists who sought to refute them; on Porphyry and Christianity, see A. Johnson, Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) and E. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012). On 6.19.1–10 in particular, see J. Schott, “Living Like a Christian but Playing the Greek: Accounts of Apostasy and Conversion in Porphyry and Eusebius,” Journal of Late Antiquity 1.2 (2008): 258–77. 74. Fragment, Against the Christians. 75. This clause may suggest that the quoted passage was preceded by a discussion of Marcionite or similar exegeses (which rejected the Hebrew Bible), with which Porphyry then contrasted the exegetical methods of Origen. 76. The contrast is between what is othneios (other, outside, foreign, outlandish) and what is oikeios (domestic, proper, fitting).

book 6

303

5 Then, after other things, he says: This kind of absurdity is derived from a man I met when I was still quite young, who had a great reputation and is still highly regarded thanks to the writings he has left behind, Origen, whose great fame has been handed down among the teachers of these concepts.77 6 For this man had been a hearer of Ammonius,78 who had the greatest devotion to philosophy in our times. As far as his acquaintance with [philosophical] doctrines79 he got a great deal of benefit from his teacher, but in the correct choice of life his journey was the opposite of his. 7 For Ammonius was a Christian raised in Christian [doctrines] by his parents, and when he could think and took up philosophy, he immediately changed and turned toward the way of life that accords with the laws. Origen, on the other hand, a Hellene educated in Hellene doctrines, ran aground on his barbarian venture. Indeed, he set out, and retailed himself and his skill in letters. He lived his life in the Christian way and contrary to the law, but in his opinions about material realities and God he Hellenized and palmed off the Hellenes’ precepts with outlandish myths.80 8 For he was always attending to Plato and busying himself with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, and Moderatus, Nicomachus and the highly regarded men among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus, from which he learned the “transference” method81 the Hellenes use in interpreting mysteries, and applied it to the Jewish writings.

9 This is what Porphyry says in the third composition82 he wrote against Christians. He tells the truth about the man’s training and

77. Or “teachers of these discourses,” i.e., those who hand down and teach Origen’s written discourses/books. 78. Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (fl. first half of third c. c.e.) and teacher of Plotinus. Whether or not Plotinus and Origen had the same teacher is a vexed question. See discussion of Ammonius, Origen, and Plotinus in the overview of book 6, and “Selected Bibliography.” 79. Logoi: “letters,” “doctrines,” “discourses.” 80. I.e., Porphyry accuses him of scamming people with a counterfeit of Hellenic philosophy dressed up as something esoteric and foreign. 81. To metalēptikon tropon: literally, “the take-one-thing-for-another method”; the term refers in particular to Stoic modes of nonliteral interpretation. 82. Syngramma: “written composition”; I have left this ambiguous, since scholars continue to debate how many different works of how many different sections/books Porphyry composed against the Christians. Eusebius probably intends to refer to the third book of a specific work here.

304

the ecclesiastical history

varied learning, but he obviously lies when he says that he changed over from the Hellenes, while Ammonius fell from the way of life that is in accordance with the fear of God into the Gentile way. 10 For Origen preserved the teaching that is in accordance with Christ that he received from his parents, as the account earlier showed,83 and Ammonius retained the inspired philosophy unalloyed and infallible up to the very end of his life, as the man’s works even now bear witness, for which writings he is well regarded by many, for example, that titled On the Agreement of Moses and Jesus84 and such others as are found among those who appreciate good literature. 11 Let this serve as evidence of that liar’s chicanery and of Origen’s great familiarity with the learning of the Hellenes. About this he offers a defense against some who had censured him on account of his diligence in these matters, and writes this in a certain letter:85 12 Since, once word of our skill had spread, sometimes heretics, sometimes those who had Hellenic learning, especially in philosophy, came to me when I was devoted to teaching, I decided to investigate the doctrines of the heretics and the things that the philosophers proclaim about the truth. 13 And we have done this imitating Pantaenus, who aided many before us, and who had not a little training in these things, and Heraclas, who is now seated in the presbytery of the Alexandrians, whom I found with the teacher of philosophical studies, and who had already been attending for five years before I began to listen to his lectures. 14 On account of this, even though he previously wore common dress, he set it aside and put on the philosophical attire, a practice he maintains up to the present, and has not abandoned, insofar as he can, his learned love for the Hellenes’ books.

15 That is what he says in defense of his Hellenic training. But at this time, someone from the army came to him when he was living in Alexandria, and gave letters to Demetrius, the bishop of the community, and to the then prefect of Egypt, from the governor of Arabia, stating that he should send Origen with all haste to share his lectures with him. And so he came to Arabia, but after quickly bringing the 83. See 6.2.7 ff. 84. Eusebius may have drawn from this work for his own comparison of Jesus and Moses in DE 3.2. 85. Otherwise unknown letter of Origen.

book 6

305

matter of his visit to a conclusion, he returned again to Alexandria. 16 In the meantime, a not insignificant conflict was rekindled in the city, and leaving Alexandria he came to Palestine, and made his home in Caesarea. The bishops there asked him to discuss and interpret the divine writings in the gatherings of the church, even though he had not yet obtained ordination to the presbyterate. 17 This very thing should be clear from what Alexander, the bishop of Jerusalem, and Theoctistus, the bishop of Caesarea, write about Demetrius, when they offer a defense, just so: And he added86 in these letters that this has never been heard of nor has it ever happened now, laity giving homilies with bishops present. I do not know how he can say what is manifestly not true. 18 Now, then, where one finds those who are prepared for helping the brothers, they are also asked by the holy bishops to give homilies to the people, just as in Laranda, Euelpis is [asked] by Neon, in Iconium Paulinus is by Celsus, and in Synada Theodore is by Atticus, the blessed brothers. But it is also likely that this happens in other places, though we do not know.

And the man under discussion was honored this way while he was still young, not only by those who were familiar with him, but also by the bishops in foreign places. 19 But once again, when Demetrius called him back with letters, and men who were deacons of the church urged him to return to Alexandria, he went and performed with his accustomed diligence. W HAT WO R K S O F T H E W R I T E R S O F T HAT TIME ARE CURRENT

chapter 20. Many eloquent and ecclesiastical men flourished at this time, and the letters they inscribed to each other and which are still preserved today are easy to find. They have also been kept until our time in the library in Aelia,87 which was provided for by 86. I.e., Demetrius of Alexandria, who had written a letter to complain that the bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem had overstepped their authority in ordaining Origen; the letter quoted is one of their responses to Demetrius. 87. I.e., Jerusalem, reestablished by Hadrian as Aelia Capitolina after the Bar Kochba revolt; see 4.6.1–4.

306

the ecclesiastical history

Alexander, who was managing the church there at that time. We too have been able to collect materials from it for the subject at hand. Among them, Beryllus left behind various beautifully written compositions, along with letters; he was bishop of the Arabians in Bostra. Similarly Hippolytus, who also presided over another church somewhere. There has also come to us a dialogue by Gaius,88 a most eloquent man, which had been held in Rome at the time of Zephyrinus, against Proclus, the defender of the Phrygian heresy. In it, when he stifles the impetuous and daring composition of new writings by his opponents, he mentions only thirteen letters of the holy Apostle, not reckoning Hebrews with the rest, and ever since then some among the Romans do not think that it came from the Apostle. W HAT B I SHO P S W E R E W E L L K N OW N DU R I N G T H I S P E R IO D

chapter 21. After Antoninus had reigned seven years and six months, Macrinus succeeded him. He lasted a year, and once more another Antoninus assumed the Roman leadership.89 In his first year Zephyrinus, the bishop of the Romans, departed this life, having occupied that ministry for eighteen full years. 2 After him Callistus was appointed to the episcopacy. He lived five years, and left the ministry to Urbanus. At this time the emperor Alexander succeeded to Roman rule, after Antoninus lasted only four years.90 At this time, too, Philetus succeeded Asclepiades in the church of the Antiochenes. 3 When Origen’s fame had spread everywhere, reports even reached as far as the mother of the emperor, named Mamaea, a most godfearing woman if there ever was one.91 Consequently, she made a great fuss to request to see the man and to test his understanding of divine matters, which everyone was marveling about. 4 She was in fact 88. See 2.25.6. 89. Macrinus orchestrated the assassination of Caracalla and reigned from April 217 to June 218; the Antoninus mentioned here is better known as Elagabulus, emperor from June 218 to March 222, when he was assassinated and succeeded by Alexander Severus. 90. Alexander Severus, March 222. 91. Julia Mamaea, the mother of Alexander Severus, served as regent for her teenage son.

book 6

307

staying in Antioch, and sent her military bodyguard to summon him. After he spent a period of time with her and gave many demonstrations of the glory of the Lord and the virtue of the divine teaching, he hastened to his usual occupations. W HAT [ WO R K S ] O F H I P P O LY T U S HAV E C OM E T O U S

chapter 22. It was then that Hippolytus, when he composed many other records, also produced the writing On Pascha, in which he sets down a record of the timings and presents a rule for a sixteen-year cycle for Pascha, and defines the timing by the first year of the emperor Alexander. Of the rest of his writings those that have come to us are these: On the Hexameron, On the Books after the Hexameron, Against Marcion, On the Song of Songs, On Portions of Ezekiel, On Pascha, Against All Heresies, and you can also find many others preserved among many people.92 O N O R IG E N ’ S D I L IG E N C E A N D T HAT H E WA S D E E M E D WO RT H Y O F T H E E C C L E SIA S T IC A L P R E SB Y T E R AT E

chapter 23. From that time, Origen also began commentaries on the divine writings, with Ambrose urging him on, not only with the kind of encouragement and exhortation that comes in words, but also with a plentiful supply of what was required. 2 For more than seven shorthand writers were with him when he dictated, relieving each other on a schedule, and just as many scribes, along with maidens trained in calligraphy. Ambrose generously supplied what was required for all of them.93 Yes, 92. The identity of Hippolytus and the proper attribution of the extant works ascribed to him continue to be debated and are too complex to summarize here; see R. Heine, “Hippolytus, Ps.-Hippolytus, and the Early Canons,” in F. Young, L. Ayres, A. Louth, and A. Casiday, eds., The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 142–51. 93. This passage is a much-cited description of early Christian scribal practice, though it is probably hyperbolic; the best study of early Christian scribal practices remains K. Haines-Eitzen, Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

308

the ecclesiastical history

and, moreover, he contributed untold zeal to Origen’s diligent and trained study of the divine oracles; this in particular is what encouraged him to compose the commentaries. 3 These things being so, Pontianus succeeded Urbanus who had overseen the church of the Romans for eight years, while Zebennus [was bishop] of the church of the Antiochenes after Philetus. 4 In their time Origen, who had been sent to Greece via Palestine to take care of the pressing needs of ecclesiastical matters, received ordination to the presbyterate in Caesarea through the laying on of hands by the bishops there. Now, then, the accusations concerning him that were raised at that time and what decisions were made by the presidents of the churches about the accusations, and what else he contributed to the divine Logos, as when he was in his prime, all require a specific treatise; we have written a partial account in the second [book] of the Apology we produced on his behalf.94 W HAT E X E G E SE S H E W R O T E I N A L E X A N D R IA

chapter 24. But to those matters it is necessary to add these. That in the sixth [book] of his Commentaries on the Gospel According to John he indicates that the first five were composed when he was still in Alexandria, and that of this work on the whole of the said Gospel only twentytwo volumes have come to us. 2 And that according to the ninth [book] of On Genesis (the whole work is twelve [books]) he shows not only that those prior to the ninth were recorded in Alexandria, but that so were the first twenty-five of On Psalms as well as those of On Lamentations, five volumes of which have come to us, within which he also mentions the [books of] On the Resurrection, which are two. 3 Not only this but he also wrote On First Principles before his move from Alexandria, and what are titled the Stromateis, being ten in number, he composed in the same city during the reign of Alexander, as the notes in his own hand at the beginning of the volumes also show.95 94. The Apology for Origen was composed ca. 307–9 c.e., when Pamphilus was imprisoned; see 6.32.3 and Martyrs of Palestine 11. 95. In this passage, Eusebius differentiates between works of Origen that are in his library (“have come to us”) and those that he does not have, but knows from references in Origen’s works (e.g., On the Resurrection, mentioned in On Lamentations).

book 6

309

HOW H E M E N T IO N S T H E R E G I ST E R E D WRITINGS

chapter 25. When he interprets the first Psalm he presents the catalogue of the sacred writings of the old covenant, writing thus, verbatim:96 One should not be ignorant that the registered97 books, as the Hebrews have handed them down, are twenty-two, which is also the number of the letters in their alphabet.

2 Then after some more he continues, saying: The twenty-two books according to the Hebrews are these: that which we title Genesis but among the Hebrews is Bresith, from the first words of the book, which are “In the beginning”; Exodus, Oulleshmoth, which means “These are the names”; Leviticus, Ouikra, “And he called”; Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; Deuteronomy, Elleaddebareim, “These are the words”; Jesus son of Nave, Iosouebennoun; Judges with Ruth in one book, Sophteim; 1 and 2 Kingdoms, and with them one, Samuel, “The One called by God”; 3 and 4 Kingdoms in one book, Ouammelchdauid, which means “Kingdom of David”; 1 and 2 Chronicles in one book, Dabreiamein, which means “words of days”; 1 and 2 Esdras in one book; Ezra, which means “The Helper”; the Book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; Ecclesiastes, Koelth; Song of Songs (for it is not, as some suppose, Songs of Songs), Sirassireim; Isaiah, Iessia; Jeremiah with Lamentations and the Letter in one book, Ieremia; Daniel, Daniel; Ezekiel, Iezekiel; Job, Iob; Esther, Esther. Outside of these are the [books of] Maccabees, which are titled Sarbethsabanaiel.98

3 This, then, he places in the aforementioned writing. But in the first book of those On the Gospel According to Matthew, he maintains the 96. What follows are quotations from Origen’s Commentary on Psalms, which is no longer extant except in fragments; Eusebius and Pamphilus also quoted from this work in their Apology for Origen. 97. Endiathēkos: the same word used to differentiate “registered” books in his list of the “registered” and “unregistered” books of the new covenant (3.25.1–7). 98. Origen first lists the Greek titles of each biblical book, as they appear in the LXX, then transliterates the Hebrew titles into Greek characters. This translation replaces the Greek with English, then transliterates the Greek transliterations of the Hebrew into Roman characters. The Hebrew titles are taken from the first words of each text—e.g., B’reshit (Genesis) = “In the beginning.”

310

the ecclesiastical history

ecclesiastical rule, and testifies that he knows only four gospels, writing just so: 4 About the four gospels, which alone are unopposed in the church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first to have been written was the one according to him who was then a tax-collector, but later an apostle of Jesus Christ—Matthew—which he put out for the believers from Judaism, and was composed in Hebrew letters. 5 And that the second is that According to Mark, who produced it with Peter’s guidance, and who Peter declares a “son” in the general letter where he says, “Your fellow elect in Babylon and Mark, my son, greet you.”99 6 And the third is that According to Luke, who produced for those from the Gentiles the gospel praised by Paul, and last of all that According to John.

7 And in the fifth book of Commentaries on the Gospel According to John the same writer says this about the letters of the apostles:100 But he who was made capable of becoming a servant of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the spirit—Paul—who fulfilled the gospel from Jerusalem as far as Illyricum, did not write to all the churches that he taught, but even when he did write to them, he sent only a few lines. 8 Peter, upon whom Christ’s church is built and over which the gates of Hades will not prevail, is agreed to have left behind one letter, and a second maybe, for it is doubted. 9 What need is there to speak of the one who reclined upon Jesus’s breast, John, who left behind one gospel, 10 though he confesses he could produce so many that the cosmos could not contain them, and who wrote the Apocalypse, being commanded to be silent and not write down the utterances of the seven thunders? He has also left behind a letter of all of a few lines, and a second and a third maybe, since not all say these are genuine; both together are short of a hundred lines.

11 In addition to this, in his Homilies on the Letter to the Hebrews, he makes these distinctions: That the character of the language of the letter written to the Hebrews does not have the lack of refinement in speech characteristic of the Apostle, who confessed he was less refined in speech, that is, in his

99. 1 Pet. 5:13. 100. Nine of the thirty-two books of this work are preserved nearly complete in Greek, but the remainder only in fragments; this is one of the short fragments of book 5.

book 6

311

phrasing, but that the letter is more Hellenizing in the arrangement of its language, 12 all who know how to judge differences in phrasing would agree. Again, though, that the concepts in the letter are worthy of wonder and not second [in quality] to the writings that are agreed to belong to the Apostle, this, too, all who attend to reading the Apostle would concur is true.

13 After other things he adds to this, saying: To state my own opinion, I would say that the concepts are of the Apostle, but the phrasing and the arrangement are those of someone who recollected the Apostle’s [concepts], like someone who had taken notes on what his teacher said.101 If, then, any church has this letter as Paul’s, let said church be approved in this. For it was not at random that the ancient men handed it down as Paul’s. 14 But who wrote the letter, God knows the truth, but the account that came to us is that some say that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the letter, while others say that it was Luke, who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.

W HAT T H E B I SHO P S T HOU G H T O F H I M

chapter 26. But let this be enough here. But this was the tenth year of the reign under discussion, when Origen moved from Alexandria to Caesarea, and left the school for the catechesis of those there to Heraclas.102 And not long after, Demetrius, the bishop of the church of the Alexandrians, died, having served forty-three full years. Heraclas succeeded him. T HAT H E R AC L A S SU C C E E D E D T O T H E E P I S C O PAC Y O F T H E A L E X A N D R IA N S

chapter 27. In this period Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappacodia, became distinguished. He had so much interest in Origen that he would sometimes summon him to his region to help the churches, and at other times would go himself to Judaea and spend periods of 101. Origen imagines the kind of note-taking that occurred in the lectures of a philosopher. 102. The references here plus the Chron. date Origen’s permanent relocation to Caesarea 232/3 c.e.

312

the ecclesiastical history

time with him for improvement in divine [studies]. And he was not the only one; the president of Jerusalem, Alexander, and Theoctistus, the [president] of Caesarea, were always visiting him, as though a sole teacher, and assigning to him the work of interpreting the divine writings and the other matters of ecclesiastical discourse.103 O N T H E P E R SE C U T IO N I N T H E R E IG N OF MAXIMINUS

chapter 28. Now, then, when the Roman emperor Alexander had concluded thirteen years of rule, Maximinus Caesar succeeded him.104 He, in retribution against the house of Alexander, which was mostly made up of believers, raised a persecution and ordered that only the leaders of the churches be killed, since they were responsible for the teaching that is according to the gospel. It was then that Origen composed On Martyrdom,105 and dedicated the writing to Ambrose and Protoctetus, a presbyter in the community in Caesarea, because both experienced not insignificant distress in the persecution. The story is that during this distress these men distinguished themselves by confession, with Maximinus reigning no longer than three years’ time. Origen has noted the period of the persecution in the twenty-second [book] of Commentaries on the Gospel According to John, and in various letters. 2 9 . O N FA B IA N , T HAT H E WA S M I R AC U L OU SLY C HO SE N B Y G O D A S B I SHO P O F T H E R OM A N S

chapter 29. When Gordian succeeded to the Roman leadership after Maximinus,106 Anteros succeeded Pontianus, who had overseen the church in Rome for six years, and Fabian succeeded Anteros, who served in this ministry for a month. 2 They say that after Anteros’s

103. I.e., the bishops are to Origen as the inner circle of a philosophical school is to a master. 104. Maximinus Thrax, March 235 c.e. 105. This work is extant in Greek. 106. Spring 238 c.e.

book 6

313

death Fabian along with others came from the countryside to Rome, and that having arrived there he came to be selected by divine and heavenly grace in a most miraculous way. 3 All the brothers had gathered to appoint the one who was going to succeed to the episcopacy, and although there were many eminent and esteemed men that came to mind, Fabian, though he was present, came under no one’s consideration. But nevertheless, they recollect, a dove suddenly flew down from the sky and landed on his head, a clear imitation of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Savior in the form of a dove.107 4 At this the whole people, as if moved by a single divine spirit, cried out in all willingness and with one soul that he was worthy, and without hesitation took him and sat him on the episcopal throne. At this time, when the bishop of Antioch, Zebennus, departed this life, Babylas succeeded to rule, and in Alexandria,108 because Heraclas had assumed the service after Demetrius, Dionysius succeeded him in the work of catechetical instruction for those there; he, too, was one of Origen’s pupils. W HO T H E P U P I L S O F O R IG E N W E R E

chapter 30. Many came to Origen when he was doing his usual work in Caesarea, not only from the surrounding territory, but also myriad pupils from other regions who had left their fatherlands. As especially renowned among them we know of Theodore, who was the same person as the Gregory of our day, famous among the bishops, and his brother, Athenodorus.109 They were passionately excited about the teachings of the Greeks and Romans, and he instilled in them a desire for philosophy and encouraged them to exchange their earlier eagerness for divine training. They spent five full years with him, and garnered so much betterment in divine studies that though both were still young they were deemed worthy of episcopacy for the churches in Pontus.

107. Matt. 3:16 and parallels. 108. I.e., the bishop of Alexandria, whose letters serve as Eusebius’s primary sources in the second half of book 6 and most of book 7. 109. Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother, Athenodorus; this Gregory is usually identified as the addressee of Origen’s Letter to Gregory and the Gregory who authored the Thanksgiving Oration to Origen.

314

the ecclesiastical history O N A F R IC A N U S

chapter 31. At this time, too, Africanus, the writer of what are titled the Cestoi, was well known. A letter of his, written to Origen, is in circulation, in which he was perplexed about whether the narrative about Susanna in Daniel is illegitimate and forged. To this Origen wrote back comprehensively. 2 Of the same Africanus Chronographies in five books have come to us, and they were labors of accuracy and diligence.110 In them he says that he himself made a trip to Alexandria on account of the great fame of Heraclas, who we pointed out earlier was appointed to the episcopacy of the church there and was very distinguished indeed in philosophical studies and the other studies of the Hellenes. 3 And another letter of the same Africanus to Aristides is in circulation, on the supposed disagreement between the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke. In it he establishes the agreement of the evangelists very clearly based on an account that came down to him, and which I set down before this at the appropriate moment in the first [book] of the work in hand.111 W HAT E X E G E SE S O R IG E N W R O T E I N C A E S A R E A I N PA L E ST I N E

chapter 32. And in this period Origen composed the books of On Isaiah and at the same time those of On Ezekiel. Of these, thirty volumes on the third part of Isaiah, up to the vision of the four-footed beasts of the desert,112 have come to us, and on Ezekiel twenty-five, the only ones he produced on the whole prophet. 2 Coming to be in Athens at that time, he completed the books of On Ezekiel and began those of On the Song of Songs, working on it there up to the fifth book. These, being ten in number, he finished after returning to Caesarea.113

110. The Chronographies were an important source for Eusebius’s own chronographic research. The Cestoi (Embroideries) was a compendium of scientific, historical, and ethnographic accounts. Both works are extant only in fragments. 111. See 1.7.1–16. 112. I.e., roughly through Isa. 30:6. 113. Of the works mentioned here, the commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel are extant only in fragments; Rufinus’s Latin translation of the first three books and part of the fourth book of the Song of Songs commentary survives, as do some fragments in Greek.

book 6

315

3 What need is there at present to make a catalogue of the man’s discourses, which would require a study unto itself? Moreover, we have recorded it in our written account of the life of Pamphilus, the holy martyr of our day, in which, when establishing how diligent Pamphilus was in divine [studies] I set down the pinakes of the library he had collected of the works of Origen and the other ecclesiastical writers.114 From them whoever it pleases can make a complete inspection of the works of Origen that have come to us. But now we must move on to what comes next in the narrative.

O N T H E D EV IAT IO N O F B E RY L LU S

chapter 33. Beryllus, who we indicated above was bishop of Bostra in Arabia,115 deviated from the ecclesiastical standards and attempted to introduce things foreign to the faith, daring to say that our Savior and Lord did not subsist beforehand according to his own circumscribed essence before his arrival among human beings and that he did not have his own divinity, but only the Father’s [divinity], which had taken up residence in him.116 2 After many bishops had posed questions and held dialogues with him on this point, Origen was summoned along with others and first went to have a discussion with the man, to test what ideas he held. Once he understood what Beryllus was actually claiming, he corrected what was unorthodox and used reason to persuade him, and fixed him in the truth concerning doctrine and restored him to his previously sound opinion. 3 And even

114. The Life of Pamphilus does not survive. The pinakes (singular pinax, the wooden board upon which the lists were traditionally written) were catalogues of the works held in a collection. 115. See 6.20.2. 116. Beryllus is described as arguing that the Son did not subsist before the incarnation and that Christ was God because the divinity of God resided in Jesus’s human body. A reference to Beryllus in Socrates, HE 3.7 suggests that Beryllus thought that God’s divinity was present in the incarnate Christ in place of a human soul. Here, Eusebius describes the Son as subsisting “according to his own circumscribed essence (ousia),” a description he does not employ after Nicaea; the Son’s being circumscribed as a distinct essence would contradict the conciliar statement that the Father and Son are homoousios, or “of the same essence.”

316

the ecclesiastical history

still today, written documents from Beryllus and the synod held concerning him are in circulation, which contain both Origen’s questions to him and the statements made in the discussions in his own community, and each of the actions taken at that time.117 4 Now, the elders118 of our day have handed down myriad other things to memorialize Origen, which I will seem to leave by the wayside, because they do not have anything to do with the matter at hand. But the necessary details one should know about him can be gathered from the Apology on his behalf that was the result of our labor and that of the holy martyr of our day, Pamphilus, and which we produced in response to argument lovers by toiling together diligently.119 A F FA I R S I N T H E R E IG N O F P H I L I P P

chapter 34. Once Gordian had concluded his governing of the Romans after six full years, Philipp, along with his son Philipp, succeeded as leader.120 The story is that he, being Christian, wanted to participate in the prayers of the church along with the crowd on the last all-night vigil of Pascha, but he was prevented from entering by the one who was presiding at that time until he would confess and be enrolled among those under probation for sins and kept in the place [reserved for] penance. For there was no other way Philipp could be received by him except by doing this, on account of his being responsible for many [sins] in his day, and he is said to have submitted to authority willingly, proving by his actions the authenticity and prudence of his god-fearing attitude.

117. These documents are no longer extant. 118. Or “presbyters.” 119. The “argument lovers” refers generally to anti-Origenists of the early fourth century, but in particular to the Egyptian confessors who were raising the issue of Origen’s orthodoxy at this time. We know of a number of specific occasions when Eusebius and/or Pamphilus may have encountered Egyptian anti-Origenists: Eusebius spent time in the Thebaid during this period, and visited Egyptian confessors condemned to the mines at Phaeno, and Egyptians were also sent to Caesarea for trial (HE 9.3.4; Epiphanius, Panarion; Martyrs of Palestine 13). 120. Philipp “the Arab,” and his eponymous son, named as his junior colleague, 244 c.e.

book 6

317

T HAT D IO N YSI U S SU C C E E D E D H E R AC L A S I N T H E E P I S C O PAC Y

chapter 35. It was during Philipp’s third year when Heraclas departed this life in the sixteenth year of his presidency over the churches in Alexandria, and Dionysius assumed the episcopacy.121 W HAT O T H E R WO R K S O R IG E N LABORED UPON

chapter 36. They say that at that time Origen, who was now more than sixty years old and having by this point acquired great skill from his long practice, allowed the public discourses he gave to be recorded by shorthand writers, which he had never allowed to be done before, but which was fitting, for the faith was growing, and our doctrine had been declared openly among all [people]. 2 At this time, too, he composed the writings, eight in number, against the True Logos that had been written against us by Celsus the Epicurean,122 the twenty-five volumes of On the Gospel According to Matthew, and those of On the Twelve Prophets, of which we have found only twenty-five [volumes]. 3 His letter to the emperor, Philipp, and another to Philipp’s wife Severa, and various others to other people are also in circulation. Of these, whatever we have been able to collect from what has been preserved scattered about in various places we catalogued in individual volumes, so that they would no longer be scattered.123 4 And he wrote to Fabian, the bishop in Rome, and to many other leaders of the churches, concerning his orthodoxy. And you have the evidences of these matters in the sixth [book] of the Apology we wrote about the man.124 121. Ca. 247 c.e. Dionysius’s succession is dated 248 c.e. in Chron. 122. The reference is to Origen’s Against Celsus, which is extant in Greek. Celsus was a Platonist, not an Epicurean (Eusebius follows Origen in misidentifying him). His True Logos was written ca. 170s c.e. Significant portions of Celsus’s text are quoted by Origen in Against Celsus. 123. I.e., he has catalogued whatever letters of Origen he has been able to find and preserved them (probably copied them) in new codices; he would have been completing the work that he says was begun by Pamphilus (6.32.3). 124. This probably means that Eusebius and Pamphilus quoted the letters in the (lost) sixth book of the Apology for Origen. Except for the Letter to Julius Africanus, the Letter to Gregory, and the fragments of letters quoted by Eusebius, Origen’s letters are lost.

318

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E D I S AG R E E M E N T O F T H E A R A B IA N S

chapter 37. Once more, during the period under discussion, authors of a doctrine with no relation to truth again sprouted in Arabia, who were claiming that for a set period of time the human soul shares in death and experiences corruption along with bodies, but at the time of the resurrection, they are in turn brought to life again with them. And, when a not insignificant synod was convened at that time, once again Origen was summoned and held discourses there in the joint meeting concerning the question, and carried himself so well that the attitudes of those who had previously been stumbling were changed. O N T H E H E R E SY O F T H E E L K E S A I T E S

chapter 38. At that time, too, the so-called heresy of the Elkesaites initiated a new perversion, which was snuffed out as soon as it began. Origen mentions it when giving a public homily on the Eighty-Second Psalm, saying just so: At present, someone has come thinking himself to be great for being able to act as ambassador of a godless and most impious opinion that comes from the so-called Elkesaites, and which has recently become insurgent in the churches. I will lay out for you what is evil about that opinion, so that you will not be snatched away. It rejects certain things from all of the divine writings, but in turn uses words from all of the old and the evangelical [divine writings]; it completely rejects the Apostle.125 And they claim that denying is something [morally] indifferent and that a person who uses his intellect will, if compelled, deny with his mouth, but not with his heart. And they circulate a book that they say has fallen from heaven and that he who hears it and believes will receive forgiveness of sins—a forgiveness other than that which Christ Jesus has granted.126

125. These phrases refer to the Septuagint (Old Testament), the Gospels, and the Pauline letters, respectively. 126. The “Elkasaites” are known only from orthodox heresiologists. Compare Ps.Hippolytus, Refutation 9.13–17; 10.29; Epiphanius, Panarion 19, 30. The “book” Origen mentions was ascribed to someone named Elkasai.

book 6

319

O N A F FA I R S I N T H E R E IG N O F D E C I U S

chapter 39. But Philipp, who had reigned for seven years, was succeeded by Decius.127 Then he, out of his hatred of Philipp, raised a persecution against the churches, during which, in Rome, after Fabian was perfected in martyrdom, Cornelius succeeded to the episcopacy.128 2 In Palestine, Alexander, the bishop of the church of Jerusalem, once again appeared in the governor’s halls of justice on account of Christ. When he had distinguished himself with a second confession he was tested by prison, crowned with healthy old age and august gray hair. 3 After his shining and conspicuous confession in the governor’s halls of justice, once he had gone to his rest in prison, Mazabanes was declared successor of the episcopacy in Jerusalem. 4 Similarly to Alexander, Babylas in Antioch departed [this life] in prison after his confession, and Fabius became president of the church there. 5 Now, then, exactly what and how much befell Origen during the persecution, and how it ended—the wicked demon and his whole army taking up a position against him out of rivalry, strategizing with every machination and power against him, and targeting him more than all the others upon whom he waged war; what and how much the man endured on account of the doctrine of Christ, [that is,] being in chains and his body tortured, and the punishments of irons and the darkness of prison; and that for many days his feet were stretched to the fourth position on the wooden torture machine and how he steadfastly bore up against the threat of fire and the other attacks of the enemies; and how this ended for him, with the judge contentiously determined never to kill him; and what statements he made after this, which were full of help for those who needed buoying up—all of this is contained true and accurate in the man’s many letters.

127. Late 249 c.e. 128. Fabian’s death is mentioned in a letter from the Roman clergy to Cyprian of Carthage (Letter 30.5)

320

the ecclesiastical history O N W HAT HA P P E N E D T O D IO N YSI U S

chapter 40. I will now set down matters relating to Dionysius, from his letter against Germanus, in which he states the following about himself, narrating in this way: But I speak before God, and he knows if I am lying. Venturing nothing on my own behalf, I did not godlessly flee, but earlier, 2 when the persecution on Decius’s orders was posted, Sabinus at that very hour sent a frumentarius to locate me, and I remained in the house for four days, expecting the arrival of the frumentarius.129 But he went looking everywhere—roads, rivers, fields—he thought I could be hiding or traveling, but he was so blind he did not find the house, for he did not believe I, who was being pursued, would stay at home. 3 And after barely four days, because God ordered me to move and miraculously gave me a path, I, the boys, and many of the brothers left together.130 And that this was the work of God’s providence, what followed made clear, when we were of service, perhaps, to some.

4 Then, after saying some things in between, he indicates what befell him after his flight, adding this: For around sunset, I together with those with me, was placed under armed guard and led to Taposiris, while Timothy, according to God’s providence, happened not to be present and was not captured. Arriving later he found the house vacant and servants keeping watch over it, but he found that we had been sold into slavery.131

129. A. Appius Sabinus, prefect of Egypt; frumentarius: a Roman military official responsible for provisions, but the frumentarii also served as agents for the provincial governors. At the beginning of this letter Dionysius defends himself against accusations that he inappropriately fled during persecution. The ethics of flight under persecution had been an issue since the second century. Tertullian dedicated a treatise to the subject (On Flight during Persecution), and Dionysius’s contemporary Cyprian of Carthage also had to defend himself (e.g., Letter 8, in which the Roman clergy are anxious when they hear Cyprian has fled; and Letter 20, in which he defends his actions). 130. Paides (boys): Dionysius could be referring to slaves, students, or sons. The “brothers” are presbyters, deacons, and other clergy. 131. An allusion to the story of Joseph, sold into slavery in Egypt by his brothers (Gen. 37:18–36).

book 6

321

5 Then after other things he says: And what was the manner of [God’s] miraculous plan? Let the truth be told. One of the locals encountered Timothy as he was fleeing, saw that he was upset, and asked what had caused his urgency. He told the truth, and when the man heard it 6 (he was leaving after a wedding feast, for it is their custom for such gatherings to last all night)132 he went back and told those who were reclining [at the feast]. They all rose up in a single motion, as if on cue, and ran, arriving quickly and bursting in upon us gave a war cry, and the soldiers guarding us fled immediately. Then they came over to us, since we were reclining on small beds without bedding. 7 Then I—God knows that at first I thought they were robbers who had come for plunder and loot—I remained on the bed, naked in nothing but a linen garment, and held out the rest of my clothes that were lying there. But they told me to stand up and get out as quickly as possible. 8 And then, understanding why they had come, I shouted, imploring and beseeching them to leave us be, and said that if they wanted to do something useful they should anticipate those who were escorting me and behead me. As I was shouting—as those who were my comrades and shared in all of this know—they stood me up by force. And still, I let myself fall backward onto the floor, but they led me out, grabbed me by the hands and feet and dragged me out, and those who are witnesses to all this followed me: 9 Gaius, Faustus, Peter, and Paul. They picked me up and carried me limp out of the little village, put me on a donkey bareback, and led me away.

This is what Dionysius says about himself. O N T HO SE W HO B E C A M E M A RT Y R S I N A L E X A N D R IA I T SE L F

chapter 41. The same man in the letter to Fabius, bishop of the Antiochenes, recounts the contests of those martyred under Decius in Alexandria in this way: The persecution that occurred among us did not begin with the imperial edict, but anticipated it by a whole year, for the prophet and creator

132. Note the distinction that Dionysius draws between himself and the clergy (urban, cultured Alexandrians) and “they” (the rustic people of the Egyptian countryside).

322

the ecclesiastical history of evil in this city, whoever he was, was ahead of the game, and set in motion and instigated the Gentile mobs against us beforehand, rekindling the locals’ superstition.133 2 He stoked their anger and granted them full license to do unholy deeds, and they took this to be the only pious way to worship the demons—bloodlust toward us. 3 First, they grabbed a presbyter, Metras by name, and ordered him to speak godless words, and when he could not be persuaded to do so, they beat his body with sticks, goaded his face and eyes with pointed reeds, led him outside the walls, and stoned him. 4 Then they led a faithful woman, named Quinta, to the idol temple, and kept trying to force her to kneel in worship before it. She turned away and abominated it, and they hauled her by the feet through the whole city, dragging her, bashed by rocks, over rough paving stones, scourging her at the same time. They led her to the same spot and stoned her to death. 5 Then, in concert, they all rushed to the houses of the god-fearing, and each of them fell upon those they knew to be their neighbors, led them out, robbing and plundering them. The more valuable of their treasures they set aside for themselves, but what was less valuable and anything made of wood they threw into the street and lit on fire, so that the scene looked like a city that had been sacked by enemies. 6 The brothers fell back and slowly left the scene, and joyfully accepted the plunder of their possessions, like those about whom Paul testifies.134 And I do not know of any of them—unless perhaps one fell into [the hands of the mob]—who up to now has denied the Lord. 7 At that time they also captured the most wondrous virgin elder135 Apollonia and broke her jaws when they knocked her teeth out. Then they built a fire just outside the city and threatened to burn her alive, unless she joined them in speaking their impious pronouncements. She, though, requested a moment, and when it was granted her, she eagerly leapt into the fire, and was fully consumed. 8 They seized Serapion at his own hearth, tormented him with harsh tortures and broke all his limbs, then tossed him headfirst from the upper floor. For us, not a single road, highway, or alley was safe to travel, night or day, for always and everywhere everyone was shouting that if anyone refused to chant the blasphemous words, he should be dragged away

133. Dionysius plays on common stereotypes about the Alexandrians’ penchant for rioting. 134. Compare Heb. 10:34. 135. Or “virgin presbyter.”

book 6

323

immediately and burned. And it was at its height like this for a long time. 9 But insurrection and intratribal war overtook these wretches, and they turned their rage against us upon each other, and we could breathe for a moment, for they had no spare time for their feelings toward us. Immediately, though, news came of the departure of that reign that had been more well-disposed toward us, and a great fear spread that the threat was again upon us.136 10 And then the edict did indeed arrive, and it was almost like what was predicted by our Lord as being nothing short of the most fearful thing of all, that, if it be possible, it might cause even the elect to stumble.137 11 Everyone, in effect, was cringing with fear. And immediately, among the more eminent people, some came forward because they were afraid, others who held public offices were forced by their duties, while others were dragged by their associates. They were called by name, and approached the impure and unholy sacrifices, some pale and trembling, not as though they were not going to sacrifice but as if they were going to become sacrifices and victims for the idols. So the whole populace that was gathered there threw insults at them, that they were plain cowards about everything, both dying and sacrificing. 12 But others ran readily to the base of the altars, stoutly affirming in their audacity that they had never been Christians; about them the Lord made the truest prediction, that they will hardly be saved.138 Of the rest, some followed these two groups, but others fled. 13 Others were caught, and of these some went on to be bound and imprisoned, and some of them after being locked up for many days and before even coming to the place of judgment swore that they would refuse [to sacrifice], while others persevered for a while under torture, but at the end failed. 14 But the solid and blessed pillars of the Lord, strengthened by him and receiving power and strength corresponding to and worthy of the strong faith within them, became wondrous martyrs of his kingdom. 15 The first of them was Julian, a man with swollen feet, who could not stand or walk; he was brought forward with the others who carried him. The first of them denied immediately, but the other, Cronius by name, surnamed Eunus, and the old man139 Julian himself confessed

136. 137. 138. 139.

I.e., the death of Philipp the Arab and the succession of Decius, in late 249 c.e. Compare Matt. 24:24. Matt. 19:23; Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24. Or “presbyter.”

324

the ecclesiastical history

the Lord.140 Throughout the whole city, which as you know is vast, they were carried on camels and whipped while on them, and finally, with the whole populace gathered around, they were burned with lime. 16 A soldier was standing there as they were being led away, and confronted the people who were insulting them; when they began to shout, that most manly soldier of God, Besas, was brought forward, and after gaining the highest distinction in the great war [fought] on behalf of piety, he was beheaded. 17 And another, a Libyan by race, a true Macar in respect of his name and his being blessed,141 would not be swayed when the governor kept pressing him to deny, and was burned alive. After them, Epimachos and Alexander, after they had remained imprisoned for a long time and borne myriad sufferings under scrapers and scourges, were covered in lime. 18 And along with these there were four women. Ammonarion, a holy virgin: after the governor had tried utterly to outdo himself torturing her, since she had declared beforehand that she would utter none of what he ordered her to say, was true to what she promised, and was led away. There were others—the most august elder woman142 Mercuria, and a mother many times over who did not love her children more than the Lord, [named] Dionysia. When the governor felt shame at the idea of torturing them endlessly and letting women get the better of him, they were killed by the sword, no longer having to undergo trial by torture; Ammonarion, their champion,143 bore them on behalf of them all. 19 Hero, Ater, and Isidore, Egyptians,144 and with them a young boy about fifteen years old, Dioscorus, were handed over. When the governor at first tried to deceive the young man with words, thinking he would be easy to bring around, and then tried to compel him with torture, Dioscorus did not comply or say anything. 20 Then the governor

140. Julian flanked by a denier and a confessor recalls the two criminals crucified with Jesus (Luke 23:33–43). 141. Dionysius connects his name, Macar, with the Greek word for “blessed” (makarios). 142. Or “woman presbyter.” 143. Ammonarion is described, like Blandina in book 5 and Perpetua of the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas as embodying a traditionally male role—the champion who fights on people’s behalf in a contest. To make an anachronistic, but useful, analogy, Ammonarion is described as being the knight in shining armor who fights on behalf of the other women executed along with her. 144. I.e., “native” Egyptians, in contrast to Alexandrian Hellenes, like himself.

book 6

325

subjected the rest to savage combings, and when they persevered he sent them to the fire. But he marveled at Dioscorus for the way he distinguished himself in public and for his answers when he was posed direct questions, and commuted him, saying he was granting him a postponement to change his mind, on account of his youth. And now Dioscorus, favored of God, is with us, remaining to take part in a longer and more enduring contest. 21 A certain Nemesion, also an Egyptian, was falsely accused of being associated with thieves, but had been cleared of this most out-ofcharacter indictment by the centurion. Informants accused him of being Christian, and he came before the governor, bound, and the governor punished him most unjustly by giving him double the tortures and whippings than the thieves, then burned him between the thieves, honoring the blessed man with the pattern of Christ.145 22 Together, a military cohort, Ammon, Zeno, Ptolemy, and Ingenes, and with them an elder,146 Theophilus, stood before the governor. When a certain man was on trial for being a Christian, and was on the verge of tipping toward denial, these men, who were standing nearby, grit their teeth, pulled their faces, stretched out their hands, and signaled with their bodies. 23 When everyone turned toward them, before any of them could be seized, they beat them to it and ran to the foot of the judgment seat, saying they were Christians, and the governor and the councillors were frightened, and those who were being judged displayed fine courage in the face of what was going to happen, while those who sat in judgment were terrified. And these men paraded out of the judgment hall and rejoiced in martyrdom, with God leading them gloriously in a triumphant procession.

W HAT D IO N YSI U S R E C OU N T S A B OU T O T H E R M A RT Y R D OM S

chapter 42. Many others throughout the cities and villages were ransacked by the Gentiles, and I will recall one as an example. Ischyrion was hired by one

145. Dionysius again finds the image of Christ crucified between the two thieves, though this time he has in mind the version in Matt. 27:38 and Mark 15:27, in which no thieves repent. 146. Here “elder” may also mean “veteran” or “presbyter.”

326

the ecclesiastical history

of the [town] leaders to serve as an administrator. The paymaster ordered him to sacrifice, and when he refused, the paymaster harassed him, and when he persisted he abused him, and when he remained fixed the paymaster took a large staff, impaled him through his liver and bowels, killing him. 2 Is there any need to speak of the multitude that were forced to wander the deserts and mountains, killed by hunger, thirst, brigands, and wild animals? Those of them that survived are witnesses of their election and victory. But I will set down the deeds of one of them as an example. 3 Chaeremon was a very old bishop in the city named after the Nile.147 He fled to the Arabian mountain together with his companion,148 and had never returned, and even though they had made thorough searches the brothers never found them or their bodies. 4 But many of those living near the Arabian mountain had been captured and enslaved by barbarian Saracens; some of them were barely ransomed for high prices, while others were not, [and still have not been] even up to now. Brother, I have not related these matters in vain, but in order that you may know the extent of the terrors that happened to us. Those who have experienced more of them would know even more.

5 Then, after brief remarks, he adds: These divine martyrs among us, therefore, who are now seated with Christ and are fellows in his kingdom and sharers in his judgment and who serve as judges along with him, have taken it upon themselves to help some of the brothers who became liable to charges of sacrificing. Seeing their conversion and repentance, they considered this to be acceptable to him who does not wish for the utter death of a sinner, but for repentance, and received them and gathered and stood together and joined in fellowship with them in prayer and feasts. How, then, brothers, would you counsel us on these matters? 6 What should we do? Come to the same decision and opinion with them and maintain their judgment and the favor they have granted and show kindness to those whom they have granted mercy? Or decide that their judgment is unjust and position ourselves as those who would test this opinion of theirs, vex their kindness, and demolish their arrangement?

147. I.e., Nilopolis. 148. Symbios: usually translated “wife.”

book 6

327

Dionysius rightly added this, setting in motion the question of those who had weakened during the time of the persecution.149 O N N OVAT U S , W HAT S O RT O F P E R S O N H E WA S A N D O N T H E H E R E SY A S S O C IAT E D W I T H H I M

chapter 43. This was because Novatus,150 a presbyter in Rome carried away by his arrogant attitude toward [the weak]—namely, that they no longer had any hope of salvation even if they had had a totally genuine conversion and made a pure confession—established himself as the founder of a distinct heresy comprised of those who, according to their inflated attitude, called themselves The Pure. 2 In response to this, a great synod gathered in Rome, sixty bishops in number and with still more presbyters and deacons, and throughout the rest of the provinces the shepherds of each region made their own investigations as to what should be done. Among all of them the doctrine was established that Novatus along with those who had been carried away with him and those who agreed with his brotherly hatred and opted for the man’s inhumane opinion should be considered foreign to the church, while those of the brothers who had fallen during the calamity should be healed and treated with the medicine of repentance. 3 Now, letters of Cornelius, bishop of the Romans, to Fabius, bishop of the church of the Antiochenes, have come to us, and they describe

149. In what follows, Eusebius describes the “Novatianist controversy” or “Novatianist schism.” The “Novatian” after whom the controversy is named was a presbyter in Rome. After Fabian, the bishop of Rome, was martyred in 250, Novatian led a group of presbyters and deacons acting as ad hoc leadership in Fabian’s stead. They advocated more intensive penitential requirements for those who had lapsed during persecution (e.g., Cyprian, Letters 30 and 36). When Cornelius was made bishop and took a more lenient attitude toward the lapsed, Novatian was consecrated as a rival bishop of Rome, causing a schism (e.g., Cyprian, Letters 49 and 50). Several of Novatian’s works survive. 150. Eusebius calls the leader of the Novatians Novatus, probably because he has confused two distinct people, both of whom are mentioned in Dionysius’s and Cornelius’s letters below. Novatian was a presbyter of Rome consecrated as a rival bishop to Cornelius (see, e.g., Cyprian, Letter 44). Novatus was also a Roman presbyter; he was an ally of Novatian and according to Cornelius was instrumental in engineering Novatian’s election and the schism (see, e.g., Cyprian, Letter 52).

328

the ecclesiastical history

the events of the Roman synod and what the opinions of [the bishops] throughout Italy and Africa and the territories there were, and so have other letters, composed in the Roman language, from Cyprian and those with him throughout Africa, in which they made it clear they consented that those who had been tested [but lapsed] should get relief and that it was only reasonable that the founder of the heresy and all those likewise who had been led away by him be banished from the universal church. 4 Attached to these is another letter of Cornelius about the decisions of the synod and another again about what Novatus had done. Nothing prevents setting down parts of this one, so that those who read this writing may know about him. 5 Now, then, instructing Fabius about what Novatus was like as a person, Cornelius writes exactly this: But I want to say something so that you may know that for a long time before this this wondrous man has had an appetite for the episcopacy and because he hid this inclination of his has escaped notice, and veiled his mindlessness by surrounding himself with confessors from the outset. 6 Maximus, a presbyter among us, and Urbanus both reaped the great glory that comes from confession twice, and Sidonius and Celerinus, a man who through God’s mercy resisted under every torture and strengthening the weakness of his body with the force of his faith soundly defeated the adversary—these men, then, seeing through him easily and discovering the villainy and duplicity in him, and the false statements and lies, his lack of fellowship and wolfish friendship, returned to the holy church. And when enough bishops were present, and numerous presbyters and laity, they publicized all the machinations and wicked plots that he had for a long time kept to himself, lamenting and regretting that they had been tricked by the deceitful, evil-doing animal and had been left out of the church for a short time.

7 Then, after brief remarks, he says: Beloved brother, what an impossible turn and change we saw in him in such a brief time! For the distinguished man who by making frightening oaths used to persuade people that he had no desire at all for the episcopate suddenly appeared as a bishop, as if emerging right into the midst of the arena.151 8 This master of dogma, this champion of ecclesi151. Lawlor and Oulton are probably correct that the metaphor refers to the lifts that used to bring combatants and animals into the amphitheater.

book 6

329

astical knowledge, plotting to drag off and steal away the episcopacy, which had not been granted to him from on high,152 selected two comrades who had renounced their own salvation, in order to send them to a tiny and insignificant part of Italy and by some beguiling trick get their hands on three bishops, rural men and real simpletons. He forcefully and strongly asserted that they must come quickly to Rome, and that once there all the dissension that had occurred could be solved with them acting as mediators with the other bishops. When they did arrive—as we were saying before, they were simpletons when it came to his wicked machinations and mischief—they were locked up by some men who suffered from the same delusion as him. At the tenth hour, drunk and wasted, he used force to compel them to give him the episcopacy by means of an empty imitation of the laying on of hands; because the episcopacy had not come to him [legally] he avenged himself by trickery and villainy. 10 One of [the three bishops] returned to the church not long afterward, lamenting and confessing his own sin, and we let him reenter communion as part of the laity, with all of the laity present interceding for him. And we appointed successors for the rest of the bishops and sent them to the places they had occupied. 11 This avenger of the Gospel did not believe that it is necessary that there be one bishop in the universal church, in which he knew (how could he not) there are forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven subdeacons, forty-two liturgical assistants, counted together fifty-two exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers, and more than fifteen hundred widows and afflicted, all of whom are nourished by the grace and philanthropy of the master.153 12 But so vast a multitude, so necessary for the church, which is increasing in richness and number through God’s providence. along with a vast, innumerable laity, were not able to turn him away from such grave desperation and failure and call him back into the church.

13 And again after other things he adds this: Come, next let us say what deeds and what ways of life he was so confident about that he sought the episcopacy. Perhaps because he had been raised in the church from the beginning and had contended in many

152. Or “from the [tradition] that goes back to the beginning.” 153. Or “the Master,” that is, Christ. Cornelius may intend the ambiguity, reinforcing the notion that the bishop governs the community in Christ’s place.

330

the ecclesiastical history

struggles on its behalf and had experienced many great dangers for the sake of the fear of God? But this is not the case! The prompt for his becoming a believer was Satan, who had entered him and resided in him for quite a long time. When he was getting help from the exorcists he fell very ill, and because it was thought that he was going to die in no time at all, he received [baptism], the water being poured on him in the very bed in which he lay, if one can even say that such a man “received it.” 15 Not only that, but after he had escaped the illness, he did not obtain the other things one must partake of according to the rules of the church, nor was he sealed by the bishop. Since he did not obtain these, how could he have obtained the Holy Spirit?

16 And again, after brief remarks, he says: Through cowardice and love of his own life he denied that he was a presbyter at the time of the persecution. For when he was requested and entreated by the deacons to leave the little house he had locked himself in and to provide the brothers with whatever help it is possible and allowable for a presbyter to bring brothers who are in danger and need support, he kept so far away from obeying the deacons’ pleading that he even acted bitter about it, went out, and left. For he said that he did not want to be a presbyter any more, for he was the lover of another philosophy.

17 Passing over a few remarks, he continues again, saying: For this shining example of a man abandoned the church of God, in which after becoming a believer he had been deemed worthy of the presbyterate by the grace of the bishop—the bishop who had laid his hands on him to ordain him into the order of the presbyterate, the bishop who was hindered from doing so by the whole order and by many of the laity as well, since someone who has been baptized by poured water while in his sickbed, as this man was, is not permitted to be in any order, but who asked that it be granted to him to ordain this one man.

18 Then he appends something else, the worst of the man’s insanities, saying thus: For after he has made the offerings and is distributing a portion to each person and handing it to him, he requires the miserable people to swear an oath instead of giving a blessing. He grasps both the recipient’s hands and does not let go until they swear and say this (I will use that

book 6

331

man’s very words): “Swear to me by the blood and body of our Lord Jesus Christ never to abandon me and return to Cornelius.” 19 And he does not take a taste if beforehand he has not called down curses on himself, and instead of saying “Amen” when he takes the bread he says, “I will not go back to Cornelius.”

20 And again after other remarks he says this: But know that he has already been denuded and deserted, with brothers abandoning him each day and coming back into the church. Moses, the blessed martyr who among us recently gave beautiful testimony and a wondrous martyrdom, while he was still in the world recognized [that man’s] arrogance and desperation, and along with five other presbyters who along with him had cut themselves off from the church ended communion [with him].

21 And at the end of the letter he has made a catalogue of the bishops present in Rome who passed judgment upon Novatus’s idiocy, indicating one by one both their names and those of the communities over which they presided, and he mentions those who were not present in Rome, but who via letters jointly approved the decision of the aforesaid bishops, both their names and the cities from which each was prompted to write. Such is what Cornelius wrote explaining things to Fabius, the bishop of Antioch. A S T O RY A B O U T SE R A P IO N F R OM D IO N YSI U S

chapter 44. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to this same Fabius, who was leaning a bit toward the schism, going over many other things concerning repentance in his letters to him and relating the contests of those recently martyred at that time in Alexandria. After other accounts, he describes an event full of wonder, which it is necessary to hand down in this writing; it goes like this: 2 I will set down for you one example that happened among us. There was a certain Serapion among us, a faithful old man,154 who lived his life blamelessly for a long time, but fell during the [period of] trial. He

154. Or “presbyter.”

332

the ecclesiastical history often asked [for absolution], but no one offered it to him, for he had in fact sacrificed. Falling ill, he was speechless and senseless for three consecutive days, but on the fourth day he briefly recovered and called his daughter’s son, and said, “For how long, my child, will you hold me back? I ask you, hurry, find me release quickly, call me one of the presbyters.” 4 Saying this, he became speechless again. The boy ran to the presbyter. But it was night, and the presbyter was sick and unable to come. But since an ordinance had been given by me that those departing this life, if they requested it and especially if they had also approached as a suppliant previously, should be absolved, in order that they might depart with good hope, he gave a small piece of the Eucharist to the little boy, commanding him to dip it and let the drops fall into the old man’s mouth. 5 The boy came back carrying it, and when he drew near, before he went in, Serapion rose up again and said, “Have you come, child, and the presbyter is unable to come? But quickly do what you were ordered and release me.” The boy dipped it and at once poured it into his mouth, and when the old man had gulped down a little, he immediately gave up his spirit. 6 Is it not palpably true that he was preserved and remained until he could be released and, with his sins wiped away, be able to be attested for the many fine things he had done?

A L E T T E R O F D IO N YSI U S T O N OVAT U S

chapter 45. So writes Dionysius. But let us see what the same man also inscribed to Novatus, who was at that time throwing the brotherhood of the Romans into disorder. Since he had made some of the brothers a pretext for apostasy and schism, claiming that he had been forced by them to go that far, see in what way Dionysius writes to him: Dionysius to brother Novatianus, greeting.155 If you were led unwillingly,156 as you claim, you can prove it by retreating willingly. For one must suffer everything there is to suffer for the sake of not cutting the church off from God, and martyrdom for the sake of not creating

155. Dionysius’s letter is addressed to Novatian, Cornelius’s rival; note that Eusebius misreads his source because he does not notice that Novatus and Novatian are two different people. The best manuscripts read “Novatianus,” and so, probably, did Eusebius’s manuscript. 156. I.e., to accept ordination as bishop and thus cause the schism.

book 6

333

schism is not less glorious than that done for the sake of not committing idolatry; in my opinion it is even greater. For in the latter case it is for the sake of a single soul, his own, but in the former case he is a martyr for the sake of the whole church. But even now, if you could persuade or force the brothers to come into concord, your correction will be greater than your fall, and the latter will no longer be counted [against you], while the former will bring you praise. But if you have no power to save the disobedient, save your own soul. I pray that you fare well, and have peace in the Lord.

O N T H E O T H E R L E T T E R S O F D IO N YSI U S

chapter 46. Such is what he wrote to Novatus. But he also wrote a letter, On Repentance, to those in Egypt in which he sets out his opinions concerning the lapsed, describing ranked categories of lapse. 2 And a personal letter to Colon is in circulation (he was bishop of the Hermopolite community) and another, A Letter of Admonishment, To His Flock in Alexandria. In with these there is also one To Origen, On Martyrdom. And to the brothers in Laodicea, over whom bishop Thelymidres presided, and he wrote likewise to those in Armenia, whose bishop was Meruzanes, on repentance. 3 In addition to all of these, he wrote to Cornelius in Rome upon receiving his letter against Novatus. In this letter Dionysius indicates that he was himself requested by Helenus, the bishop in Tarsus in Cilicia, and the rest of the bishops with him, and Firmilian in Cappadocia and Theoctistus in Palestine, to meet with the synod in Antioch, where some were attempting to confirm the schism of Novatus. 4 In addition to this he writes that he had been informed that Fabius had gone to his rest, and that Demetrianus had been appointed his successor in the episcopacy of Antioch. He also writes about the bishop in Jerusalem, speaking in these very words: “For the wondrous Alexander died blessedly while he was in prison.” 5 After this there is another letter of Dionysius in circulation, a Diaconal Letter to Those in Rome,157 delivered by Hippolytus. He inscribed another letter to the same, On Peace, and likewise On

157. What the adjective “diaconal” (diakonikē) means is unclear; perhaps that the letter was addressed to the deacons in Rome?

334

the ecclesiastical history

Repentance, and still another again to the confessors there who were still agreeing with the opinion of Novatus. And to these same [confessors] he sent two others once they had changed back to the church. And by conversing similarly with many others through letters, he has left behind many-faceted sources of profit for those who even now take diligent care to study his words.

Book 7

OV E RV I EW

Book 7 is bracketed by the death of one persecuting emperor, Decius, and the accession of another, Diocletian. Eusebius recounts events preceding and then coincident with the first forty years of his own lifetime. The narrative begins with the end of Decius’s reign and the accession of Gallus (251–53), followed by Valerian (253–60); Eusebius characterizes both as persecutors. Gallus’s persecution of Christians appears to have been limited to exiling Bishop Cornelius of Rome. Valerian’s anti-Christian measures are better attested: Eusebius preserves Dionysius of Alexandria’s account of events, which can be compared with the evidence for the West provided by the letters of Cyprian of Carthage. There seem to have been two “phases” to Valerian’s actions. First, bishops and presbyters were asked to renounce Christianity and make an offering on behalf of the emperor and empire; those who did not were exiled from urban centers. The governors also forbade Christians from congregating and banned them from cemeteries. Later, the banished clergy were arrested and placed on trial; those who still refused to capitulate were executed, and some Christian property was confiscated. The nature of Valerian’s measures, including their extent and intent, is difficult to understand from the sources, all of which are written from a Christian perspective; for a recent analysis see R. Selinger, The Mid-Third-Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian (Frankfurt: P. Lang, 2002). 335

336

the ecclesiastical history

The second half of book 7 covers four decades from the capture of Valerian by the Persians in 260 to the beginning of the Diocletianic persecution in 303. He asserts that Gallienus, Valerian’s son and co-emperor until Valerian’s capture by the Sassanians in 260, ended the persecution, and quotes from a rescript restoring property and allowing gatherings in cemeteries. He claims that his successor, Aurelian, intended to persecute, but was killed before he could promulgate his new policy. But Eusebius’s portrayal of this period is based at least as much in ideology as it is grounded in historical fact. Eusebius wants readers to linger on the juxtaposition of good and bad emperors: the former cultivate rapport with the churches, the latter persecute, and consequently come to bad ends. Valerian (humiliated captive of the Persians) and Aurelian (murdered) foreshadow the catastrophes of Galerius and Maximinus Daia in books 8 and 9. Simultaneously, Eusebius’s narrative emphasizes the providential nature of persecution: Aurelian’s anti-Christian desires were frustrated because God allowed persecution only for the correction of the church. This, again, connects book 7 with book 8, where Eusebius states that the Diocletianic persecution was permitted by God in order to correct Christians for lazy piety and factionalism (8.1.6–9). The specificity of Eusebius’s sources is on display throughout book 7. For most of the book, Eusebius relies on the collections of the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria that he began using at the end of book 6. The middle of the book is based around a letter of the synod that deposed Paul of Samosata, who was removed on the grounds that he held a heterodox Christology, though the sources make it clear that objections to Paul’s style of governance and his popularity were also motivations. Finally, Eusebius draws on the writings of Anatolius, a philosopher best known for his contributions to mathematics who became bishop of Laodicea in the late 260s, as an example of the erudition of the churchmen of his own lifetime. SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

Autobiographical Details Eusebius’s comment at 7.26.3 that he is shifting to discuss “the generation that lived in our day” is an anchor point for determining the likely dates for Eusebius’s life. Elsewhere (3.28.3), he claims that Dionysius of Alexandria was bishop during his lifetime. Dionysius died in 264, and

book 7

337

consequently a date between 260 and 265 is usually assumed for Eusebius’s birth. Eusebius also mentions several Christian intellectuals he “came to know.” The first, Dorotheus, was an Antiochene presbyter remarkable to Eusebius for his knowledge of Hebrew and his mastery of traditional Hellenic learning. Eusebius writes that he heard Dorotheus propounding the scriptures. This may suggest that Eusebius had visited Antioch as a young man, or that Dorotheus was widely renowned enough to command an audience even in Caesarea. He also mentions Meletius, bishop of Pontus, a skilled rhetor and exegete remarkable for his asceticism. Eusebius claims to have witnessed his skills personally while Meletius was in Palestine during the Diocletianic persecution. Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea (7.32.23), is known from other sources as a friend and political ally of Eusebius. Eusebius dedicated the Gospel Preparation and Gospel Demonstration to him. Here, too, Eusebius mentions his own mentor, Pamphilus of Caesarea. Eusebius states that he wrote a Life of Pamphilus, but this has been lost. In referencing his personal knowledge of these intellectuals, Eusebius is continuing the process begun in book 6 of laying out his own pedigree as a Christian sophist-bishop. Christian Sophists and Sophist-Bishops Eusebius continues in book 7 to present the heroes of his narrative as “Christian sophists.” His portraits of leading Christian bishops and presbyters would be easily recognizable to his contemporaries as sketches of the sorts of public intellectuals known from works such as Philostratus’s Lives of the Sophists, Diogenes Laertius’s Lives of Philosophers, and Eunapius’s Lives of Philosophers. Eusebius emphasizes his subjects’ achievements in public oratory—the hallmark of the successful sophist and the source of his symbolic capital. Just as in the earlier books, however, Eusebius aims to characterize Christian intellectuals as morally superior to their non-Christian counterparts. This is evident in the accounts of Paul of Samosata and Stephen of Laodicea. The letter of the synod that deposed Paul describes him as a failed sophist. He adopts sophistical affects (e.g., slapping his thigh and stomping at the podium during his speeches), but does all of this to win the favor of the masses. Stephen, for his part, was “admired by the masses for rhetoric and philosophy,” but capitulated to imperial authorities during the Diocletianic persecution.

338

the ecclesiastical history

Imperial Law and the Churches Eusebius charts imperial legislation relating to Christianity throughout the History. At 7.13, he quotes from a rescript of Gallienus restoring property to churches. Later, in his account of Paul of Samosata, he describes how bishops appealed to the emperor Aurelian. Paul had refused to give up possession of the church building upon his deposition. Aurelian decided this dispute by awarding the property to whomever the bishops of Rome and Alexandria determined. Both of these legislative moments are significant, for they mark the first instances in which we find emperors treating churches as corporate entities with property rights. This was precedent-setting for subsequent imperial legislative action both against and in favor of the churches, as the Diocletianic persecution focused initially on the confiscation of church property, while Constantine’s and Licinius’s “Edict of Milan” restored it. Constantine’s intervention in the Donatist controversy in North Africa (see book 10) also concerned property. Usurpers and the Palmyrene Kingdom of Zenobia The period covered by book 7 was marked by a number of usurpations and political crises, most of which Eusebius mentions only tangentially, or neglects completely. Of the revolt of Aemilianus, governor of Moesia and Pannonia (not to be confused with Mussius Aemilianus, governor of Egypt who led a brief usurpation in 262), that led to Gallus’s and his son Volusianus’s deaths in 253 Eusebius writes only that “Gallus’s faction . . . were gotten out of the way” (7.10.1; compare Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus 31). Valerian rose to power as a direct result of the usurpation, when Gallus ordered the then-general and his troops from Gaul as reinforcements against Aemilianus (Zosimus, Historia nova 1.28.3). Eusebius also mentions nothing of the so-called Gallic empire. After Valerian’s capture and death in 260, Posthumus, the governor of Germania, successfully usurped power in Gaul, Spain, Raetia, and Britain. The region remained under Posthumus’s control until his death in 268, and was only fully reintegrated into the wider empire by Aurelian in 274. Eusebius might be expected to ignore the details of events in the West. But he also neglects any mention of the Palmyrene kingdom of

book 7

339

Odenathus and Zenobia. Valerian’s capture in 260 left a fairly weak Gallienus holding Africa, Italy, and Egypt, and facing incursions in the Danubian provinces. This left both the Western and Eastern portions of the empire in salutary neglect. While Posthumus emerged in the Western provinces, Gallienus “deputized” Odenathus, the king of Palmyra, as dux and corrector of the East, to organize defenses along the Eastern frontier. In 261 Macrianus, one of Valerian’s financial ministers, usurped power in Syria and had his sons, Macrianus Junior and Quietus, declared emperors. Macrianus is mentioned by Eusebius’s source, Dionysius (7.7.10.5). Macrianus and Macrianus Junior marched on Thrace, where they were defeated by Gallienus’s general (and later, usurper) Aureolus. Quietus was captured and killed by Odenathus. This left the Palmyrenes as the de facto rulers of most of the Eastern provinces. When Odenathus was assassinated in 267, he was succeeded by his infant son, though power was held by Odenathus’s wife, Zenobia. Under her rule, the Palmyrenes extended their control to cover Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Arabia, and portions of Asia Minor. These territories were forcibly wrested from Palmyrene control by Aurelian in 272. Consequently, though he makes no mention of the Palmyrenes or Zenobia, much of what Eusebius covers in book 7, from the end of Valerian in 260 through the early 270s, took place in the context of the “Palmyrene kingdom.” Paul of Samosata, deposed by a synod in 268/9, may have been able to retain control of church buildings in Antioch thanks to Antioch coming under Palmyrene control; the orthodox were able to dislodge him only after 272, when they appealed to a victorious Aurelian. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

Political history — Zosimus, Historia nova (New History), book 1; English translation: R. Ridley, Zosimus: New History (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1982) — Historia Augusta; English translation: Loeb Classical Library — Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus 29–39; English translation: H. W. Bird, Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994)

340

Jordanes, History of the Goths 17–20; English translation: C. Mierow, The Gothic History of Jordanes in English Version (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1915) On the rebaptism controversy addressed in Dionysius’s letters — Firmilian, Letter to Cyprian ( = Cyprian, Letter 75) — Cyprian, Letters 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 On the persecution under Gallus — Cyprian, Letters 55–61 On the persecution under Valerian — Cyprian, Letters 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81 — Acts of Cyprian On Paul of Samosata — “Letter of the Six Bishops to Paul” (Greek text in G. Bardy, Paul de Samosate [Louvain: Spicelegium Sacrum Lovaniense Bureaux, 1929], 13–19) — extant fragments of Paul’s interrogation by Malchion (Bardy, 35–65) On Anatolius of Laodicea — Anatolius, On the Decad (Greek text: J. L. Heiberg, “Anatolius, sur les dix premieres nombres,” in Annales internationales d’histoire, Congrès de Paris 1900, 5e section, histoire des sciences [Paris, 1901], 27-57); English translation: R. Waterfield, “Anatolius: On the Decad,” Alexandria: The Journal of Western Cosmological Traditions 3 (1995): 181–94 — Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists 5.1.2; English translation: Loeb Classical Library —

•

•

•

•

•

the ecclesiastical history

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 7

On the evil ways of Decius and Gallus The bishops of the Romans during this period How Cyprian together with the bishops who supported him thought it necessary first to cleanse those turning away from heretical error The many letters Dionysius composed about this [question] On the peace after the persecution On the Sabellian heresy On the error of the utterly polluted heretics and the vision sent from God to Dionysius, and on the ecclesiastical rule he received On the heterodoxy of Novatus On the godless baptism of the heretics On Valerian and the persecution in his reign On what befell Dionysius and those in Egypt at that time On those martyred in Caesarea in Palestine On the peace during the reign of Gallienus The bishops who flourished at that time How Marinus became a martyr in Caesarea The story of Astyrius 341

342

the ecclesiastical history

On the signs of our Savior’s miracle-working in Paneas On the throne of James On the festal letters of Dionysius, in which he lays down a rule on the Pascha On what happened in Alexandria On the disease that arrived there On the reign of Gallienus On Nepos and the schism associated with him On the Apocalypse of John On the letters of Dionysius On Paul of Samosata and the heresy established by him in Antioch On the distinguished bishops who were well known at that time How Paul was confuted and deposed On the destructive heresy of the Manichaeans that was beginning at that time On the distinguished ecclesiastical men of our day and who among them remained up to the time of the attack on the churches P R O O I M IO N

In the seventh book of the Ecclesiastical History, the great Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, will assist us once again with his own words, indicating as he does each of the affairs of his day in turn with each of the letters he has bequeathed us. My account will take them as its starting point. O N T H E EV I L WAYS O F D E C I U S A N D G A L LU S

chapter 1. After Decius had ruled not all of two years and was forthwith killed along with his sons, Gallus became his successor.1 At

1. June 251 c.e.

book 7

343

this time Origen, one year shy of being seventy, died. Dionysius, for his part, wrote to Hermammon, saying this about Gallus: But Gallus did not recognize Decius’s fault, nor did he look out for what had caused him to stumble, but dashed himself against the same rock when it was right before his eyes. He, although he was pursuing kingship well and affairs were proceeding as he intended, expelled the holy men who were appealing to God for his peace and health. Therefore, along with them he also drove away their prayers on his behalf.2

T H E B I SHO P S O F T H E R OM A N S DU R I N G T H I S P E R IO D

chapter 2. That is what he says, then, about Gallus. But in the city of the Romans, after three years of Cornelius’s episcopacy, Lucius was appointed his successor. But when he had ministered this service for not all of eight months, he died, and passed the lot to Stephen.3 To him Dionysius penned the first of his letters On Baptism,4 for no small question was raised at that time as to whether those who turned from any form of heresy had to be cleansed through baptism. HOW C Y P R IA N T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E B I SHO P S W HO SU P P O RT E D H I M T HOU G H T I T N E C E S S A RY F I R S T T O C L E A N SE T HO SE T U R N I N G AWAY F R OM H E R E T IC A L E R R O R

chapter 3. Although the ancient custom was that only prayer through the laying on of hands was needed in such cases, Cyprian, the shepherd of the community sojourning in Carthage, was the first of those at the time to hold that it was necessary that they not be admitted

2. Dionysius is describing the banishment of Cornelius of Rome in June 253; he died in exile (see also Cyprian, Letter 60). 3. Eusebius has miscalculated: Stephen’s episcopacy began under Valerian, not Gallus. 4. This and the other designations of subgroups of letters would have been added by the later compilers of the letter collection; they are italicized to reflect the fact that Eusebius is replicating them from his manuscript copy.

344

the ecclesiastical history

unless cleansed of error through baptism. But, thinking that one must not introduce any innovation contrary to the tradition handed down from the beginning, Stephen was indignant at this.5 T H E M A N Y L E T T E R S D IO N YSI U S C OM P O SE D A B OU T T H I S [ QU E ST IO N ]

chapter 4. Dionysius, then, conversing with him a great deal concerning this matter through letters, concludes by indicating that since the persecution had abated, the churches everywhere had rejected the innovation associated with Novatus, and peace was restored among them. He writes thus: O N T H E P E AC E A F T E R T H E P E R SE C U T IO N

chapter 5. But know, brother, that all the churches throughout the East and even beyond, which were before divided, are now united. And the presidents everywhere are of like mind, and rejoice exceedingly at the peace that has arrived so unexpectedly: Demetrius in Antioch, Theoctistus in Caesarea, Mazabanes in Ailia, Marinus in Tyre (for Alexander now sleeps), Heliodorus in Laodicea (for Thelymidrus has gone to his rest), Helenus in Tarsus and all the churches of Cilicia, Firmilian and all of Cappadocia. For I name only the most eminent of the bishops, so that I won’t make my letter too long or my account too burdensome. 2 The whole of all the Syrias,6 in any case, and Arabia, to which you have on occasion sent aid and to which you have now written,7 as well as Mesopotamia, Pontus, and Bithynia, and to put it succinctly, everyone everywhere rejoices in concord and brotherly love, glorifying God.

3 So writes Dionysius. But when Stephen had performed his ministerial duties for two years, Xystus succeeded him. To him Dionysius inscribed a second letter On Baptism, indicating to him what the opinion and judgment of both Stephen and the rest of the bishops had been. About Stephen he says this: 5. Cyprian, Letter 74.1.2 quotes Stephen’s position. 6. I.e., the provinces of Syria-Coele, Syria-Phoenice, and Syria-Palaestina. 7. Stephen’s letter is not extant.

book 7

345

4 He, then, had written previously concerning Helenus and Firmilian and all of the [bishops] of Cilicia and Cappadocia, as well as Galatia and all of the peoples that border it, that he would not be in communion with them, for this reason: because the heretics, he says, rebaptize. And consider the significance of this matter. 5. For in fact, as I understand it, formal decisions have been passed on this issue in the greatest synods of bishops, such that those who return from the heretics are recatechized and then rewashed and repurified of the filth of the old and unclean leaven. And I wrote, appealing to him concerning these matters.

6 And after other things, he says: And I also wrote to our beloved fellow presbyters Dionysius and Philemon,8 who were previously in agreement with Stephen and wrote to me on the same matters; at first I wrote briefly, but now I have written more fully.

That is what he writes concerning the aforementioned question. O N T H E S A B E L L IA N H E R E SY

chapter 6. But in the same letter he also remarks about the heretics who follow Sabellius that they were prevalent in his day.9 He says this: Now about the doctrine that is now set in motion in Ptolemais in the Pentapolis—a doctrine that is truly impious and full of blasphemy about the Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and full of unbelief about his Only-Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation, the Logos that became human, and has no sense of the Holy Spirit. After petitions and chosen representatives from both sides had come to me, I sent some letters, offering, insofar as I was able with God’s help, more didactic guidance. I am sending you copies of these letters.

8. Portions of these letters are quoted next in sequence, at 7.7.1–5 (to Philemon) and 7.7.6–8.1 (to Dionysius). This Dionysius became Xystus’s successor in Rome (7.27.1). 9. According to Ps.-Hippolytus/Anonymous, Refutation 9.11–12, Sabellius taught in Rome ca. 200–222. The main account of Sabellianism is Epiphanius, Panarion 62, where Sabellians are described as modalists (i.e., God is singular but has different names [Father, Son, Spirit] that signify different modes of activity).

346

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E E R R O R O F T H E U T T E R LY P O L LU T E D H E R E T IC S A N D T H E V I SIO N SE N T F R OM G O D T O D IO N YSI U S , A N D O N T H E E C C L E SIA S T IC A L RU L E H E R E C E I V E D

chapter 7. And in the third of the letters On Baptism, which the same Dionysius wrote to Philemon the Roman presbyter, he sets down these details: But I myself read both the treatises and the traditions of the heretics, staining my soul a little with their utterly polluted reasonings, but nevertheless taking this benefit from them—that I would be able to refute them myself and that I would despise them all the more. 2 Yet, when a certain brother, one of the presbyters, prevented and frightened me away from engaging with the muck of their wickedness, I felt like he spoke the truth. 3 But a vision sent from God came and encouraged me, and the utterance that came to me commanded me, saying expressly: “Read everything that comes into your hands, for you are strong enough to examine and test each one, even as this has been the cause of your faith from the beginning.” I accepted the vision, since it agreed with the apostolic statement that says to those who are more capable: “Become trustworthy money-changers.”10

4 Then, after saying certain things about all of the heresies, he continues: I received the following rule and pattern from our blessed pope Heraclas.11 He drove away from the church those who returned from the heresies, since they had turned away from the church, or rather had not turned away but though they seemed to be congregants had been pointed out as frequenters of a heterodox teacher. And he paid no heed to their requests, until they declared publicly everything they had heard from the “opponents.”12 Then he gathered them in again, not requiring of them another baptism, for they had received the holy baptism from him already.

10. An oft-cited agraphon, or saying attributed to Jesus not recorded in canonical text. See Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 1.28.177; Ps.-Clement, Homilies 2.51.1; 3.50.2; 18.20.4. Pamphilus and Eusebius also cite it (Apology for Origen 1). 11. The earliest reference to a bishop of Alexandria as “pope” (papa), a term of endearment for a father or grandfather, like the English “papa” or “daddy.” 12. Perhaps an echo of 2 Tim. 2:25.

book 7

347

5 Again, after exercising the issue at length, he adds: I have learned this, too: that those in Africa are not alone in introducing this now, but long before, during the time of the bishops before us, this was the decision in the most populous churches and in the synods of the brothers, in Iconium and Synnada and many other places.13 I do not dare overturn their decisions and throw them into strife and love of contention. “For,” it says, “you shall not remove your neighbor’s boundary markers, which your fathers placed.”14 O N T H E H E T E R O D OX Y O F N OVAT U S

6 His fourth letter On Baptism was written to the Roman Dionysius, who was at the time deemed worthy of the presbyterate, but not much later also received the episcopacy of the community there. From the letter one can learn how this same man, too, was confirmed by the Alexandrian Dionysius to be both learned and remarkable. After mentioning other matters, Dionysius writes to him, mentioning the notions held by Novatus in these words: chapter 8. For we rightly despise Novatianus, who split the church and dragged some of the brothers into impiety and blasphemy, piled up unholy teaching about God, falsely accuses our most gentle Lord, Jesus Christ, as being without mercy, and above all this, denies the holy baptism and overturns the faith and confession that precede it, and completely banishes the Holy Spirit from them, even if there were any hope of its remaining with or even returning to them. O N T H E G O D L E S S BA P T I SM O F T H E H E R E T IC S

chapter 9. And his fifth letter was written to Xystus, bishop of the Romans. In it, he says much against the heretics, and sets out a certain case that arose in his time, saying: 13. The synods of Iconium and Synnada declared Montanist baptisms invalid and required (re)baptism upon (re)entering the orthodox church. The synod at Iconium is mentioned by Firmilian of Caesarea (Cyprian, Letter 75.7.4). 14. Deut. 19:14 LXX.

348

the ecclesiastical history

For truly, brother, I need counsel and ask for your opinion, because a certain case has come before me, and I fear that I might stumble. 2 One of the brothers of the congregation who is considered faithful and has been a member of the congregation a long time—even before my ordination, and I think even before the appointment of the blessed Heraclas—saw those who were soon to be baptized and heard the questions and answers.15 He then came to me crying and bemoaning himself, and fell at my feet, swearing that the baptism with which he had been baptized by the heretics was not this one and had nothing at all in common with it, for that baptism was full of impieties and blasphemies. 3. And he said that his soul was now sorely pricked and that he no longer felt free to raise his eyes up to God, since he had taken his beginning from those unholy words and deeds, and that he needed this purest cleansing, admission, and grace. 4. This I did not dare do, and said that his longtime fellowship was sufficient unto itself for this. For I wouldn’t dare to rebuild again from the beginning one who for a sufficient amount of time had heard the Thanksgiving, shared in pronouncing the Amen, stood beside the Table, stretched out his hands to receive the holy food, and partaken of the body and blood of our Lord.16 But I kept urging him to be confident and come partake of the holy things with strong faith and good hope. 5. But he has not stopped lamenting, and has shuddered at approaching the Table, and he will hardly even come forward to stand by17 during the prayers, even though we beg him to.

6 Along with the aforementioned letters another letter of his On Baptism has been preserved, addressed by him and the community he governed to Xystus and the church in Rome. In it he offers an extended discourse on the question at hand, in the form of a lengthy demonstra-

15. This refers to the questions asked of a candidate prior to baptism, which included renouncing Satan and reciting the creed that they had been taught (see, e.g., Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catacheses 19.1–11). The brother is upset because a different formula is being followed than the one he had experienced at baptism. 16. He is describing the “anaphora,” the portion of the liturgy in which the bread and wine of the Eucharist were prepared and from which the uninitiated were excluded. The “Thanksgiving” refers to the prayers offered at the beginning of the anaphora, the “Amen” to the response of the congregation after the consecration of the bread and wine, and “approaching the Table” to the distribution of the Eucharist. 17. “Stand by”: penitents were allowed to remain during the eucharistic prayers (when catechumens were excluded) but not to partake of the Eucharist; see also 6.42.5 and Gregory Thaumaturgus, Canonical Letter 11.

book 7

349

tion. And there is after these another letter of his that has been preserved, to Dionysius in Rome, the letter concerning Lucian.18 Enough on these matters. O N VA L E R IA N A N D T H E P E R SE C U T IO N I N H I S R E IG N

chapter 10. Now, then, when Gallus and his associates had held sovereignty for not all of two years, they were gotten out of the way, and Valerian together with his son Gallienus succeeded to the imperium.19 2 Again, one can learn what Dionysius recounts about him from his letter to Hermammon, in which he narrates things in this way: And to John likewise it was revealed, “And he was granted a mouth for speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was granted authority and forty-two months.”20 3 And one can marvel that both of these things came to pass under Valerian, especially that the first [times of his reign] were just so, for one knows full well that he was gentle and friendly toward the people of God. For not one of the emperors before him was so favorably and courteously disposed toward them, not even those who were said to be outright Christians, as he manifestly was when he received them most kindly and affectionately. And his whole house was full of god-fearing people, and it was a church of God. 4 But the teacher and archisynagogus of the Egyptian magi convinced Valerian to do away with them, and ordered him to kill and persecute the pure and holy men, since the magi charged them with being antagonists and hinderers of their utterly polluted and disgusting incantations.21 Indeed, they are and were able, when present and looking on

18. Eusebius does not quote the letters listed here; they appeared next in sequence in his copy of the Dionysian corpus. 19. Gallus and his son, Volusianus, were killed by their troops when confronted by the usurper Aemilianus in 253. Valerian and Gallienus were acknowledged by the Senate in October 253 c.e. 20. Rev. 13:5. 21. The archisynagogus (synagogue leader) of the Egyptian magi is Macrianus, one of Valerian’s finance ministers who started a failed usurpation in the East after Valerian’s capture in 260. Macrianus was not an Egyptian priest or magus; Dionysius wants to portray him as the leader of a dangerous, foreign cabal. Compare Lactantius’s account of the influence of priests over Diocletian (Deaths 10.1–5) and Eusebius’s description of the cult of Zeus Philias’s influence on Maximinus Daia (see 9.2.1–4.1).

350

the ecclesiastical history

and merely whispering some words, to disperse the plots of destructive daimones. And he suggested that Valerian perform unholy rites and evil sorceries and ill-omened sacrifices, to slit the throats of pitiable boys, to sacrifice the children of unfortunate fathers, to inspect the entrails of newborns—that is, to dice up what belongs to God and mince his creations—claiming that these rites would bring prosperity.

5 And he continues, saying: Macrianus, in any case, offered them fine thank-offerings for his hoped-for kingdom. He had previously been appointed to oversee the accounts of the whole empire, though his mind was neither reasoned nor whole. Instead he has fallen under the prophetic curse that states: “Woe to those that prophesy from their hearts and do not look to the whole.”22 6 For he did not understand the Providence that takes account of the whole universe, nor did he see the judgment of him who is before all, through all, and over all. That is how he became an enemy of his whole church, and alienated and estranged himself from God’s mercy and exiled himself “far off ” from his own salvation, and in this way proved the accuracy of his name.23

7 And again, after other things, he says: For Valerian, having been led on by this man,24 was handed over to insult and injury, according to the statement given to Isaiah: “And these have chosen their paths and their abominations; their soul desired it, and I will choose how they will be mocked, and I will return their sins upon them.”25 8 But this man, crazy for an empire that he did not merit and unable to put the imperial ornaments on his maimed body, put forward his two sons, who were paid back their father’s sins. For manifest in them was the prophecy that God spoke: “To those who hate me, I pay back the sins of fathers upon their children until the third and fourth generation.”26 9 For he cast his own wicked desires, which he failed to obtain, upon his sons’ heads, and wiped his own evil and hatred toward God off himself and onto them.

That is what Dionysius writes about Valerian. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Ezek. 13:3. He takes “Macrianus” from makros (far off ). I.e., Macrianus. Isa. 66:3–4. Exod. 20:5.

book 7

351

O N W HAT B E F E L L D IO N YSI U S A N D T HO SE I N E G Y P T AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 11. But concerning the persecution that raged violently during his reign, and what the same writer together with others sustained on account of their piety toward the God of the Universe, his own words evidence, where he expounds against Germanus, one of the bishops of his day who was trying to spread bad reports about him. He lays it out in this way:27 2 But really, I risk falling into great folly and insensibility, since I am forced to the necessity of recounting God’s marvelous concern for us. But since “it is a fine thing,” it says, “to conceal a king’s secret, but honorable to reveal the works of God,”28 I will advance into close combat with Germanus’s violence. 3 I appeared before Aemilianus,29 but not alone; my fellow presbyter Maximus came with me, and the deacons Faustus, Eusebius, and Chaeremon,30 and one of the brothers who was visiting from Rome entered with us. 4 But Aemilianus did not begin by saying to me, “You may not hold meetings.” For this was superfluous and merely a consequence, for he was after something more primary. For his command was not about forbidding us from assembling others, but that we ourselves should not be Christians, and he commanded me to stop being one, thinking that if I turned the others would follow me. 5 I replied, in a manner not unfitting or prolix, “One must obey God rather than men.” And straightaway I testified that I fear God, the God who exists alone, and no other, nor would I ever turn from being

27. This letter is probably one of those addressed to the Alexandrians in the collection of festal letters enumerated at 7.20.1–21.1. Eusebius also quotes from this letter at 6.40.1–9. The letter postdates the end of Valerian’s persecution in 260. Germanus (otherwise unknown) had accused Dionysius of fleeing during the persecution. Dionysius defends himself by explaining his actions during the Decian persecution (in the passages quoted in book 6) and during the just-concluded persecution under Valerian (the passages here). 28. Tob. 12:7. 29. Lucius Mussius Aemilianus, prefect of Egypt. According to the Historia Augusta he supported the usurpers Macrianus and Quietus, and was briefly proclaimed emperor himself in 261 (Life of Gallus 4.1; 5.6; Lives of the Thirty Tyrants 22.4; Aurelius Victor, Epitome 32.4). He was overthrown in 262, when Alexandria was put under the siege described in 7.32.7–11. 30. Maximus: Dionysius’s successor (7.11.26); Eusebius: probably the man who became bishop of Laodicea (7.11.26; 7.32.5).

352

the ecclesiastical history Christian. At this he ordered us to go out to a village adjacent to the desert called Cephro. 6 Hear what was said by both parties, as it was recorded.31 When Dionysius, Faustus, Maximus, Marcellus, and Chaeremon were brought in, Aemilianus, vice-prefect, said: “I discussed with you, and not in writing, the humane attitude of our lords toward you.32 For they have given you the ability to preserve yourselves, 7 if you should wish to turn to what is according to nature and worship the gods who preserve their empire, and to forget those that are against nature. What do you say to this? For I do not expect that you will be ungrateful for their humane attitude, since they are encouraging you toward what is better for you.” 8 Dionysius replied: “Not all peoples worship all gods, but each worships certain ones they consider gods. In our case, the one god and demiurge of everything, who also granted the empire to Valerian and Gallienus, Augusti most dear to the gods, is the god we fear and worship, and to this god we pray perpetually that their empire remain unshaken.” 9 Aemilianus, vice-prefect, said to them: “But who prevents you from worshipping this god, if he is a god, along with those that are gods according to nature? For you were commanded to fear gods, and the gods whom all know.” Dionysius replied: “We worship no other [god].” 10 Aemilianus, vice-prefect, said to them: “I see that you are ungrateful and have no feeling for the clemency of our Augusti. For this reason you shall not remain in this city, but shall take yourselves to the region of Libya to a place named Kephro, for I have chosen this place based on the orders of our Augusti. Neither you nor any others shall be permitted to hold gatherings or to enter the so-called resting places. 11 But if any of you are proven not to be in the place that I have ordered, or are found in an assembly, he will bring danger upon himself, for the necessary severity will not fall short. Depart, then, to where you have been commanded!” And he rushed me away, grieving, allowing not even a single day’s postponement. Now then, what leisure did I have for either holding or not holding an assembly?

31. What follows resembles the transcript of a legal proceeding (acta) before a provincial governor. 32. I.e., he conveyed the emperors’ wishes and orders to them in person, rather than by letter or posted decree.

book 7

353

12 Then, after other things, he says: But we did not shrink from observably gathering with the Lord; indeed, I continued more eagerly to organize those in the city,33 as though I was present, “though being absent in body,” as he said, “being present in the Spirit.”34 And a large church sojourned together with us in Kephro, with some brothers following us from the city, and others coming from Egypt. And there “God opened to us a gate for the Logos.”35 13 First we were persecuted, we were stoned, but later some of the Gentiles, and not a few, abandoned the idols, and turned to God. 14 At that time the Logos was first sown by us among those who had not previously received it, just as if God had led us out to them for this purpose, since after we had fulfilled this service he led us back once again. For Aemilianus, so it seemed, wanted to relocate us to harsher, more Libyan places, and he ordered them to stream from every direction into the Mareotic nome, assigning each of them to villages throughout the region, but he commanded us in particular to take up the first positions along the road. For he obviously planned and arranged it so that whenever he wanted to seize us, he would have us all easily captured.36 15 But I, for my part, when I had been ordered to go out to Kephro, did not know the place or even where it was, nor had I even heard the name before. Nevertheless I went cheerfully and calmly. But when the order came to me to decamp to the area of Kollouthion, those who were with me know how I reacted (for here I will accuse myself), 16 for at first I was pained and greatly angered. For even though the places were better known and more familiar to us, it was said that the region was bereft of brothers and earnest men, and full of obstacles to travel and subject to raids by brigands. 17 But I took some consolation, when some of the brothers reminded me that it would be much closer to the city and that,

33. In Dionysius’s letters the “city” is Alexandria. 34. 1 Cor. 5:3. The theme of holding liturgical assemblies amid persecution is one Eusebius adopts and develops in his account of the Diocletianic persecution (e.g., Martyrs 13.1). 35. Col. 4:3; i.e., an opportunity to preach. 36. Dionysius and his entourage are moved from Kephro to Kollouthionos, near the Mareotic lake and closer to Alexandria. A comparison of Dionysius’s narrative with the contemporaneous account of Cyprian of Carthage (Letter 81.1) suggests that the governor moved the bishop in anticipation of orders for the arrest and capital trial of those initially exiled. It is also probable that Aemilianus ordered the clergy moved closer to Alexandria to prevent the illicit assemblies that were clearly continuing despite the bishop’s exile.

354

the ecclesiastical history while Kephro brought us a great deal of contact with brothers from Egypt, since it was possible to gather a congregation from a broader area, because Kollouthion was closer to the city we would enjoy seeing those truly beloved, familiar, and dearest to us, and that they would come and stay for visits and that there would be partial gatherings, as there are in the suburban settlements that lie further from the city. And so it was.

18 And after other passages in which he recounts what befell him he writes this: Germanus is exalted for having been a confessor many times, and he can say that many wrongs were committed against him. He can also count how many and great are judgments, confiscations, sales of confiscated property, property seizures, rescindings of status, neglect of worldly glory, disregard for praises bestowed by governors and city councils, and by contrast how great were the threats, public accusations, dangers, persecutions, wandering, dire straits, and various oppressions we endured under Decius and Sabinus, and even into the present under Aemilianus. 19 But where was Germanus to be seen? What report is there about him? But let me back off from the great intemperance that Germanus has caused me to fall into, and forgo a full account of all the details of what happened to me, and let the brothers who saw these things with their own eyes tell of it!

20 The same [Dionysius] again mentions matters pertaining to the persecution in the letter to Domitius and Didymus, in these passages:37 It is superfluous to run through each of our people by name, for they are many and unknown to you, but you should know that men and women, young and old, maidens and older women, soldiers and private citizens, of every sort and every age, prevailed in the contests and received their crowns, some by enduring beatings and fire, others the sword. 21 But for some, a long time was not enough to show that they were acceptable to the Lord, just as seems to be the case for me up to

37. Eusebius assumes that this letter describes events under Valerian (258–60), but it is an account of events under Decius (251/2). This is clear from the reference to Dionysius being under armed guard with Gaius, Faustus, Peter, and Paul, and his being unwilling to be liberated by people from Mareotis. He describes the whole incident in greater detail in the passage from the letter Against Germanus quoted in 6.40.4–9, where it is beyond question that the events are occurring under Decius.

book 7

355

the present, because he himself who says, “I heard you at an acceptable time, and on a day of salvation I came to your aid,”38 has deferred [my martyrdom] until a time he knows. 22 For since you have inquired about our situation and want us to show you how we are doing, you heard, of course, how when we (myself, Gaius, Faustus, Peter, and Paul) were being led as prisoners by a centurion and magistrates and their soldiers and servants, some people from Mereotis came and dragged us away by force, even though we were unwilling and refused to follow them. 23 Now only I, Gaius, and Peter, orphaned from our other brothers, have been locked up in a dry and deserted place in Libya, a threeday journey from Paraetonium.

24 And further down he says: But in the city, the presbyters Maximus, Dioscurus, Demetrius, and Lucius have slipped in unseen to provide oversight for the brothers, for Faustinus and Aquila, who are better known to the world, are wandering in Egypt. But the deacons who were left after others died on the island are Faustus, Eusebius, and Chaeremon. From the beginning God strengthened and prepared Eusebius to provide services energetically for those confessors who were in prison and fearlessly to provide burial shrouds for the bodies of the perfect and blessed martyrs. For even until now, 25 as I said before, the governor does not relent from savagely killing some of those who are brought before him and wearing down others with tortures, while others he lets waste away in prisons and in bonds, ordering that no one may come to see them and investigating whether anyone has been seen doing so. Nevertheless, God provides relief to the oppressed in the readiness and perseverance of the brothers.

26 And such is what Dionysius recounts. But it must be noted that Eusebius, whom he calls a deacon, was appointed bishop of Laodicea in Syria not much later, while Maximus, whom he says was then a presbyter, succeeded Dionysius himself in the service of the brothers in Alexandria. Faustus, for his part, who at that time distinguished himself along with him in his confession, was kept safe until the persecution in our day, and in our day when he was an old man and full of days he was perfected, being beheaded. Such was what befell Dionysius at that time. 38. Isa. 49:8; 2 Cor. 6:2.

356

the ecclesiastical history O N T HO SE M A RT Y R E D I N C A E S A R E A I N PA L E S T I N E

chapter 12. At the time of Valerian’s persecution, which is under discussion, three in Palestinian Caesarea were conspicuous for their confession concerning Christ and were adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming fodder for the beasts. The first was named Priscus, the second Malchus, and the third Alexander.39 They say that they lived in the countryside, and first blamed themselves for being careless and lighthearted, because they thought little of the prizes that at that moment were being awarded to those who yearned for heavenly desire and were not eager to seize the crown of martyrdom. But after taking counsel about this, they sped to Caesarea and immediately presented themselves before the judge and obtained the aforementioned ends. And they recount that besides them there was a woman at the time of the same persecution in the same city who fought through the same contest; but the story is that she was of Marcion’s heresy.40 O N T H E P E AC E DU R I N G T H E R E IG N OF GALLIENUS

chapter 13. But not much later, after Valerian was subjected to slavery among the barbarians, his son assumed sole rule and conducted his reign more moderately.41 He immediately canceled the persecution against us through public proclamations, and through a rescript enjoined the presidents of the Logos to perform what was customary freely. The rescript reads like this: 39. Eusebius does not name a written source for these martyrdoms, though he is likely drawing on martyr acts used in Caesarea. 40. The phrase “they recount” indicates that the Marcionite woman was included in the same narrative as the three men, while the phrase “the story is” may suggest a contemporary (to Eusebius) gloss on the tradition. 41. Valerian was captured by the Sassanians near Edessa in the spring of 260. He died in captivity, though his precise fate is unknown. Aurelius Victor says that Shapur used him as a footstool to mount his horse (Epitome 32). Lactantius adds that his taxidermied body was displayed in a temple (Deaths 5). The hyperbole of these stories reflects both Christian desires to portray persecuting emperors receiving just desserts and the cultural trauma of the military defeat and the unprecedented capture of a Roman emperor by enemy forces.

book 7

357

Emperor Caesar Publius Licinius Gallienus Pius Felix Augustus to Dionysius, Pinnas, Demetrius, and the rest of the bishops. I ordered that the kindness of my bounty be promulgated throughout all the world— namely, that the places of worship must be vacated.42 And for this purpose you are empowered to use the seal of my rescript, so that no one hinders you. And this, which is outside your ability to accomplish, was in fact conceded by me long before, and for this reason Aurelius Quirinius, the procurator summae rei,43 will be on the lookout for the seal I have given.

Let this, translated from the Romans’ language for the sake of clarity, be inserted.44 But another of his commands has also been passed down, which he sent to other bishops, ordering that they could regain the places called resting places.45 T H E B I SHO P S W HO F L O U R I SH E D AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 14. In this period, Xystus was as yet still leading the church of the Romans,46 Demetrius, after Fabian, that of Antioch, Firmilian Cappadocian Caesarea, and in addition to them Gregory and his brother Athenodorus, members of Origen’s inner circle, were leading the churches of Pontus.47 After Theoctistus departed, Domnus succeeded to the episcopacy of Caesarea in Palestine, but since he lived for only a brief time, Theotecnus, who was bishop in our day, was appointed his successor.48 He was also a member of Origen’s circle. 42. Valerian’s measures appear to have included the confiscation of property, including at least some Christian buildings, which the rescript now restores to their owners (whether to the bishops as presidents of the Christian community or to private owners, or whether this letter understands there to be a difference between the two, is unclear). 43. Procurator summae rei: the chief financial officer of a province. 44. Whether Eusebius made this translation or whether he was working from an existing translation is not certain. 45. I.e., “cemeteries” (koimētēria). 46. His chronology is incorrect: Xystus died in 258 and was succeeded by Dionysius of Rome. 47. Eusebius does not miss the opportunity to mention the success and influence of the members of Origen’s circle introduced in book 6 (see 6.27.1, 30.1). 48. Theotecnus: bishop of Caesarea into the 290s, during Eusebius’s childhood and early adulthood.

358

the ecclesiastical history

But in Jerusalem, after Mazabanes took his rest, Hymnaeus, the very one who was distinguished for many years in our day, succeeded to the throne.49 HOW M A R I N U S B E C A M E A M A RT Y R IN CAESAREA

chapter 15. In their day, as peace lay upon the churches everywhere, in Caesarea of Palestine Marinus, one of those who had received military honors and who was distinguished in birth and wealth, was beheaded for his testimony concerning Christ, for the following reason.50 2 There is an honor among the Romans, the “vineswitch,” and those who obtain it they call centurions. When a post was vacant, rank order held that Marinus should receive it, but when he was about to receive the promotion, another soldier approached the tribunal. He contended that, according to the ancient laws, Marinus could not accept the Romans’ honor, because he was a Christian and did not sacrifice to the emperors, and that the post should fall to him. 3 The judge (his name was Achaeus)51 was roused by this, and first asked what Marinus’s attitude would be, and when he saw that he persistently confessed Christ he gave him three hours to consider. 4 Then Theotecnus, who was the bishop there, drew him aside once he was outside the court. Engaging him in conversation and taking him by the hand he led him to the church. Once inside they stood right in front of the altar itself. Theotecnus lifted a bit of Marinus’s cloak to reveal the sword strapped to him, then brought and placed before him the scripture of the Divine Gospels, telling him to choose which of the two reflected his attitude. Without hesitation he held out his right hand and received the divine text. “Hold then!” Theotecnus said to him, “Hold to God, and you will obtain what you have chosen, empowered by him. Go with peace!” 5 Immediately as he was leaving a herald cried out, calling him before the court, for the designated period of time had passed. Indeed, he stood before the judge and dem49. With Hymnaeus Eusebius brings the succession in Jerusalem up to the 290s. 50. The story of Marinus is another Caesarean story and emphasizes the role of Eusebius’s predecessor Theotecnus. 51. Not otherwise known.

book 7

359

onstrated an even greater eagerness in his faith, and immediately, just as he was, he was led away for execution and perfected. T H E S T O RY O F A S T Y R I U S

chapter 16. There, too, Astyrius is commemorated for his godbeloved frank speech. He was a man who belonged to the Roman Senate, was a friend of emperors and well known to all for his pedigree and wealth. He was present when the martyr was perfected, and lifted the tabernacle upon his shoulder and placed it upon a brilliant and costly shroud. He wrapped the body expensively and provided a fitting burial. The close friends of this man, who were still alive in our own day, recount myriad other things about him, including this miracle. chapter 17. They say that at Caesarea Philippi, which the Phoenicians call Paneas,52 on a certain festival day a sacrificial victim is thrown down near the springs that are shown at the foot of the hill called Pan’s hill, from which the Jordan has its source, and that the victim miraculously disappears by the daimōn’s power. The occurrence was a famous wonder to all who were present to see it. But once, when Astyrius was present at the events and saw how the affair left the crowd dumbstruck, he pitied them, and looking to heaven petitioned the God who is over all, through Christ, to refute the demonic trickery that was leading the people astray and put an end to the people’s error. They say that, as soon as he had prayed, the sacrifice suddenly floated up from the springs, and so their miracle ceased, and not a single marvel has ever occurred again at that place. O N T H E SIG N S O F OU R S AV IO R’ S M I R AC L E WO R K I N G I N PA N E A S

chapter 18. But since I have come to mention this city I do not think it right to pass over a story that is worth remembering for those who come after us. They used to say that the woman with the hemorrhage,53 who we have learned from the sacred Gospels found 52. Paneas (Caesarea Philippi): the site of a spring and grotto sacred to the god Pan. 53. Mark 5:25–34; Matt. 9:20–22; Luke 8:43–48.

360

the ecclesiastical history

relief from the ailment from our Savior, came from there, and that her house was shown in the city and that marvelous trophies of the benefaction she received from the Savior remained. 2 For before the gates of her house, upon a high stone pedestal, stood a bronze figure of a woman, kneeling and with hands outstretched before her like a supplicant, and opposite this, another [figure] of the same material, the form of a man standing upright, dressed modestly in a double cloak and extending his hand toward the woman. A strange type of plant grew upon the image’s base around his feet and reached up to the hem of the bronze double cloak, and it was a remedy for all sorts of ailments. 3 They used to say that this human likeness bore the image of Jesus, and it remained even into our day, and we too took in the sight when we were staying in the city. 4 And it is not bizarre that those of old who came from the Gentiles and received benefactions from our Savior made these, when we are aware of the images of his apostles Paul and Peter and indeed of Christ himself preserved through colored paints in paintings. It is likely that those of old were accustomed by their Gentile habit heedlessly to honor any saviors whatever in this way.54 O N T H E T H R O N E O F JA M E S

chapter 19. The throne of James—who was the first to receive the episcopacy of the church of Jerusalem from the Savior and the apostles, and who the Divine Words hold was also called the Lord’s brother—is preserved to this day and exhibited openly to all by those brothers who serve there according to the succession; such is the reverence both the people of old and the people of our day maintained and continue to maintain for those holy men for being dear to God. And that is sufficient on that point.

54. It is extremely unlikely that Eusebius is describing purpose-built Christian statuary, but rather a pair of statues associated with a healing cult (perhaps of Asclepius). The statues were interpreted differently by different viewers, as Eusebius’s need to account for other interpretations makes clear. The passage also mentions images of Peter and Paul in “paintings,” and is an early reference to two-dimensional devotional art (the word used here is eikones, “icons”).

book 7

361

O N T H E F E S TA L L E T T E R S O F D IO N YSI U S , I N W H IC H H E L AYS D OW N A RU L E O N T H E PA S C HA

chapter 20. Now then, in addition to the letters of his already mentioned, Dionysius at that time composed festal letters, in which he gives rousing celebratory discourses on the occasion of the festival of Easter.55 One of these he addresses to Flavius, and another to Dometius and Didymus, in which he lays down a rule based on a cycle of eight years, and proves it would not be appropriate to celebrate the festival of Easter at any time other than after the vernal equinox.56 Along with these he inscribed another letter to the fellow presbyters in Alexandria and simultaneously to various others. And these were written while the persecution was still in place. O N W HAT O C C U R R E D I N A L E X A N D R IA

chapter 21. When peace had just barely arrived, he returned to Alexandria. But when in turn sedition and war broke out,57 he was unable to oversee all the brothers in the city, who had become isolated in each of the areas separated by the sedition. And once again, at the festival of Easter, he conversed with them through letters, like someone living in a foreign country even though he was writing from Alexandria itself. 2 But after this, he wrote another festal letter to Hierax, the bishop of those in Egypt, mentioning the factionalism of the Alexandrians in his day, in these passages: Why is it surprising if conversing with those who live far away is difficult for me, when it is impossible for me to reason with myself and be advised by my own soul? 3 I must send letters to those I hold dearest in my heart, those brothers who are my housemates58 and soulmates and

55. “Festal letters” were yearly communications from the bishop of Alexandria informing communities in Egypt about the date for the celebration of Easter and offering statements on other pressing issues of the day. 56. The letter also supports Eusebius’s position on the dating of Easter; see also 5.23.1–25.1 and 7.32.13–19; VC 3.5.18. 57. I.e., the revolt of Aemilianus in 262. 58. Homoskēnoi: literally, “tent-mates”; the presbyters, deacons, and others who comprise the bishop’s household.

362

the ecclesiastical history

are citizens of the same church, and though I would send them it seems impossible. For one could travel more easily not merely into foreign territory, but from east to west, than to get from Alexandria to Alexandria! 4 The road that runs through the middle of the city is more endless and impassable than that great trackless desert that Israel traversed for two generations. The calm and waveless harbors have become images of the sea that they used as a cart path when it was rent and made to stand on either side like walls, that thoroughfare where the Egyptians were drowned.59 The harbors often look like the Red Sea because of the murdered bodies they hold. 5 The river that flows by the city at one moment seemed drier than a waterless desert and even more parched than that river that Israel crossed and was so thirsty that Moses cried out so that drink flowed for them from out of cloven rocks, thanks to him alone who works wonders.60 6 But another moment it flooded so much that all the surrounding land, roads, and fields alike were inundated, threatening to bring the deluge of water like that of Noah’s day.61 And it is always polluted with blood, murdered corpses, and drowned bodies, like it was for Pharaoh when it was changed into blood by Moses, and it stank.62 7 And what other water is there that can purify water, which cleanses everything? How could the great, uncrossable ocean, if poured out, wash away this bitter sea? Or how could the great river that flows out of Eden, even if the four headwaters into which it is divided flowed together into the single channel of the Gihon, sweep away the gore?63 8 Or when will the air that has been made turbid by the foul vapors that come from every direction be pure? For such awful odors waft from land and breezes come from the sea, gusts from the rivers and currents from the harbors, that the dew is nothing but the fluids of the dead bodies decomposing into their constituent elements. 9 And yet they wonder and are at a loss: Where are the plagues coming from? Whence these painful diseases? Whence all these various kinds of death? Whence the variety and quantity of human destruction? Why does the great city no longer hold within her a crowd of residents, counting the youngest children to the most aged, as numerous as the population merely of active older men it used to support? But the population of those forty to sev-

59. Exod. 14:21–28. 60. Exod. 17:1–7. 61. Gen. 7:17–24. 62. Exod. 7:14–21. 63. On the four rivers that flow out of Eden, see Gen. 2:10–14; the Gihon of Gen. 2:13 was identified with the Nile (e.g., Antiquities 1.39).

book 7

363

enty years old was so numerous in the past that their number is not equaled now, when those between fourteen to eighty years are registered and enrolled in the public grain distribution and those who today look the youngest have become the same age as those who in the past were the oldest.64 10 And as they watch the human race waning and wasting way upon the earth, they tremble not, though their utter disappearance advances and waxes.

O N T H E D I SE A SE T HAT A R R I V E D T H E R E

chapter 22. After this, when plague followed right on the heels of the war and the festival was drawing near, he once again communicated with the brothers through a letter,65 describing the sufferings of the catastrophe in these words: 2 For other people, the present situation does not seem a time for a festival, but for them neither this time nor any other seems so, whether times of suffering or times they think are especially joyful. Now, indeed, everything is lamentations and everyone is mourning, and wailing pervades the city daily because such a multitude of people are dead and dying. 3 For just as has been written about the firstborn of Egypt, so too now “a great cry went up; for there is no house in which there is not one who has died,”66 and would that it were just one! For many and dreadful were the disasters that befell us before this. 4 First, they drove us away, and we celebrated the festival alone at that time, persecuted and killed by everyone, and every place of affliction to which we were successively driven became for us a spot for celebration—field, desert, island, inn, prison. But the perfect martyrs celebrated the brightest festival of all, when feasts were celebrated for them in heaven. 5 After this, war and famine took hold, which the Gentiles endured along with us. We alone endured each and every abuse they threw at us, but we enjoyed the benefit of what they did and suffered against one another,

64. Dionysius illustrates population loss by comparing the requirements for receiving the public grain dole (annona): before the unrest the dole was distributed to those forty–seventy years old; when enrollment was expanded to those fourteen–eighty years old, the number of recipients was less then before. 65. This letter may postdate the previous letter to Hierax by a year, or it may be the difficult-to-send letter referenced at 7.21.3. 66. Exod. 12:30.

364

the ecclesiastical history

and once again we enjoyed the peace of Christ, which has been given to us alone. 6 But when we and they both had found a brief sigh of relief, this plague struck. For them it was something more terrifying than every terror and more merciless than any disaster whatsoever, and as one of their own writers proclaims, “the only thing worse than what everyone could have imagined.”67 But for us it was not like that, but rather an exercise and test no less than the other events. For it did not leave us alone, but it did strike the Gentiles much worse.

7 After this, he continues, saying: Many of our brothers, because of their exceeding love and brotherly affection, taking no thought for themselves and caring for one another, unhesitatingly oversaw the sick, readily waiting on them and serving68 them in Christ. When they contracted the disease from others and drew the sickness upon themselves from their neighbors and readily accepted the pain they departed along with them most gladly. And many who cared for the sick and strengthened others died themselves, transferring their death to themselves, and the common phrase, which always seems to be only a pleasantry, in fact had meaning at that time: “We depart, your faithful servants.”69 8 So, then, the best of our brothers departed life in this manner, and some presbyters, deacons, and even some of the laity were greatly lauded, with the result that this form of death, on account of its requiring great piety and strong faith, seemed to lack nothing in relation to martyrdom. 9 And they took up the bodies of the saints with welcoming hands and bosoms, cleaned them and closed their eyes and mouths, placed them on their shoulders and laid them down. They clung to them, wrapped themselves around them, and adorned them with washings and funeral wrappings, and a short time later they received the same, for those left behind always followed those who died before them. 10 But for the Gentiles everything was the opposite. Those who began to fall ill they set apart, and they fled from those dearest to them. They even threw them in the roads half-dead and treated the unburied dead like garbage as they tried to avoid the spread of death and its fellowship, which was not an easy thing to avoid even with a great deal of contrivance.

67. Thucydides, Peloponnesian War 2.64.1. 68. Therapeuō, which can refer to both liturgical service and medical service. 69. I.e., a typical closing for letters; see, e.g., Letter of Barnabas 4.9; 6.5.

book 7

365

11 And after this letter, when peace came to those in the city, he wrote another festal letter to the brothers throughout Egypt, and after this one he wrote others. One of his letters On the Sabbath is in circulation and another On the Gymnasium.

O N T H E R E IG N O F G A L L I E N U S

12 And conversing once again by letter with Hermammon and the brothers throughout Egypt he recounts many other evil aspects of Decius and of those who came after him, and mentions the peace during the time of Gallienus. chapter 23. But nothing is like hearing this, which goes as follows: That man,70 then, forsaking one of his emperors and attacking the other, was quickly destroyed with his whole family, roots and all, but Gallienus was proclaimed and fully accepted among all, as an emperor at once old and new, since he was born before the others but was still alive after them. 2 For according to the utterance made to the prophet Isaiah: “Behold! What was from the beginning has come to be present, and is the novelty that now arises.”71 For just as a cloud that runs under the rays of the sun and covers it for a short time places the sun in shadow and appears in front of it, but once the cloud moves on or melts away the sun that rose before rises to appear once again, so too was Macrianus, who put himself in front of and got himself close to the imperium that had come to rest over Gallienus’s head. He is no more, since he never was anybody, while Gallienus is just what he always was, 3 and it is like the empire has set aside old age and purged itself of the previous evil, and now blossoms in even fuller bloom, and is seen and heard even further afield, and spreads everywhere.

4 Next, he indicates the time when he wrote these things, in the following words: And I must once again consider the days of the emperors’ years. For I see that those who were named the most impious became nameless after not much time, while he who is more holy and a greater lover

70. Macrianus, mentioned in the earlier portion of the letter quoted at 7.10.5. 71. Isa. 42:9; 43:19.

366

the ecclesiastical history

of God has surpassed his seventh year of rule, and is now completing the ninth anniversary of his reign, in which we shall celebrate the festival.72

O N N E P O S A N D T H E S C H I SM A S S O C IAT E D W I T H H I M

chapter 24. In addition to all of these letters, he diligently wrote the two treatises On the Promises. The basis for his writing was Nepos, a bishop of those in Egypt, who taught in a more Jewish manner that the promises made to the saints in the divine writings should be construed in a more Jewish manner, and supposed that there will be a period of one thousand years of corporeal luxury upon this withered earth.73 2 This fellow, then, decided to confirm his own notion based on the Apocalypse of John and wrote some compositions entitled Refutation of the Allegorists.74 3 Dionysius opposed this work in his books On the Promises. In the first book he lays out the dogma he holds, while in the second he considers the Apocalypse of John.75 In that book, he mentions Nepos at the beginning and writes this about him: 4 But since they put forward a treatise by Nepos, on which they especially rely, claiming that it shows irrefutably that the kingdom of Christ will exist on earth, [let me say that] I accept and love Nepos in many other respects, for his faith, love of labor, diligent attention to the writings, and abundant psalmody (which continues to cheer many of the brothers), and I completely hold the man in respect, especially because he has preceded us in death. But the truth is dear, and held in greater honor than everything, and one must praise and consent undyingly whenever anything is said correctly, but inspect and correct, whenever anything that has been written seems unsound. 5 And for someone

72. The dating formula indicates that this is the festal letter for 262. 73. This corroborates Eusebius’s antimillenarianism and his reticence concerning the authorship of Revelation. 74. The title suggests that Nepos may have had his sights on the figurative exegesis of Origen and Origenians, like Dionysius (and Eusebius). For an example of Origen’s figurative reading of Revelation, see Commentary on John 1.1–3. 75. This was a work in two parts. The first presented Dionysius’s eschatological views, while the second examined Revelation and critiqued Nepos’s interpretations. Eusebius quotes only from the second part.

book 7

367

who is present and only teaching orally, an unwritten discussion that persuades and reconciles the opponents through question and answer would be appropriate. But since we are presented with a written work which, so it seems to some, is most persuasive, and certain teachers deem the Law and the Prophets to be nothing and neglect to adhere to the Gospels, and defame the letters of the apostles, while promising that the teaching of this composition is in fact a great and hidden mystery, and prevent our more simple brothers from contemplating anything elevated and noble about either the glorious and truly godinspired epiphany of our Lord or our resurrection from the dead and our gathering with him and becoming like him,76 and instead convince them to put their hope in a kingdom of God that is meager and mortal and like things are now—for these reasons we must confront our brother Nepos as though he is present.

6 After other things he adds to this, saying: I was in the Arsenoite nome where, as you know, this doctrine has been prevalent for a long time, so that there have been schisms and apostasies of whole churches. I called together the presbyters and teachers of the brothers in the villages, and urged them, while any brothers who wished were present, to make a public investigation of the work. 7 When they presented me with this book as though it was an unbreakable armor and wall I sat with them for three days in a row from dawn till dusk, and tried to correct what was written. 8 There I was greatly pleased with the steadfastness, love of truth, quickness, and understanding the brothers displayed, for we worked through the questions, difficulties, and points of agreement in sequence and with equity, refusing to hold onto previously held opinions with any kind of contention if they seemed incorrect, nor did we shrink from counterarguments, but attempted as far as we could to prevail over and master whatever was put forward. Nor, if a discourse succeeded in prevailing, were we ashamed to change our opinion and consent to it, but conscientiously and unhypocritically and with hearts focused solely on God, we accepted the arguments framed by the demonstrations and teachings of the Holy Writings. 9 Finally, he who was the founder and leader of this teaching, a man named Coracion, confessed and testified to us in the hearing of all the brothers who were present that he would no longer hold and discuss, nor mention or teach this doctrine, because he was sufficiently

76. Compare 1 Thess. 2:1; 1 John 3:2.

368

the ecclesiastical history

convinced by the refutations, and some of the brothers expressed their delight with the dialogue and the mutual deference and courtesy displayed by everyone. O N T H E A P O C A LY P SE O F J O H N

chapter 25. Next, a little further down, he says this about the Apocalypse of John: Now some of those who came before us rejected and excluded the book entirely, making a chapter-by-chapter investigation to show that the work is unintelligible, composed irrationally, and falsely attributed. 2 For they say that it is not by John, and that it is certainly not a “revelation,” hidden as it is behind a thick curtain of ignorance. And they say that not only is the author of this work not one of the apostles; he is not even one of the holy men of the church. Rather, they maintain that that Cerinthus, who founded the heresy that is named Cerinthian after him, wanted to ascribe the name of someone trustworthy to his own creation. 3 For this was the doctrine of his teaching: that the kingdom of Christ will be terrestrial, and comprised of things Cerinthus himself enjoyed. Because he was a lover of corporeality and entirely fleshly, this is what he dreamed it will be like: full of things that satiate the belly and the regions below the belly, that is, food, drink, sexual intercourse and (because he aimed to procure what was just mentioned by giving it all a more respectable name) festivals, sacrifices, and sacred sacrificial victims. 4 I, for my part, would not venture to reject the book, for many brothers use it with due diligence, but I consider the matter of it beyond my own understanding, and accept that what is to be gleaned from each chapter is something concealed and most unexpected. For even if I do not understand, I nevertheless suspect a deeper intellectual meaning to lie within the words. 5 I do not measure and judge these things by my own reasoning, but I leave to faith rather than myself that which is so lofty. And I do not reject that which I have not comprehended, but instead marvel that Ι have not even understood it.

6 After this, once he has examined the entire text of the Apocalypse and demonstrated that it is impossible to understand it according to a literal interpretation, he continues, saying: Indeed, after bringing the whole prophecy, so to speak, to a close, the prophet blesses those who keep the prophecy safe and himself, too, in fact. For he says: “Blessed is he who guards the words of the prophecy

book 7

369

in this book, as well as I, John, who saw and heard these things.”77 7 That he is called John, then, and that this work was written by John I do not deny, and I concede that he is a holy and divinely inspired man. But I would not readily infer that he is the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, who wrote the Gospel According to John and the general epistle. 8 Based on the habits of each and the vocabulary, and what is called the “style” of the book, I judge them not to be the same. For the Evangelist nowhere includes his name, nor does he announce himself in the Gospel or the letter.

9 Then a little further down, he says again: While John nowhere [unambiguously states his name as author of the Gospel or letter], either in his own voice or in the voice of another, he who wrote the Apocalypse presents himself immediately and at the very beginning: “A revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave to him to show to his servants immediately, and which he sent and gave as a sign through his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and his testimony, whatever he saw.”78 10 Then in the letter, too, he writes: “John to the seven churches in Asia, grace and peace be with you.”79 But the Evangelist did not sign his name to his own general letter, but simply began with the mystery of the divine revelation: “He who was in the beginning, whom we have heard, whom we have seen with our own eyes.”80 And it was with this revelation that the Lord blessed Peter, saying: “Blessed are you, Simon bar Jonah, because flesh and blood did not provide you a revelation, but my Father who is in heaven.”81 11 Neither in the second and third letters of John that are in circulation, even though they are brief, does “John” appear by name; rather, “the elder”82 has written them anonymously. But this writer did not think it sufficient after he had named himself just once to go on with his discussion, but takes it up again: “I John, your brother and fellow in the affliction and the kingdom and patience of Jesus, when I was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and my testimony of Jesus.”83 And of course he also said this near the end: 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

Rev. 22:7–8. Rev. 1:1–2. Rev. 1:4. 1 John 1:1. Matt. 16:17. Or “presbyter”; 2 John 1; 3 John 1. Rev. 1:19.

370

the ecclesiastical history

“Blessed is he who guards the words of the prophecy in this book, as well as I, John, who saw and heard these things.”84 12 Now, that John is the writer ought to be believed based on the fact that he himself says so. But what sort of “John” is unclear. For this writer does not say that he is himself, as he does throughout the Gospel, “the disciple beloved by the Lord” or “he who stood at the foot of his cross,” or “the brother of James,” or one who himself saw and heard the Lord.85 13 For he would have said one of the aforementioned things, if he had wanted to clearly identify himself. But he says none of this, but rather says that he is “our brother,” and “fellow,” and a witness of Jesus and blessed for having been given the sight and sound of the revelation. 14 I know there have been many with the same name as John the apostle who, on account of their love for him and because they marveled at him and were zealous, and wanted to be loved like he was by the Lord, gladly welcomed the fact that they had the same name, just as there are many Pauls and Peters among the children of believers. 15 There is even another John in the Acts of the Apostles, the one surnamed Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul took with them on their travels, and about whom it says: “They also had John as an attendant.”86 But if this John is the writer, it does not seem so. For it is not written that he arrived with them in Asia, but rather it says: “Having departed from Paphos those with Paul came to Perge in Pamphilia, but John, who had left them, returned to Jerusalem.”87 16 But I think that there was some other John among those who went to Asia, since they say that there are two memorials in Ephesus and each is said to be John’s.88 17 But from their concepts and from their phrasing and from their syntax the conclusion can reasonably be drawn that this John is different from that one. 18 The Gospel and the letter are in agreement with one another, and begin similarly. The former reads: “In the beginning was the Word”; the latter: “He who was from the beginning.”89 The former reads: “And the Word became flesh and dwelled among us and we saw his glory, glory as the Only-Begotten from the Father”; the latter

84. Rev. 22:7–8. 85. John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:20. 86. Acts 13:5. 87. Acts 13:5. 88. This claim probably influenced Eusebius’s equation of the author of Revelation with “John the presbyter” of Ephesus, mentioned by the second-century writer Papias (see 3.39). 89. John 1:1 and 1 John 1:1.

book 7

371

has the same, slightly altered: “what we heard, what we saw with our own eyes, what we saw and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life and the life was manifested.”90 19 He said this by way of introduction, countering, as he demonstrates in what follows, those who say that the Lord did not come in the flesh. That is why he is careful to add: “And to what we have seen we bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was revealed to us. What we have seen and heard, we also proclaim to you.”91 20 He is consistent with himself and does not deviate from his themes, but he relates everything using the same main points and words, some of which we will mention briefly. 21 He who reads attentively will often find in both texts “life,” and many times “light,” “turning from darkness.” And you will continuously find “truth,” “grace,” “joy,” the “flesh and blood of the Lord,” “the crisis,” “forgiveness of sins,” “God’s love for us,” the command of love for one another, that one must keep all the commandments. You will also find accusations against the world, the devil, the Antichrist; the promise of the Holy Spirit, God’s adoption of sons, the faith that is demanded from us throughout, and “Father” and “Son” everywhere. A complete comparison of both works shows that the complexion of the Gospel and the letter are one and the same. 22 But the Apocalypse is different and foreign compared with them. It neither follows nor resembles either one of them and scarcely, so to speak, has a syllable in common with them. 23 But neither does the letter (much less the Gospel) mention or have any concept of the Apocalypse, nor the Apocalypse the letter. In his letters, Paul does indicate something about the revelations he received, but he did not write them in a separate work. 24 But even from the difference in diction one can judge the difference of the Gospel and the letter from the Apocalypse. 25 The former are not only perfect according to the strictures of the Greek language, but are also written with the most eloquent phrasing, reasoning, and structure of their meaning. One is hard pressed to find a single barbarism, solecism, or vulgar phrase in them, for it seems he possessed both forms of discursive skill, and both were gifts from the Lord, the discursive skill of knowledge and that of expression.92 26 But I do not deny 90. John 1:14; 1 John 1:1–3. 91. 1 John 1:2–3. 92. Dionysius’s analysis of the style and content of the Gospel of John, 1 John, and Revelation shows that he has been trained in rhetoric. “Barbarism,” “solecism,” and “vulgar phrase” are three types of stylistic failure discussed in late ancient rhetorical handbooks.

372

the ecclesiastical history that in the Apocalypse we can find revelations and that knowledge and prophecy have been derived from it; however, I observe that the expression and language are not properly Hellenizing, but that it uses idiomatic expressions and barbarisms, and even commits solecisms in some places, which it is not necessary to single out now. 27 In saying this I am not trying to poke fun (lest anyone think so), but only describing the dissimilarity of these writings.

O N T H E L E T T E R S O F D IO N YSI U S

chapter 26. In addition to these, many other letters of Dionysius are in circulation, such as those written Against Sabellius to Ammon, bishop of the church in Berenike, to Telesphorus, to Euphranor, and again to Ammon and Euporus. And he composed another four treatises on the same topic, which he addressed to the homonymous Dionysius of Rome. 2 And there are many letters besides these in our possession, and lengthy discourses, too, written in epistolary form, such as those On Nature, addressed to the boy Timothy, and the one On Temptations, which he also dedicated to Euphranor. 3 In addition to these, in writing to Basilides, bishop of those sojourning in the Pentapolis, he says that he has written an exegesis on the beginning of Ecclesiastes, and various letters to the same Basilides are preserved for us. So Dionysius. But come, and after the account of these men and their times, let us grant it to posterity to know what the generation that lived in our day was like.93 O N PAU L O F S A M O S ATA A N D T H E H E R E SY E S TA B L I SH E D B Y H I M I N A N T IO C H

chapter 27. After Xystus led the church of the Romans for eleven years, Dionysius (who shared his name with Dionysius of Alexandria) succeeded him. At this time, too, when Demetrian in Antioch

93. Here Eusebius marks an important transition: from this point on he is writing of events that occurred during his own lifetime. In the remainder of book 7, he is writing about those whose careers spanned the period from the 260s to the 290s, or those approximately one to two generations older than himself.

book 7

373

departed this life, Paul of Samosata received the episcopacy.94 2 This man held ignoble and lowly opinions concerning Christ, contrary to ecclesiastical teaching—namely, that he had the nature of a common human.95 Consequently Dionysius of Alexandria, who had been asked to attend a synod [on the matter] but, appealing to both his old age and ill health, declined to be present, presented his own opinion on the question via a letter, but the rest of the shepherds of the churches came together from every direction as though against one attacking Christ’s flock, and all sped their way to Antioch.96 O N T H E D I S T I N G U I SH E D B I SHO P S W HO W E R E W E L L K N OW N AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 28. The most distinguished of them were Firmilian, bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea, Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, and shepherds of the communities in Pontus, and in addition to them Helenus of the community in Tarsus and Nicomas of the one in Iconium, and not only them but also Hymenaeus from the church in Jerusalem and Theotecnus from neighboring Caesarea, and still along with them Maximus, who was gallantly leading the brothers in Bostra, and myriad others. And one would not find it difficult to enumerate many others, along with presbyters and deacons, who came together to judge the same case in the aforementioned city. These were only the most famous of them. 94. Paul’s episcopacy is dated 260–68 in the Chron., and the letter of the synod that Eusebius quotes below is addressed to Dionysius of Rome, who died in late December 268. The synod was probably held in winter 268/9 and wrote to Rome before news of Dionysius’s death had reached Antioch. 95. These are the only details Eusebius provides about Paul’s Christology. It is an oversimplification. In other records of the council, Paul objected to the notion that the Logos and Jesus’s human body could be a “composition” (synthesis) or a “union of essences” (henōsis ousiōdēs), for according to him this would imply change in the divine nature (U. M. Lang, “Christological Controversy at the Synod of Antioch in 268/9,” Journal of Theological Studies 51 [2000]: 65). The Christian rhetor Malchion also accused Paul of holding that the human Jesus comes to “participate” in the Logos (that is, that he was divine accidentally, not essentially or by nature; this could be the basis for Eusebius’s claim that Paul thought that Christ had only a human nature). 96. Eusebius compresses the time between Dionysius’s letter (264 or earlier) and the synod (winter 268/9).

374

the ecclesiastical history

2 As they all met together often and at various times in the same place, discourses and questions went back and forth at each meeting. The partisans of the Samosatean tried to disguise their heterodox ideas and to conceal themselves, while the rest worked diligently to lay bare and drag into the open his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. 3 At this time Dionysius died, in the twelfth year of Gallienus’s reign, having directed the episcopacy of Alexandria for seventeen years, and Maximus succeeded him.97 4 And when Gallienus had held power for fifteen whole years, Claudius became his successor.98 HOW PAU L WA S C O N F U T E D A N D D E P O SE D

chapter 29. After completing his second year, he transferred the imperium to Aurelian.99 In his day, when a final synod of most of the holy bishops was assembled, the leader of the heresy in Antioch, having been exposed and charged quite openly with heterodoxy in the presence of all, was banished from the universal church that is under heaven. 2 Especially effective at correcting him and refuting his dissimulations was Malchion, a man in all respects learned and the head of a sophistical school among the learning establishments in Antioch. Not only that, but he was also, because of the exceeding sincerity of his faith in Christ, deemed worthy of being a presbyter in the community there. In fact, he posed questions to Paul as stenographers made a record, which we know has come down even to the present.100 He alone, of all the others, was strong enough to expose the man as hiding his true thoughts and being deceptive. chapter 30. Then, indeed, based on their shared opinion, the shepherds who had gathered together in the same place inscribed a single letter, addressed personally to both Dionysius, bishop of the Romans, and Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and sent it to every province. In it they made plain to everyone both their earnestness and Paul’s 97. 264 c.e. 98. Claudius Gothicus, 268–70. 99. Late summer/early autumn 270. 100. No longer extant.

book 7

375

twisted heterodoxy, as well as the charges and questions they had put to him, and, further, recounted the man’s whole way of life and habits. One would do well at present, for the sake of memory,101 to recount these, their words: 2 To Dionysius and Maximus and to all our fellow servants throughout the inhabited world—bishops, presbyters, and deacons—and to the whole universal church under heaven, Helenus, Hymnaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, Aelianus, Paulus, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, Malchion, Lucas, and all the rest of those with us who sojourn in neighboring cities and provinces,102 bishops, presbyters, deacons, and the churches of God send greetings in the Lord to our beloved brothers.

3 After a short bit, they say the following: But at the same time we wrote and requested that many even of the distant bishops come to heal this death-dealing teaching, such as those blessed men Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappadocia. The former sent a letter to Antioch; he deemed the leader of error unworthy of address and did not write to him personally, but instead to the whole community. We have appended a copy of this letter. 4 Firmilian had visited twice before and pronounced verdicts against the innovations introduced by that man, as we who were present know and bear witness, and many others know as well. But when Paul promised that he would change, he believed and hoped the matter would be settled as was needed without any reproach coming upon the Logos, but was deceived by him who denied God, his own Lord, and who did not hold to the faith that he previously held. 5 Even now Firmilian was going to come to Antioch, and had come as far as Tarsus, for he was aiming to put him on trial. But in the meantime, after we had gathered and had called him and were waiting for him to come, the end of his life came.103

6 After other matters the letter gets to what his way of life was like; they describe it in detail in these words: 101. Or “for the record.” 102. ethnē: “peoples,” “nations,” or, as probably here, the Greek for the Latin provinciae (provinces). 103. Firmilian’s death is traditionally dated 28 October 268.

376

the ecclesiastical history

Because he apostatized from the Rule and has gone over to adulterated and illegitimate teachings,104 7 nothing requires us to judge the deeds of one who is an outsider. Nor [do we pass judgment] because he was previously poor and destitute and had no wealth from his father or income from a trade or occupation, but has now come into excessive wealth through illegal and sacrilegious means, and by demanding and extorting it from the brothers.105 Or because he defrauds those who have been wronged and promises to help them, for a price. Or because he swindles them and glibly enjoys the fruit provided by the willingness of those involved in lawsuits to pay for relief from what burdens them. Or because he thinks that the fear of God is an opportunity for profit. 8 Or because he is haughty and excessive, assuming worldly honors and wishing to be called ducenarius rather than bishop, strutting around the agoras106 reading and dictating letters while he goes about in public protected by a bodyguard, many in number, some of which walks in front, some of which follows him, with the result that the faith is resented and hated on account of his bloated pride and the arrogance of his heart.107 9 Or because of the deceitful show he puts on in the ecclesiastical gatherings to impress, indulge, and astound the souls of the naïve, setting up for himself, as he has, a tribunal and a high throne, not like a disciple of Christ, and having a private audience chamber (and calling it such!), just like the rulers of the world. He strikes his thigh with his hand, and stomps his feet on the tribunal, and those who do not praise him, wave their kerchiefs as they do in the theaters, or cheer and jump up as his partisans do, both men and women, being such a disorderly audience108—those, then, who listen solemnly and in a well-ordered 104. I.e., the “Rule of faith”; notice that Eusebius avoids quoting sections of the letter that discuss Paul’s theology in any detail. 105. The letter portrays Paul as of the lower classes and a “bad sophist.” For similar descriptions, see Lucian, Teacher of Rhetors; Philostratus, Lives of the Philosophers; Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists. The bad sophist is a man from humble origins who revels in the power and prestige that a rhetorical career brings, and who relies on bombast and showmanship to fleece the masses. 106. An echo of Demosthenes, Oration 21.158, another showy affectation of the “bad sophist.” 107. Ducenarius: literally, a “two-hundred man,” referring to the salary of a procurator; the synod claims that Paul wishes to be addressed like a provincial administrator. The “tribunal” (bēma), “throne,” and “private audience chamber” (secretum) are also associated with provincial governors. 108. Gestures associated with public oratory.

book 7

377

manner since they are in a house of God—he censures and insults. And he crudely and in public mocks those exegetes of the Logos who have departed this life, while he boasts of himself, as though he is not a bishop but a sophist and sorcerer. 10 He put a stop to psalms sung to our Lord Jesus Christ, claiming they are recent compositions of recent men, but he arranges for women to psalmodize him in the middle of the church on the great day of the Pascha—one would shudder if he heard them!109 And he allows the bishops of neighboring fields and towns who flatter him, and the presbyters, to discuss such matters as the following in their homilies to the people. 11 He does not want to confess that the Son of God came down from heaven (if we may mention something in anticipation of what we are going to write; and this we will not assert on our word alone, but it will be observed everywhere in the records we have sent, not least where he says that Jesus Christ is from below), while those who sing and praise him amid the people say that their own impious teacher is an angel that has come down from heaven—and he does not put a stop to this, even when the arrogant man is present when they say it! 12 And his women “cohabiters,” as the Antiochenes call them,110 and those of his presbyters and deacons, together with whom he conceals this and other incorrigible sins, and how because he is able to implicate them and accuse them he holds such power over them that, for fear on their own part, they dare not accuse him of the injustice he has committed in words and deeds, and that he has even made them rich and for this reason is loved and held in awe by those who are zealous for such things—why should we write of these matters? 13 We know, beloved ones, that the bishop and the entire priesthood must be exemplars of every good work to the people, and we are not ignorant of this:

109. Praising a bishop was not in itself unusual: several of Ephrem of Nisibis’s hymns praise bishops of Nisibis, including the sitting bishop (e.g., Nisibene Hymn 21.4). In the oration included at 10.4, Eusebius lavishes praise on Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, even likening him to the Logos. 110. “Women cohabiters”: suneisaktoi . . . gunaikes. This is the earliest reference to the suneisaktoi (Gk.)/subintroductae (Lat.), female ascetics who cohabited with male ascetics. Those living in these alternative households described their relationships as “fellowship” and “spiritual love” (Athanasius, Second Letter to Virgins 21). The practice was claimed to provide support for the socially vulnerable women and domestic labor for male ascetics (Chrysostom, Against Men Cohabiting with Virgins 6, 9). Opponents accused these men and women, as does the synodical letter, of sexual turpitude and encouraging the suspicion of outsiders.

378

the ecclesiastical history that many men have fallen because they have brought in cohabiters for themselves, while others have fallen under suspicion, with the result that even if one grants that he is not doing anything licentious, nevertheless one must take precautions against the suspicion that grows out of this matter, so that he won’t cause anyone to stumble and lead others to imitate him. 14 For how can he chastise or admonish someone else not to consort any longer with a woman, who himself has already sent one away but still has with him two who are in full bloom and pleasing to the eye, and if he travels anywhere he brings them along with him, and luxuriates and basks in it? All groan and lament to themselves because of all of this, but so fear his tyranny and despotism that they do not dare accuse him. 16. But, as we said before, one could call to account on these matters a man who has a catholic mind and is numbered among us, but when it comes to one who has betrayed the mystery and marches in the procession of the defiled heresy of Artemas (for is it even necessary to mention his father?) we do not think it necessary to demand an accounting of these matters.

17 Then, at the end of the letter, they say further: We were necessitated, therefore, to banish this man who set himself in opposition to God and would not relent, convinced as we are by God’s providence, to establish another as bishop for the catholic church in his place, Domnus, the son of the blessed Demetrianus,111 who previously led this same community with distinction, who is adorned with all the good qualities required of a bishop, and we have notified you so that you will write to him and receive letters of fellowship from him. But let that man write to Artemas and let those who hold the view of Artemas join in fellowship with him.

18 After Paul had fallen from the episcopacy and from the orthodoxy of his faith, Domnus, as was said, succeeded to the service of the church of Antioch. 19 But, when Paul utterly refused to vacate the church’s building,112 Aurelian, who had been made emperor, made a most appropriate judgment about what to do. He ordered that the building should be given to whomever the bishops of Italy and of the

111. Demetrianus: Paul’s immediate predecessor. 112. The phrase indicates corporate ownership. Whether the building in question is the church or another building (e.g., bishop’s office/residence) is unclear.

book 7

379

city of Rome should send a letter indicating their decision. And so the aforementioned man was indeed driven from the church in the height of disgrace, by the worldly authorities.113 20 Such was the kind of man Aurelian was when it came to us at that time, but as his reign progressed he developed a different attitude, and, influenced by certain advisers, actually would have raised a persecution against us, and there was much talk among everyone about it. 21 But, when he was almost about to sign letters against us, divine judgment intervened and restrained him when he was just on the verge of the undertaking, and caused everyone to see clearly that it is not at all easy for those who rule this life to go against the churches of Christ, unless the hand that defends them, by divine and heavenly judgment, allows this to happen for the sake of education and correction, during times when it would test them.114 22 After Aurelian ruled for six years, Probus succeeded him, and when he had held power for about the same amount of time, Carus together with his sons Carinus and Numerian succeeded him. And again in turn, when they had lasted not all of three years, the reign of Diocletian and those he adopted115 after him followed, during which the persecution of our time occurred, and the destruction of the churches that were part of it.116 23 But a short time before this Felix

113. Paul retained enough support after the synod that he could not be dislodged. This was a case of property law, and can be compared with Gallienus’s rescript (7.13.1, also written in response to direct appeals by bishops). Aurelian’s order that the property rights belonged to the party named by the bishops of Italy and Rome may simply adjudicate the case based on the course of action asked for in the plaintiffs’ petition, a common practice (see F. Millar, “Paul of Samosata, Zenobia, and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture, and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria,” Journal of Roman Studies 61 [1971]: 16). The action is further significant insofar as it set a precedent for Constantine’s involvement in the dispute between Caecilianists and Donatists in Africa in 313–14 (see 10.5.1–24). 114. This passage and Lactantius, Deaths 1.7 are the only evidence that Aurelian planned persecution. 115. “Those he adopted”: Maximian, his co-Augustus, and Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, their junior colleagues. 116. Eusebius quickly lists the emperors between Aurelian and Diocletian (from Probus who succeeded in July 276 to the end of Numerian’s reign, November 284). Diocletian was proclaimed emperor in November 284 and became sole ruler when Carinus was murdered in 285. He took Maximian as his co-Augustus in April 286.

380

the ecclesiastical history

succeeded Dionysius, the bishop of Rome, who had performed the service for nine years. O N T H E D E S T RU C T I V E H E R E SY O F T H E M A N IC HA E A N S T HAT WA S B E G I N N I N G AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 31. At this time, too, the Maniac who lent his name to his demonic heresy armed himself with a perversion of reason, when the demon—God-battling Satan himself—put the man forward for the corruption of many.117 In his speech and habits his life was utterly that of a barbarian, and in his nature he was someone demonic and insane, and he ventured things consonant with these characteristics. He tried to make himself like Christ, at one time proclaiming that he was himself the Paraclete and Holy Spirit itself, and deluded himself with this mania, at another time, like Christ, choosing twelve disciples as fellows in his wretched innovation.118 2 Cobbling together false and godless doctrines gathered together from myriad anciently extinguished atheistic heresies, he came from Persia to infect our region of the world like a deadly poison,119 and from him comes the impious name Manichaeans that is still prevalent among many even now. Such, then,

117. An early reference to Mani in Greek Christian literature. Eusebius makes a common pun on the similarity between his name (Manēs) and the word for “maniac” (maneis), which would have sounded nearly identical. Mani founded a missionary movement in the Sasanian Empire from the 240s to the 270s. By the 290s Manichaeans were familiar enough in the Roman Empire to prompt Diocletian and Maximian to order anti-Manichaean measures. These measures—targeting leadership, banning assembly, burning books, confiscating property—are strikingly similar to those leveled against Christians in 303. 118. Orthodox Christians usually identified the Paraclete in John 15:26 and 16:7 with the Holy Spirit. Manichaean texts such as the Cologne Mani Codex (17.4–7) and the Kephalaia of the Teacher (15.19–24) show that Manichaeans identified Mani with the Paraclete. 119. Diocletian’s anti-Manichaean edict of ca. 296 also describes the Manichaeans as Persian poison: they “infect the innocent, orderly, and tranquil Roman people, as well as the whole of our empire, with the damnable customs and perverse laws of the Persians as with the poison of a malignant serpent” (trans. Hyamson and Lieu, in I. Gardner and S. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004], 118).

book 7

381

is the basis of this falsely so-called knowledge that sprouted up at the time that has been indicated. O N T H E D I S T I N G U I SH E D E C C L E SIA ST IC A L M E N O F O U R DAY A N D W HO A M O N G T H E M REMAINED UP TO THE TIME OF THE AT TAC K O N T H E C H U R C H E S

chapter 32. At this time Eutychianus succeeded Felix, who had led the church of the Romans for five years. But he lived not all of ten months, and passed the lot to Gaius, of our day. And when he had led for about fifteen years, Marcellinus, who was himself caught up in the persecution, became his successor. 2 At this time, too, after Domnus the episcopacy of Antioch was governed by Timaeus, whom Cyril of our day succeeded. During his time, we came to know Dorotheus, an eloquent man who was deemed worthy of the presbyterate of Antioch. This man was such a lover of beauty when it came to divine matters, and even studied the Hebrew language, so that he could read the Hebrew scriptures themselves with understanding. 3 He was especially not without knowledge of liberal studies and the preliminary studies of the Greeks. By nature he happened to be a eunuch, and was so naturally from birth, with the result that the emperor, because of this, as it was a kind of miracle, claimed him as one of his own and honored him by making him the manager of the purple-dye works in Tyre. 4 We heard him carefully discussing the writings in the church.120 But after Cyril, Tyrannus received the episcopacy of the community of Antioch; during his time the siege of the churches reached its high point. 5 After Socrates, Eusebius led the community in Laodicea, after he had come from Alexandria.121 The cause of his migration was the case

120. Or “before the assembly.” 121. In what follows, Eusebius presents the “origin story” of two Alexandrian presbyters who became bishops of Laodicea in Syria: Eusebius and Anatolius. Eusebius of Laodicea and Anatolius of Laodicea had close relationships with Theotecnus, the bishop of Caesarea; Anatolius was even marked to succeed Theotecnus as bishop (7.32.21). Eusebius of Caesarea was an ally and friend of his counterpart in Laodicea, Theodotus

382

the ecclesiastical history

against Paul.122 Οn account of this he went up to Syria, but was prevented from returning home by those in that place who were earnestly concerned about divine matters.123 That among those of our day he was a beloved article of piety124 is easy to understand from the words of Dionysius that were quoted earlier. 6 Anatolius was appointed his successor, “a good man from a good man,” as they say. He, too, was by race an Alexandrian, and had obtained the foremost status among those most notable in our day for rhetoric, Hellenic learning, and philosophy, inasmuch as he had reached the summit of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and, in addition, dialectic and physics, and rhetorical and mathematical theory. For this reason, word has it that he was deemed worthy of the citizens there to be placed in charge of the school of the Aristotelian succession in Alexandria.125 7 They also memorialize myriad other virtues of his that he displayed in the siege of the Pirouchion in Alexandria,126 inasmuch as among those in office

(7.32.23). Eusebius is constructing an account of alliance between Caesarea and Laodicea in the context of the politics of the 310s–320s, when Eusebius and Theodotus were embroiled in the controversies preceding Nicaea. 122. He was probably sent as Dionysius of Alexandria’s representative, since Dionysius declined to attend (see 7.29.3). 123. The chronology of Eusebius of Laodicea’s and Anatolius’s migration is problematic. The most likely chronology would place them in Alexandria during the revolt of Aemilianus in 261/2 (see 7.11.2; 21.1). 124. He is described as being an “article” or “possession,” like a living sacred relic (compare the description of Peter of Alexandria at 9.6.2). 125. Anatolius is best known for his contributions to astronomy and mathematics. Along with Eusebius’s quotations from his Canons Concerning the Pascha his treatise On the Decad survives. He is probably the same Anatolius with whom the famous Platonist Iamblichus studied (Eunapius, Lives of the Sophists 5.1.2). 126. The Pirouchion (or Bruchion) district was in northeastern Alexandria and was the site of Roman administration in the city. The dating of the siege described here is complex and contested; briefly: the Chron. dates a siege of Bruchion to the reign of Claudius Gothicus (269/70). Things are complicated by a reference in Ammianus Marcellinus that Alexandria’s walls were destroyed along with most of the Bruchion district under Aurelian (History 22.16.15). Both of these references are best taken as referring to events during Aurelian’s reconquest of the East in 272/3. But the description of Eusebius’s and Anatolius’s heroism also accords well with Dionysius’s description of isolated neighborhoods during the revolt of Aemilianus (262 c.e.) in the fifth and sixth letters in the collection of festal letters (see 7.15.24–25; 7.21.1–10). The present commentator regards the most likely chronology to be one that places Eusebius and Anatolius in

book 7

383

he was deemed worthy by everyone of a special privilege; by way of an example [of his virtues] this only will I recount. 8 They say that when those under siege were left without wheat, their hunger was more unbearable than the enemies outside. The said man came up with the following plan. Since the other portion of the city was fighting as allies with the Roman army and was not besieged, Anatolius sent a message to Eusebius (for he was at that time still there before his migration to Syria), who was among those not under siege, and whose name was considered great, well reputed, and famous even by the Romans’ commander, informing him about those who were dying of hunger in the siege. 9 When he learned of it, he asked the Roman general to offer, as a gift of great generosity, protection to enemy deserters, and when he obtained his request, he made this known to Anatolius. He, immediately upon receiving this promise, called a meeting of the Alexandrian council and first asked everyone to extend the right hand of friendship to the Romans.127 But as he recognized that they were angered at his words, he said: “But I do not think that you would object if I counsel you to allow those who are superfluous and not at all useful for us, old women, children, and old men, to exit the gates and go wherever they will. For is it not useless to have these people among us, when they are dying? Why do we destroy the wounded and those who are not able-bodied with hunger, when we ought to feed only men and adolescents and ration the necessary wheat for those fit for the defense of the city?” 10 With these arguments he persuaded the council, and stood up to cast the first vote to release all those who were not fit for the army, men and women, from the city, because there would be no hope of salvation for those who remained and busied themselves to no avail in the city, as they would die of hunger. 11 When Alexandria through the mid-260s, and this story, if factual, during the rebellion of Aemilianus (which Eusebius may have conflated with a similar, better-known, and more destructive siege under Aurelian), and their migration to the last years of the 260s. Readers should be cautious about placing too much emphasis on the precise chronology of Eusebius’s narrative. He is most interested in providing a portrait of the bishops’ virtues and in offering a plausible account of their migration from Alexandria to Laodicea. 127. Here, Anatolius is portrayed as a “good sophist” with political capital among the Alexandrian elites. Anatolius’s speech to the council represents one of the few times Eusebius writes in a more classical mode: like Thucydides, he invents a speech fit for the occasion, rather than quoting a document.

384

the ecclesiastical history

all the rest of those in the council agreed, he nearly saved all of those who were under siege, making sure that those of all ages escaped, first those from the church, then others throughout the city, not only those imagined by the vote, but myriad others under its pretense who escaped notice wearing women’s clothing and passed through the gates at night on his authority and fled to the Roman army. Once there, Eusebius received all of them as a father, and like a physician helped those who had been harmed by the great siege recover, with every forethought and treatment. 12 The church in Laodicea was deemed worthy twice in a row of having such great shepherds in her succession, when by divine foresight they came there from the city of Alexandria after the said war. 13 Though Anatolius did not undertake many writings, such as have come to us allow us to perceive both his eloquence and expansive learning. In these [writings] he especially sets out what he thinks concerning the Pascha, and from them it may be necessary at present to call these [passages] to mind. from anatolius’s canons concerning the pascha 128 14 Therefore, in the first year it is at the new moon of the first month, which is the beginning of the entire nineteen-year cycle; that is, on the twenty-sixth of Phamenouth according to the Egyptian calendar, or twenty-second of Dystrus according to the Macedonian months, or, as the Romans would say, eleven days before the Kalends of April. 15 On the aforementioned twenty-sixth of Phamenouth, the sun is not only found rising in the first sector of the zodiac, but in fact is passing through the fourth day within it. They are accustomed to call this sector the first of the twelve sectors, and it lies on the equinoctial line and is the beginning of the months and the head of the cycle and the starting post of the course of the planets. The sector before this one is the end of the months and the twelfth sector and the final one of the twelve sectors and the finish of the planets’ circuit. Consequently, we assert that those who set the first month within it and take the fourteenth day for the Pascha based on it to commit an error. 16 But this is not merely our assertion. This was known to the Jews of old before Christ, and they were especially careful to observe it, and

128. On the complex details of Anatolius’s scheme for the dating of Easter, see A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

book 7

385

one can learn this from what is said by Philo, Josephus, and Musaeus, and not only from them, but also from both Agathobouli, who are even more ancient and are said to have been teachers of the excellent Aristobulus, who was counted among the seventy who translated the sacred and divine writings of the Hebrews for Ptolemy Philadelphus and his father. He also dedicated an exegetical book on the law of Moses to the same kings. 17 In the course of solving questions about Exodus, they say that it is necessary for all equally to make the paschal sacrifices after the vernal equinox, when the first month is at its midpoint. But this is observed to occur when the sun passes through the first sector of the solar, or, as some term it, the zodiacal cycle. But Aristobulus adds that, necessarily, not only the sun passes through the equinoctial line at the festival of the paschal sacrifices, but the moon as well. For because the equinoctial lines are two, the vernal and the autumnal, situated opposite one another, and because the day of the paschal sacrifices is set on the fourteenth of the month, in the evening, the moon will stand in the opposite position in relation to the sun, just as can be seen during full moons; but in this case the one, the sun, will be in the sector of the vernal equinox, and the moon will of necessity be in that of the autumnal equinox. 19 I know many other of things they say, some put forward as possibilities, others offered as formal proofs, in which they aim to establish that the festival of Pascha and and Unleavened Bread must certainly be celebrated after the vernal equinox. But I leave off demanding such material proofs from those from whom the veil that lies over the law of Moses has been removed and who finally with an unveiled face look forever upon Christ and the things of Christ as in a mirror,129 both his teachings and what he suffered. But the teachings in the book of Enoch are also indicative of the fact that the first month for the Hebrews is around the vernal equinox.130

20 And the same writer has left behind an Introduction to Arithmetic in ten complete books,131 and other examples of his diligence and great experience concerning divine matters. 21 Theotecnus, bishop of Palestinian Caesarea, first ordained him to the episcopate, and had solicited him as his own successor in the 129. Compare 2 Cor. 3.16, 18. 130. Enoch 72.6, 9, 31, 32. 131. No longer extant, but fragments of his On the Decad are preserved in Iamblichus’s Theology of Arithmetic.

386

the ecclesiastical history

same community, and, in fact, for a brief period of time both governed the same church. But, when the synod was called against Paul in Antioch, he was passing through the city of the Laodiceans and was secured by the brothers there, for Eusebius had gone to his rest. 22 And when Anatolius left this life, Stephen was set over the community there, the last of those before the persecution. He was admired by the masses for rhetoric and philosophy and the other forms of Hellenic learning, but he was not, however, similarly inclined when it came to the divine faith, as the persecution proved about him as it progressed, showing the man to be a pretender, a coward, and unmanly, rather than a true philosopher. 23 The affairs of the church, nevertheless, were not about to be upended by this man, but were immediately righted by Theodotus, who was proclaimed bishop of the community there by God himself, the Savior of all, a man who proved by his very deeds the truth of his lordly name and his episcopacy.132 He had obtained the first ranks in the knowledge of healing bodies, but in the therapy of souls there was no one better, on account of his love of humanity, genuineness, sympathy, and diligence toward those who needed his help; moreover, he was well disciplined in divine studies. Such a person, indeed, was this man. 24 In Palestinian Caesarea, after Theotecnus had diligently completed his episcopacy, Agapius became his successor.133 Him we know to have labored much and to have conducted the leadership of the people with most sincere foresight, and with a generous hand to have cared especially for the poor. 25 During his time I came to know that most intelligent man, a true philosopher in his way of life, and one who was deemed worthy of the presbyterate in that community, Pamphilus.134 What he was like and where he came from one cannot 132. Theodotus’s “lordly” name means “gift of God.” He and Eusebius were placed under a “probationary excommunication” at a synod in Antioch in January 325, before the Council of Nicaea. Arius lists both Eusebius and Theodotus among his supporters in a letter of ca. 318 (H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke III.1: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Steites [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1934–35], Urk. 1). On Theodotus’s role in the controversies of the 310s–320s, see M. DelCogliano, “The Eusebian Alliance: The Case of Theodotus of Laodicea,” ZAC/JAC 12 (2008): 250–66. 133. Agapius: Eusebius’s immediate predecessor as bishop of Caesarea. 134. Pamphilus: Eusebius’s teacher and hero (see “General Introduction”). He was executed in 16 February 309; see also Martyrs of Palestine 7.4–7; 11.1–31.

book 7

387

demonstrate in a brief reference, but each aspect of his life and the school he founded, and his struggles in different confessions during the persecution, and the crown of martyrdom he finally came to wear we have treated in a specific work about him.135 But this man was the most marvelous of those at that time. 26 But among those particular to our time we knew some who were exceptional: among the presbyters in Alexandria, Pierius,136 and Meletius, the bishop of the churches in Pontus. 27 The former was noted for his consummately abstemious life and philosophical learning, and was exceedingly well-practiced in speculative thinking and exegesis on divine matters and in discourses delivered before the common gathering of the church. Meletius, for his part (those who came from learning used to call him “the honey of Attica”), was such that one could write that he was sheer perfection when it came to discourse. Virtue in rhetoric might not be worth marveling at in itself, but this seemed to be a talent he had by nature. Who, moreover, could exceed his virtue in experience and varied learning, 28 because if you only tested him, you would say he was indeed most skilled and eloquent in respect of all rhetorical knowledge. The virtues he displayed in his life were without equal. During the time of the persecution we came to know this man as he fled throughout the regions of Palestine for a period of seven whole years. 29 In the church of Jerusalem, after the bishop Hymenaeus mentioned just above, Zabdas took up the ministry. Not long afterward he went to his rest, and Hermon, the last of those up to the time of the

135. This Life of Pamphilus is no longer extant. Jerome quotes a brief passage: “What lover of books was there who did not find a friend in Pamphilus? If he knew of any of them being in want of the necessaries of life, he helped them to the full extent of his power. He would not only lend them copies of the Holy Writings to read, but would give them most readily, and not only to men, but to women also if he saw that they were given to reading. He therefore kept a store of manuscripts so that he might be able to give them to those who wished for them whenever occasion demanded. He himself, however, wrote nothing whatever or his own, except private letters which he sent to his friends, so humble was his estimate of himself. But the treatises of the old writers he studied with the greatest diligence, and was constantly occupied in contemplation of them” (Jerome, Apology 1.9 [NPNF]). 136. Jerome (Illustrious Men 76) says that Pierius led a Christian intellectual circle in Alexandria in the early years of Diocletian’s reign, and that he was a scion of Origen.

388

the ecclesiastical history

persecution in our day, succeeded to the apostolic throne that is still now preserved there. 30 And at Alexandria, when Maximus had served as bishop eighteen years after the death of Dionysius, Theonas succeeded him. During his time, in Alexandria, Achillas was deemed worthy of the presbyterate and became well known at the same time as Pierius. He was entrusted with the school of the holy faith, for he had shown himself to be inferior to no one in his most exceptional work in philosophy and the genuine manner of his mode of living according to the gospel. But after Theonas had served nineteen years, Peter succeeded to the episcopacy of those in Alexandria. Among them he distinguished himself for twelve whole years; he led the church not all of three years before the persecution, while the rest of his life he committed himself to vigorous asceticism and was not inconspicuous in his concern for the common aid of the churches. Because of this, then, in the ninth year of the persecution137 he was beheaded and was adorned with the crown of martyrdom. 32 Having outlined in these books the subject of the successions, from the birth of our Savior to the destruction of the prayerhouses, a period comprising 305 years, come, let us next undertake to make known to those who come after us, through writing, the nature and scale of the contests of those who, in our day, proved themselves men for the sake of piety.

137. 311 c.e.

Book 8

OV E RV I EW

Book 8 covers the eight-year span from the promulgation of Diocletian’s first persecuting edicts in 303 c.e. to Galerius’s cancellation of the measures in 311. Eusebius’s account here, together with Lactantius’s On the Deaths of the Persecutors, is the most important source on the Diocletianic persecution, which is also known as the Great Persecution. Eusebius’s narrative is written from the perspective of a Christian living in the diocese of Oriens—the administrative unit that in Diocletian’s empire included Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Eusebius’s own province, Palestine. Under the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian, the administrative center of Oriens was Antioch, and was under the control, first, of Diocletian’s junior colleague, or “Caesar,” Galerius, and later, after Galerius’s elevation to Augustus, Maximinus Daia. SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The Tetrarchy and Civil War Diocletian emerged from the crises of the mid-third century to become the uncontested ruler of the empire in 285 c.e. In 286 he appointed a colleague, Maximian, as co-Augustus with responsibility for the Western provinces, with Diocletian remaining the senior colleague in the East. The establishment of Western and Eastern Augusti reflected Diocletian’s concerns to ensure greater cohesion across the empire and 389

390

the ecclesiastical history

reduce the risk of usurpers. In spring 293, Diocletian went a step further, appointing Constantius I in the West as Maximian’s “Caesar,” or junior colleague, and Galerius in the East as his own. The resulting four-person structure is called the Tetrarchy, or “rule of four.” By establishing junior colleagues, Diocletian intended to ensure the stable transition of power, as each Caesar would, in theory, succeed his respective Augustus. Reality proved chaotic, for the Tetrarchy quickly devolved into rivalry and civil war. In 305, Diocletian and Maximian took the unprecedented move of retiring to private life. Galerius and Constantius were promoted as their successor Augusti, with Maximinus Daia and Severus named as their respective Caesars. This left two presumptive heirs out of the imperial succession: Maximian’s son, Maxentius, and Constantius’s son, Constantine. When Constantius died in the summer of 306, his troops acclaimed Constantine Augustus. By 307, Maxentius had made quick work of Severus and taken control of Italy and North Africa, while Constantine had consolidated his power in Britain, Gaul, and Spain. The final conflict between Constantine and Maxentius occurred in 312 c.e., just outside Rome at the Milvian Bridge. Here, Eusebius presents a short account of Constantius’s death, Constantine’s rise to power, and his victory over Maxentius (8.13.12–14.6). In keeping with his thematic distinction between good (i.e., Christian-friendly) emperors and wicked (i.e., persecuting) emperors, Eusebius casts the civil war between Constantine and Maxentius as a conflict between piety and tyranny. The reality was more nuanced, and Eusebius’s account is one of many versions of events. For an excellent study of the ways in which the “Battle of the Milvian Bridge” and Constantine’s war with Licinius were imagined in the fourth century, see R. Van Dam, Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Meanwhile, in the East, Licinius had taken control of Galerius’s territory after Galerius’s death in 311. Licinius allied himself with Constantine in 313, and was then attacked by Maximinus. Licinius was victorious, and by the end of summer 313, Constantine was sole ruler in the West and Licinius in the East. Their alliance was strained for the next decade, and the final conflict came in September 324, when Constantine’s son Crispus defeated Licinius’s forces at the Battle of Chrysopolis. Eusebius’s recounts this at the conclusion of book 10, where he presents a prevaricating account of Licinius as another tyrannical persecutor.

book 8

391

The Persecution and the Persecuting Edicts The two crucial sources on the causes and implementation of the Diocletanic persecution—Eusebius and Lactantius—are highly stylized, polemical narratives. Both were written after the demise of Galerius, Diocletian, Maxentius, and Maximinus, in the context of Constantine’s and Licinius’s consolidation of power in the aftermath of the Tetrarchic civil wars. They reflect a strong desire to portray the persecutors as tyrants, Constantine and Licinius as liberators, and the persecution as part of God’s divine plan. Eusebius asserts that the cause of the persecution was the conceit, laziness, and internecine conflicts of Christians themselves (8.1.7). Persecution was allowed by God as chastisement for Christian failings, and so that the deaths of the persecuting tyrants could provide proof of God’s providence, just as God had used foreign empires to chastise Israel (8.1.7–9, quoting Lamentations and Psalms). Lactantius (Deaths 10–15) blames the persecution on Diocletian’s timidity and superstition and the influence of the rabid and tyrannical Galerius. According to him, Galerius’s mother was irritated by her Christian slaves and servants, and wheedled her son into persecuting them. While Galerius and Diocletian spent the winter of 302/3 in Nicomedia, Galerius orchestrated an anti-Christian policy, against Diocletian’s sentiments. Based on Eusebius’s account here, his Martyrs of Palestine, and Lactantius’s Deaths of the Persecutors, we can see that the persecution of 303–11 was effected through several successive measures, not a single order.1 The first decree can be dated to 23 February 303. It ordered the demolition/confiscation of Christian buildings and property and the burning of Christian books. Christians who did not recant were deprived of social rank, which made them subject to torture and other gruesome forms of execution, while Christian freedmen in the imperial household were reduced to slavery (Deaths 13.1; HE 8.5.1). Later in 303, another order commanded the arrest of bishops and other clergy, and required them to sacrifice (HE 8.2.5). Upon the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of Diocletian’s reign in November, clemency

1. This summary follows the account of T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), which remains the received interpretation of the evidence.

392

the ecclesiastical history

was granted to those in prison, if they sacrificed; according to Eusebius, many were forced to do so or were falsely said to have done so (HE 8.3.1–4). Finally, Eusebius says that in early 304 a decree was sent ordering all inhabitants of the cities in the East to offer sacrifice (Martyrs 3.1). The reasons behind the persecution continue to be debated. Recent scholarship emphasizes the importance of competing political philosophies and theologies. Hellene traditionalists often saw Christianity as a kind of cultural miscegenation (see, e.g., Porphyry’s comments on Origen in book 6). Some also viewed Christians as a polluted and polluting people, the presence of whom jeopardized the favor of the gods toward the empire and the cities of the empire (see, e.g., Tyre’s petition to Maximinus Daia in book 9). Oracles and those interested in oracles (priests and Platonists interested in theurgy, for example) also seem to have been important anti-Christian constituents. Oracles of Apollo are mentioned prominently as contributing to persecutory fervor (see, e.g., VC 2.50; HE 9.2.1–3.1; Deaths 11.6–8). On the ideological causes of the Diocletianic persecution, see E. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the Great Persecution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012); on the cultural politics, see J. Schott, Christanity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

•

•

Eusebius (see the bibliography) — Martyrs of Palestine — Life of Constantine Lactantius — On the Deaths of the Persecutors, esp. 7–35; English translation: J. L. Creed, De mortibus persecutorum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984) — Divine Institutes, esp. 5.2.1–17; English translation: A. Bowen and P. Garnsey, Lactantius: Divine Institutes (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003) Acts of Felix (an account of the enforcement of the decree of February 303 in Roman Africa; noteworthy for its account of the confiscation of Christian books); English translation: M. Tilley,

book 8

•

•

393

Donatist Martyr Stories (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996), 7–11 Origo Constantini (Origin of Constantine), esp. 1–4; English translation: J. Stevenson, in S. Lieu and D. Montserrat, eds., From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views (London: Routledge, 1996), 39-62 Zosimus, New History (see esp. 2.4–7, where Zosimus blames the collapse of the empire in large part on the neglect of traditional rites from the reign of Diocletian onward, and quotes a Sibylline oracle)

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 8

On the state of things before the persecution against us On the demolition of the churches On the kind of contests fought during the persecution On the famous martyrs of God, that they filled every place with their memory, donning well-made crowns on behalf of piety On those in Nicomedia On those in the imperial households On the Egyptians in Phoenicia On those in Egypt On those in the Thebaid Written accounts from the martyr Phileas on what happened in Alexandria On those in Phrygia On the many other men and women who fought various contests On the presidents of the church who demonstrated with their own blood the authenticity of the faith whose ambassadors they were On what the enemies of piety were like On what happened to those outside [the church] On the change of things for the better On the palinode of the rulers 394

book 8

395

[ P R O O I M IO N ]

Having delineated the succession of the apostles in seven full books, in this eighth composition we think it a matter of the utmost necessity to transmit the affairs of our own time—which merit no trifling written account—for the knowledge of those who come after us. Our discourse begins here. O N T H E S TAT E O F T H I N G S B E F O R E T H E P E R SE C U T IO N AG A I N ST U S

chapter 1. Before the persecution in our day, the doctrine of piety toward the God of the Universe that was proclaimed to [human] life through Christ was deemed worthy of honor and liberal hearing by all people, both Hellenes and barbarians, to a degree and character greater than we can deservingly describe. 2 But the gestures made by those in power toward our people offer some indication [of this], for they even selected them for governorships over the provinces,2 and, on account of the great friendship they maintained toward the doctrine, relieved them of their worries about sacrificing. 3 Is it even necessary to mention those of the imperial household and, above all, the rulers? They allowed their household—wives, children, and domestics—to be boldly open about the Divine in their presence, in both word and their way of life, all but permitting them to pride themselves on the candidness of the faith. They even considered them particularly and especially favored among their fellow servants. 4 Such was that man Dorotheus, whom they considered the kindest and most trustworthy of them all, and who was for this reason exceptionally well-regarded, even more so than those who held positions of authority and governorships. And along with him, Gorgionius was also renowned, and all those likewise deemed worthy by the rulers of the same honor on account of the doctrine of God.3 5 What favor was granted by all procurators and governors to those ruling each church! How could anyone describe those thousand-man meetings, the crowds of people gathering en masse in every city, and the

2. Ethnē can mean “provinces,” as here, or “Gentiles.” 3. Or “the Logos of God.”

396

the ecclesiastical history

remarkable crowding in the prayerhouses? Indeed, because of this they were not satisfied any longer with the old buildings, and built expansive churches from the ground up in the open spaces throughout all the cities. 6 The state of affairs proceeded with the times, granting growth and strength daily, and no one caused envy, no vile demon could work its sorcery or hinder humanity with its plots, as long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded its own people—for [the people] was indeed worthy. O N T H E D E M O L I T IO N O F T H E C H U R C H E S

7 But then, when with increased liberty we turned conceited and lazy and we came to envy and abuse one another, as one might put it, all but making war upon our very selves with words as our weapons and spears, and rulers clashed with rulers, peoples revolted against peoples,4 and unspeakable hypocrisy and pretense advanced to the most vile extent, then did divine judgment exert its oversight gently and moderately, as it saw fit to do given that the assemblies were still crowded, with the persecution beginning among the brothers in the armies.5 8 But when we were so senseless that we did not take it to heart to make the Divine kind and merciful, but like some atheists thought our affairs went unheeded and without [providential] oversight,6 we piled evil upon evil, and those who seemed to be our shepherds set aside the rule of piety and burned with rivalry against one another. In fact that is all they were doing—multiplying quarrels, threats, jealousy, hatred, and enmity against one another, and asserting themselves ardently like tyrants who love power. Then, then indeed, according to the utterance of Jeremiah did “the Lord in his anger darken daughter Israel and cast down from heaven the glory of Israel, and he did not remember the footstool for his feet on the day of his anger.”7 9 And according to what is predicted in Psalms, the “Lord

4. I.e., bishops vs. bishops and church vs. church. 5. The purge of the army dates to 299 c.e. Compare Deaths 10. 6. In antiquity, an “atheist” denied providence and/or the interest of the gods in human affairs. 7. Lam. 2:1–2.

book 8

397

broke off the covenant with his slave and laid his holy place profane upon the ground” by the destruction of the churches, and “destroyed all its fences; he made his fortress into a coward. All those who passed along the road despoiled the multitude of the people, and in addition, it became an object of their neighbors’ rebuke. For he raised up the right hand of their enemies and turned away the aid of his sword, and he did not take up the battle. Instead he abandoned purification and cast his throne upon the ground, and shortened the days of his time, and, in addition, covered it with disgrace.”8 chapter 2. All this did indeed occur in our day, when we saw with our own eyes buildings containing the places of prayer smashed from their roofs down to their very foundations, and the inspired and sacred writings thrown into fires in the middle of the agoras, and the shepherds of the churches, some shamefully hiding out here and there, others humiliatingly captured and mocked by the enemies; when, according to another prophetic statement, “he poured contempt upon the leaders, and he led them into impassable, trackless places.”9 2 But their sorry ultimate misfortunes are not ours to describe, since it is also not our place to commit to collective memory their dissensions and untoward behavior with each other before the persecution. For this reason we have decided to recount nothing more about them than that for which we came to merit divine judgment. 3 Therefore, we have been led not to make a record of those who were subjected to trials by the persecution, but who completely shipwrecked their salvation and by their own decision were thrown under the depths of the waves. We will set down in this general account10 only those things that may be useful, to ourselves first, and then to those who come after us. Let us proceed, then, and at this point provide an epitomized description of the sacred struggles of the martyrs of the Divine Logos.

8. Ps. 89:40; 89:39–45; Eusebius reads these as prophecies of persecution in his own time. 9. Ps. 107.40. 10. Historia katholou: a “general” account of the whole story of the church; a “universal” account rather than a narrative about a specific time and place.

398

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E K I N D O F C O N T E ST S F OU G H T DU R I N G T H E P E R SE C U T IO N

4 It was the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, the month of Dystrus, which would be termed March among the Romans, as the festival of the salvific Passion was approaching,11 when imperial letters were sent everywhere ordering the churches smashed to the ground, the writings destroyed by fire, and publicly proclaiming that those with status be stripped of status and the members of the [imperial] households, if they persisted in being disposed to Christianity, be deprived of liberty.12 5 Such was the first document against us. But not long after we were visited by other letters that ordered all the presidents of the churches in every place first be put in prison and then, later, that they be compelled by every machination to sacrifice. chapter 3. Then indeed, many of those governing the churches eagerly contested with dreadful sufferings and provided stories of great struggle, while myriad others, their souls numbed by fear, easily became feeble in the first battle. But of the former each underwent different forms of torture—the body of one was abused by scourging, another was tortured by stretching and unbearable scrapings, during which some, indeed, met an unjust end to their lives. Still others endured the contest in other ways. 2 One, after being pushed along by the force of others who led him to the utterly polluted and unholy sacrifices, was set free as though he had sacrificed, even though he had not sacrificed. Another, who did not approach or touch any accursed thing at all, left bearing the false accusation in silence because others claimed he had sacrificed. Another, who was half-dead, was picked up and tossed out as though he was already dead, 3 and another still, who was lying on the ground and dragged a long way by the feet, was considered to have been among those who had sacrificed. One called out and testified in a loud voice his refusal to sacrifice, and another shouted that he was a Christian, making himself shine with the confession of the salvific appellation. Another maintained that he had not

11. Deaths 12 gives the date precisely as 23 February 303. The letters arrived in Caesarea shortly afterward, where the governor would have posted the orders publicly. 12. On the sequence of ordinances, see the overview above.

book 8

399

sacrificed and would never sacrifice. 4 Nevertheless, their mouths were struck and silenced by the many hands of the military unit assigned for this, and having been struck on the face and cheeks, they were pushed out by force.13 Thus, the enemies of the fear of god considered the appearance of having succeeded in forcing many [to sacrifice] to be the most important thing. But to do this against the holy martyrs was not enough for them. What account of ours is up to the task of accurately describing it? O N T H E FA M OU S M A RT Y R S O F G O D, T HAT T H EY F I L L E D EV E RY P L AC E W I T H T H E I R M E M O RY, D O N N I N G W E L L - M A D E C R OW N S O N B E HA L F O F P I E T Y

chapter 4. One might recount the myriads who demonstrated amazing determination on behalf of piety for the God of the Universe, not only when the persecution was set in motion against everyone, but much earlier, when the state of peace still held sway. 2 For then, at that time, he who had received authority14 was as though first stirring from a deep sleep (he had been secretly and invisibly attacking the churches in the interval after Decius and Valerian, but was not readying himself for the war against us all at once) and was at that point making an attempt only on those in the military camps. By this [stratagem] he thought the rest would be easily conquered; that is, if he first prevailed in contests with [the soldiers]. At that time one saw many in the armies most happily opting for private life, so as not to become deniers of their piety concerning the demiurge of the universe.15 3 For when the military commander, whoever he was at that time,16 was first venturing to persecute the armies, picking out and purging those in the camps who were brought forward, he gave them the option either 13. I.e., pushed out of the place of judgment as though they had denied and sacrificed. 14. The phrase is multivalent: it refers to the Adversary/Devil, who has been quiet during the peaceful period between the mid-third-century persecutions and Diocletian, but it also hints at the emperor, as the Adversary’s agent. 15. In Eusebius’s theology, the demiurge, or “maker” of the universe was identified with the Son/Logos. 16. “Veturius” according to the Chron.

400

the ecclesiastical history

to obey those in command and enjoy the rank they held, or the opposite, to be deprived of it if they disobeyed the order, and many who were soldiers of the kingdom of Christ, unambiguously and without having to think it over, preferred confessing him over the seeming honor and success they had. 4 And already one or two of them were occasionally not only stripped of their honors, but even got death for their pious obstinacy— for at that point the one putting the plan into effect was doing so only in a measured way, and dared go for blood only in some cases.17 It was likely that he feared the multitude of the faithful and was anxious about launching himself all at once into the war against us. But once he had stripped for combat more openly, there are no words capable of describing the number and character of the martyrs of God that those living in every city and rural district could see with their own eyes. O N T HO SE I N N IC OM E D IA

chapter 5. Immediately, as soon as the document directed against us had been posted in Nicomedia, someone who was not an unknown, but respected for what are held to be the highest honors in this life, moved by zeal for God and motivated by a burning faith, pulled it down and ripped it up in an open, public place, destroying it as something unholy and most impious. He did this when two emperors were present in the said city—the one who was most senior and the one who governed in fourth place after him.18 This man was the first to distinguish himself in this way, and straightaway he endured what was fitting for such daring, and maintained himself unshaken and unflappable to his final breath.19 O N T HO SE I N T H E I M P E R IA L HOU SE HO L D S

chapter 6. [As the equals] of all who have ever been praised in song as wondrous and famous for manly courage, whether by Hel17. Lactantius (Deaths 10) agrees that the punishment was limited to being cashiered from the army. 18. Diocletian and Galerius. 19. Compare Deaths 13.

book 8

401

lenes or barbarians, this period brought forth the divine and distinguished martyr Dorotheus and the slave boys of the imperial household associated with him. They had been deemed worthy of the highest honor by their masters, who did not stop even at treating them like legitimate children. They, in truth, considered the reproaches, pains, and the newly invented and manifold forms of torture they suffered on behalf of piety to be greater riches than the glory and sustenance of this life. By remembering how one of them met the end of this life we will let readers contemplate what befell the others from his example. 2 One was led through the middle of the aforementioned city20 before the aforementioned rulers. He was then, of course, ordered to sacrifice, and since he refused it was ordered that he be strung up naked and his whole body beaten with scourges until he gave in and did what was ordered, involuntarily. 3 But since he remained undeterred while suffering this, they went on to pour vinegar mixed with salt on his body’s torn limbs, where the bones were already showing. But since he dismissed these pains, too, they brought in a brazier and fire and what remained of his body was destroyed by cooking it like dinner meat—not all at once, in case release [from the pain] came too abruptly, but little by little. Those putting him to the fire were not allowed to stop unless he consented under such awful torture to what had been ordered. 4 But he held tight to his resolve, and handed over his soul during these tortures, as a victor. Such was the martyrdom of one of the imperial slave-boys, who was also truly worthy of his name, for he was called Peter.21 5 We will pass over the matters relating to the rest, out of concern for the length of our discourse, not because they are inferior, and recount that Dorotheus and Gorgonius, along with many others from the imperial household departed this life by strangling, after enduring a great variety of contests, and carried off the prize of god-inspired victory. 6 At this time, Anthimus, who was at that time presiding over the church in Nicomedia, was beheaded for testifying to Christ. And a whole multitude of martyrs were added with him, when in those days, 20. I.e., Nicomedia. 21. “Peter” (Gk. petros) means “rock”; i.e., like the apostle Peter, he was solid like a rock.

402

the ecclesiastical history

I know not how, fires broke out in the imperial buildings in Nicomedia, and word spread claiming on false suspicion that it had been done by our people.22 Masses of the whole race of the god-fearing people in that city were killed by imperial nod. Some were slaughtered by the sword, others died by fire, and word has it men and women alike leapt with a divine and ineffable determination into the fire. Another multitude were bound onto skiffs, and the public executioners cast them to the depths of the sea. 7 After their death, moreover, the imperial slave-boys were laid in the earth with an appropriate funeral, but again their supposed masters dug them up once more, and thought it necessary to throw them into the sea so that none would worship them lying in tombs and, as they thought anyway, consider them to be gods.23 Such were events in Nicomedia at the beginning of the persecution. 8 Not much later, when others in the territory called Melitene and others also around the region of Syria made an attempt on the empire,24 an imperial command went out to put the presidents of the churches everywhere chained in prison. What happened after this was a sight beyond all description: everywhere a vast multitude were locked up, and the prisons everywhere, which had previously been set up to hold murderers and grave-robbers, were now full of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, readers and exorcists, and as a result there was no longer any space left for those sentenced for wrongdoing. 10 Furthermore, the first letters were quickly followed by others, in which it was ordered that those locked in prison had to sacrifice and that they be set free if they did so, but shredded by myriad tortures if they resisted. Once again how could anyone count the multitudes of martyrs there were in each region at that time, and especially those throughout Africa and the race of the Maures, the Thebaid, and throughout Egypt. From this last some also went to other cities and regions and were distinguished for their martyrdoms. 22. Compare Lactantius’s version of these events (Deaths 14–15). 23. The story claims that these officials and masters were trying to prevent the establishment of martyr cult; as in the case of parallel stories—e.g., the Martyrdom of Polycarp (4.15.4–44) and the Gallic martyrs (5.1.59)—this may reflect ambivalence on the part of Christians concerning martyr cult as much as (or rather than) historical practice. 24. Not much is known of these events. One of the usurpers was named Eugenius (Libanius, Oration 19.45).

book 8

403

O N T H E E G Y P T IA N S I N P HO E N IC IA

chapter 7. Moreover, we know of those from Egypt who shone in Palestine, and we also know those in Tyre in Phoenicia.25 Who saw them and was not struck by the innumerable lashings and the determined fear of god shown by the truly miraculous athletes as they endured them, and by the struggles against wild, man-eating beasts that followed upon the beatings—the attacks of leopards, various bears, wild pigs, and cattle prodded on by fire and irons—and the marvelous endurance of those noble ones who were faced with each of the beasts? 2 And we ourselves were there when this happened, when we observed the divine power of our Savior, indeed [the power] of Jesus Christ himself, for whom the martyrs provided testimony, to be present and revealing itself in the martyrs. For a long time the maneaters did not dare touch or even come near the bodies of the friends of god, but only went after the others who were egging them on with provocations from outside [the arena].26 Only the holy athletes, standing naked and waving their hands to draw attention to themselves (for this is what they were ordered to do), did they not attack. But even once they did go after them, they were pushed back as though by a more divine power and went away again. 3 This continued for a long time, and it was no small marvel for the spectators. And so, at length, because of the inaction of the first beast, a second and third were sent out against the same martyr. 4 The undaunted perseverance of those holy ones and the firm and unswerving determination in their young bodies were astounding. You could see a youth not all of twenty years old standing his ground without being fettered, with his hands held out in the form of a cross,27 stretched out to offer the calmest prayers to the Divine with an unflinching and undisturbed mind, and standing firm on the spot without moving or turning aside while bears and leopards breathed fury and death and almost touched his very flesh. But by divine and ineffable power, I know not how, 25. See Martyrs 11 for the Egyptians martyred in Caesarea. 26. Eusebius is probably describing the practice of reaching over a barrier to goad the animals into acting more vicious; something similar is described by Cassius Dio (History 72.18). 27. The usual prayer stance, with arms outstretched, palms up. Prisoners were often bound to make them easier targets for the beasts.

404

the ecclesiastical history

their mouths were all but muzzled, and they ran back away again. 5 Such was this man. You could see others, too (for there were five in all),28 thrown to a savage bull, which gored the others of those who were coming in from outside the arena by tossing them in the air with its horns, leaving them to be taken away half-dead, but only when he moved with threatening rage toward the holy martyrs was he unable to come near them, as he stamped his feet and shook his horns back and forth, and when he was goaded by hot irons to breath threatening fury he was drawn back again by holy providence. And because this beast would not harm them at all, other beasts were sent out against them. 6 Finally, after many terrifying attacks by these beasts, all of [the martyrs] were, after being slaughtered by the sword, committed to the waves of the sea instead of tombs in the earth. O N T HO SE I N E G Y P T

chapter 8. Such, then, was the contest of the Egyptians who put their struggles for piety on display in Tyre. One can marvel, too, at those who became martyrs in their own land, where myriad men, women, and children, disdaining life in the present endured various kinds of death for the sake of our Savior’s teaching. Some of them were put to the flame after being subjected to scrapings and stretchings, the harshest of whippings, and a myriad variety of tortures awful to hear. Others were gulped down by the sea, others boldly offered their own necks to their beheaders, still others died under torture, and others were destroyed by hunger. Others still were fixed to stakes, some in the manner used for criminals, but others, even more cruelly, were nailed head down and kept alive until they died of hunger on the scaffolds. O N T HO SE I N T H E T H E BA I D

chapter 9. But what outrages and sufferings the martyrs in the Thebaid endured are beyond all words: scraped along their entire bodies by pot shards instead of claws until the life had gone out of them;

28. Compare Martyrs 11.6.

book 8

405

women hung up by one foot and lifted into the air head down by ballistas, and their completely naked, uncovered bodies presented this most shameful, savage, and inhuman spectacle of all for [the enjoyment] of the audience.29 2 Others, moreover, died bound to trees and tree trunks. Drawing the stoutest branches together using a certain mechanism, they stretched the legs of the martyrs to each branch, then released the branches to return to their natural position, aiming to tear apart all of a sudden the limbs of those subjected to this. 3 And all of this went on not for a few days or a brief period of time, but for a long interval lasting whole years, when sometimes more than ten, sometimes more than twenty, were killed. At other times, no less than thirty, or even nearly sixty, and again at another time a hundred men, along with young children and women, were killed in a single day, sentenced to a succession of various punishments. 4 We ourselves, when we were in that region,30 saw so many executed together in one day—some enduring beheading, others punishment by fire—that the killing implement became dull, worn out, and broken, and the executioners took turns relieving each other as they tired. 5 This was also when we observed the most wonderful motivation and truly divine power and readiness on the part of those who had put their trust in God’s Christ. As soon as sentence was pronounced against the first group, others would rush up to the judge’s tribunal from every direction and confess themselves Christians, concerned not at all about the manifold forms of torture. Undaunted, they spoke boldly of piety toward the God of the Universe, and received the final pronouncement of death with joy, laughter, and gladness. And so until their last breath they offered psalms and hymns to the God of the Universe. 6 These [martyrs] were wondrous, but those were especially wondrous who were distinguished in wealth, birth, and honor, in eloquence and philosophy, but who nonetheless put it all second to the true piety and trust in our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. Such was Philoromus, who had been appointed to no happenstance office in the

29. Note how Eusebius contrasts (and blurs) two different ways of viewing the same events: taking passionate pleasure in the spectacles vs. contemplation of the martyrs’ awe-inspiring demonstrations of piety. 30. See Epiphanius, Panarion 68.8.3–4 for the rumor that Eusebius had been imprisoned in Egypt and capitulated to the persecutors.

406

the ecclesiastical history

imperial administration in Alexandria, and who each day sat in judgment, invested with Roman dignity and rank, attended by a military bodyguard. And Phileas, bishop of the church of the Thmuites, a man distinguished in his fatherland for his offices and public service, and for his discourses on philosophy. 8 Though myriads of both their blood relatives and other friends entreated them, and those who held high-ranking offices did so as well, and though the judge himself begged them to take mercy on themselves and spare their children and wives, they were not at all swayed by such pleas to cling to life, or led to despise our Savior’s ordinances about confession and denial.31 With a manly and philosophical mind, or rather with a pious and godloving soul, they stood fast against all the judge’s threats and humiliations, and both were beheaded. W R I T T E N AC C OU N T S F R OM T H E M A RT Y R P H I L E A S O N W HAT HA P P E N E D I N A L E X A N D R IA

chapter 10. But since we said that Phileas was greatly esteemed for outside learning,32 let him come forward as his own witness, as he indicates who he was and, at the same time, recounts more accurately than we can the martyrdoms that occurred in Alexandria during his time, in these passages: from the letters of phileas to the thmuites 33 2 Given all of these examples, inscriptions, and fine tokens that have been set down for us in the divine and sacred writings,34 our blessed martyrs did not hesitate in any way; keeping the eye of the soul fixed purely on the God who is above all, and keeping death on behalf of piety set in their minds, they held fast to the call, knowing that our Lord Jesus Christ had become human for our sake, in order that he 31. Perhaps Eusebius has in mind passages such as Matt. 10:32 ff. and Luke 12:8 ff. 32. Exōthen mathēmata: learning “outside” the Christian tradition; i.e., “Hellenic” learning. Eusebius is saying that since Phileas is a skilled writer and rhetor, he should be allowed to “speak for himself.” 33. Phileas’s account of the martyrs is recorded in a letter, like the Martyrdom of Polycarp (book 4) and the Gallic martyrs (book 5). 34. The preceding portion of the letter may have adduced a series of biblical proof texts.

book 8

407

might cut off all sin and present us means for entry into eternal life. For he did not consider being equal to God the prize to be sought, but emptied himself, taking on the figure of a slave, and being found to be like a human being in form, he humbled himself to the point of death, death on the cross.35 3 On account of this, the Christ-bearing martyrs, zealous for greater rewards, endured every pain and every sort of torture not once, but some even a second time. And though the soldiers of the governor’s guard competed with each other in threatening them, not only with words but with actions, they did not abandon their resolve, because “perfect love casts out fear.”36 4 What account would suffice to catalogue their virtue and their manly courage during each torture? For when leave was given to mock them in whatever way anyone wished, some struck them with wooden clubs, others with sticks, others with whips, and still others with leather straps, others with ropes. 5 The spectacle of these tortures was perverse and full of great evil. Some had their hands tied behind them to wooden stakes, and with certain mechanisms each of their limbs was stretched. Then, when commanded, the torturers went to work on their whole bodies, not only punishing their sides with implements, as murderers are punished, but also their stomachs, legs, and cheeks. Others were tied to the stoa by one hand and lifted up and experienced the most horrible of all suffering in the tension in their joints and limbs. Still others were tied to pillars facing outward, with their feet unable to touch the ground, and the bindings became increasingly tight with the weight of their bodies. 6 They endured this not just when the governor was questioning and examining them, but throughout almost the whole day. For when he moved on to others, he left subordinates under his authority to stay and watch the previous ones, in case anyone, having been weakened by the tortures, seemed to give in. And he mercilessly ordered them to cinch the bonds, and after they released their souls, he put them on the ground to be dragged away. 7 They had not the least bit of concern for us, but acted as if we no longer existed—such was this second torture on top of the beatings. 8 But some were also placed on the rack after being tortured, stretched by both feet out to the fourth hole, as they were also forced to lie on their backs on the rack, even though they could not [lie down on it] because they had such a rash of wounds over their whole bodies from the beatings. Others were tossed on the ground, overcome by the 35. The preceding sentences echo creedal formulas and Phil. 2:8. 36. 1 John 4:18.

408

the ecclesiastical history

full onslaught of these tortures, proving onlookers with a sight more horrible than the actual torture, for they bore on their bodies the signs of various and diverse tortures. 9 Under these circumstances, some died during the tortures, putting the adversary to shame with their perseverance, while others were locked up in prison half-dead and died not many days later after succumbing to their wounds. The rest recovered with medical treatment, and with time and the stay in prison became even bolder. 10 And so, when ordered and given the option either to approach the polluted sacrifices and then be left alone, and by doing [the sacrifices] obtain an accursed liberty, or not to sacrifice and receive the death sentence, they did not hesitate at all, and went off to death joyfully. For they knew what was prescribed for us by the sacred writings; it says, “He who sacrifices to other gods shall be completely destroyed,” and “You will have no other gods besides me.”37

11 Such are his words—he who was at once both philosopher and godbeloved martyr—which he sent to the brothers of his community before his final sentence was pronounced and he was still in prison. He both refers to the situation he was in and urges them to hold fast to the fear of god in Christ, even after his death.38 12 But what need is there to speak volumes and mention novel contest after novel contest of the God-approved martyrs throughout the inhabited world, especially those who were no longer being attacked according to the standards of law, but as though in a war? O N T HO SE I N P H RYG IA

chapter 11. For instance, soldiers surrounded a whole town in Phrygia that to a man was full of Christians, put it to the flame, and burned them along with their children and women as they cried out to the God who is over all. In fact, the whole populace living in the city, the logistēs himself and the strategoi and those in power and the whole populace confessed themselves Christians, refusing to be swayed by those who ordered them to worship idols.39

37. Exod. 22:20; 20:3. 38. Eusebius summarizes the hortatory portion of the letter that he has not quoted. 39. Logistēs: the chief magistrate of a city; strategoi: municipal officials under him. The point is that the entire population, the governing class and the people, defies the soldiers.

book 8

409

2 And another man who had received Roman rank, Adauctus by name, who was from a renowned family in Italy and who had passed through the whole cursus honorem under the emperors until he blamelessly held the empire-wide offices they call magister and catholikos,40 and in addition to this was distinguished for uprightness in the fear of god and for his confessions of God’s Christ, was adorned with the diadem of martyrdom, enduring the contest on behalf of piety while serving as catholikos. O N T H E M A N Y O T H E R M E N A N D WOM E N W HO F OU G H T VA R IOU S C O N T E ST S

chapter 12. What need is there for me now to mention the rest by name, or to paint a portrait of the multiform tortures of the wondrous martyrs, who sometimes died by the axe, as happened to those in Arabia, sometimes had their legs broken, as befell those in Cappadocia, at other times were strung upside down by their feet and suffocated by the wood smoke of a weak fire, such as was applied to those in Mesopotamia, and at still other times had their noses, ears, and hands cut off and the remaining limbs and body parts butchered like meat, as happened in Alexandria? 2 Must we rekindle the memory of those in Antioch who were roasted on grills, not to kill them but to exact great vengeance, and of others who readily placed their right hands into the fire itself rather than touch the polluted sacrifice? Some who fled the trial threw themselves down from the top of high buildings when they fell into the hands of those who had designs on them, offering their death as spoils for the hatred of the impious. 3 There was another person holy and amazing in respect of the virtue of the soul, but in body a woman, and who in Antioch was well spoken of by everyone for her wealth, birth, and reputation. She had raised a pair of virgin girls41 who were beautiful by virtue of the age and flower of their bodies. When great malice rose up against them, it did everything 40. I.e., “the Romans call them”; catholikos: chief finance officer of an imperial diocese. 41. Perhaps an earlier version of the stories of Domnina, Bernice, and Prosdoce, recounted in a sermon by John Chrysostom (PG 50:629–40).

410

the ecclesiastical history

to find out where they were hiding, and when [malice] learned they were residing elsewhere, it slyly called them back to Antioch, and they were caught in the city by a dragnet of soldiers. Seeing that she and her daughters were in an impossible situation, she gave a speech42 laying out the horrible things people had in store for them, and [noted] the most intolerable of all the horrors—the threat of fornication—and exhorted herself and the maidens that they must not even ensure this with their ears. She also said that giving their souls over to servitude under demons was worse than any death and all perdition. She posited a single escape from all of this—refuge in the Lord. 4 Once they had agreed to this resolution and had clothed their bodies beautifully with garments they asked the guards, as they were in the midst of being led down the road, to leave them alone briefly. Then they threw themselves into the river that was flowing nearby. 5 These women, then, [took care of] themselves.43 But another pair of virgins in the same city of Antioch, fit for God in all things and literally sisters, and who were of a renowned family, illustrious for their way of life, young in years, with bodies in the bloom of youth, having august souls, pious in their manner, and amazing in their diligence—these the servants of the demons ordered thrown into the sea, as though the earth could not bear holding women as good as they. Such is [the tradition] about them. 6 Others, in Pontus, suffered things horrible to hear. Some had the fingers of both hands pierced with sharp reeds under their nails, and others were laid on their backs while lead was melted in the fire and then the frothing molten material was poured in them, and the most significant parts of their bodies burned. 7 Others endured in their unseen organs and innards things too shameful and merciless for words, through which the noble and law-abiding judges manifested their horridness, as if it was virtuous wisdom. They competed with each other to think up ever more innovative and newly devised tortures, as though trying to beat each other out for the prize in an athletic contest. 8 The end to the suffering came when they wearied of their excessive wickedness and tired of killing. Having had a sufficient fill of bloodletting, they turned to what they considered kind and 42. Eusebius’s vocabulary portrays her as delivering a formal piece of public oratory. 43. There is no verb in the original.

book 8

411

humane so that they would no longer seem to be overly concerned about acting horribly toward us. 9 For they said it was not right to pollute the cities with the blood of people of their own race and to debase the supreme authority of the rulers—which was kind and gentle toward all—with cruelty, but rather to extend the goodwill of philanthropic and imperial power to all, and no longer apply the death sentence, and that they were ceasing using this punishment against us on account of the philanthropy of those in power. 10 At this point, they gave orders to gouge their eyes out and maim one of their legs. Such was their philanthropy and the mild punishment they gave us. As a result, thanks to the philanthropy of the impious it was no longer possible to describe the multitude of those who, first, had their right eyes gouged out with a sword and cauterized, then their left feet hobbled, again by applying fire to the ankle, and after this were condemned to the copper mines in the province—not to serve as workers, but to be subject to abuse and forced labor.44 And on top of all this some were subjected to other contests which it is impossible to catalogue, for their noble, manly courage is victorious over all words. 11 In this period the magnificent martyrs of Christ did indeed shine throughout the whole inhabited world, and of course, astounded those everywhere with the spectacles of their manly courage, and through themselves presented clear evidence of the divine and truly ineffable power of our Savior. It would take too long to recall each of them by name; no, it would be impossible. O N T H E P R E SI D E N T S O F T H E C H U R C H W HO D E M O N S T R AT E D W I T H T H E I R OW N B L O O D T H E AU T H E N T IC I T Y O F T H E FA I T H W HO SE A M BA S S A D O R S T H EY W E R E

chapter 13. Of those ecclesiastical leaders in distinguished cities who became martyrs, let the first martyr we publicize on the plaques

44. On Roman mines and the condemnation of criminals to forced labor, see D. Mattingly, “Metals and Metalla: A Roman Copper-Mining Landscape in the Wadi Faynan, Jordan,” in Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 167–200. Eusebius had visited the mines at Phaeno to meet with Christian confessors (Martyrs 13).

412

the ecclesiastical history

that record those who were pious for the kingdom of Christ be the bishop of the city of the Nicomedians, Anthimus, who was beheaded, 2 and of the martyrs in Antioch, that man who was best in all aspects of his life, and a presbyter of the community there, Lucian,45 who in Nicomedia appeared in person before the emperor, and proclaimed the heavenly kingdom of Christ, first in word with an apology, then in the very deed [i.e., of his death]. 3 Of the martyrs in Phoenicia, the most renowned would be those shepherds of the Christ’s rational flocks, who were beloved by God in all things, Tyrannius, the bishop of the church in Tyre, and Zenobius, presbyter of the one in Sidon, and also Silvanus, bishop of the churches around Emesa. 4 He became food for beasts along with others in the said city of Emesa, and was taken up into the choruses of the martyrs, while the others, in Antioch, glorified the Logos of God by enduring even unto death—the former, the bishop, was thrown into the depths of the sea; Zenobius, the best of physicians, died by being steadfast under torture as his flanks were scraped. 5 Of the martyrs in Palestine, Silvanus, bishop of the churches around Gaza, was beheaded at the copper mines in Phaeno, along with others numbering forty less one. There, too, the Egyptian bishops Peleus and Nilus along with others endured death by fire. 6 And among these let us mention him who was the great fame of the Caesarean community, the presbyter Pamphilus, the most amazing of those in our day, the virtue of whose manly, noble courage we will record in writing at the requisite moment.46 7 Of those in Alexandria and throughout the whole of Egypt and the Thebaid who died nobly, let Peter, bishop of Alexandria itself, a divine treasure among teachers of the fear of God in Christ, be the first written down, and of those presbyters with him Faustus, Dius, and Ammonius, perfect martyrs of Christ, and Phileas, Hesychius, Pachumius, and Theodorus, bishops of the churches in Egypt, and myriad 45. Lucian of Antioch (see 9.6.3) was the master of a circle of Christian intellectuals in Antioch. In a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius refers to him as a “fellow Lucianist” (Opitz, Urk. 1). Other students of Lucian (e.g., Maris of Chalcedon, Asterius, and Theognis of Nicaea) were important allies of Eusebius of Nicomedia against Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and others in the years before and after the Council of Nicaea. 46. On Silvanus, Peleus, and Nilus, see Martyrs 7, 13. For Pamphilus’s martyrdom, see Martyrs 11.

book 8

413

others who were distinguished along with them, and who are remembered by the inhabitants of their respective regions and places. To put in writing the contests fought by those throughout the whole inhabited world on behalf of piety for the Divine and to recount accurately each detail of what befell them is not for us, but should be the proper task of those who saw them with their own eyes. For those for which I myself was present, however, I will make them known to those who come after us with another writing. 8 In the present discourse, however, I will attach to what has already been said [about the persecution] the recantation of those who perpetrated it against us, and what occurred from the beginning of the persecution, as it is most useful for readers. O N W HAT T H E E N E M I E S O F PIETY WERE LIKE

9 Now, then, what discourse would be enough to describe how before the war against us, the affairs of the Roman Empire, at least during the times when the rulers were friendly and peaceful toward us, were deemed worthy of such a fertile bounty of good? And when the principal rulers of the whole [empire] celebrated their tenth and twentieth anniversaries, they did so with holidays and public festivals, joyous, cheerful, and happy celebrations with peace and tranquility. 10 But as their authority increased and progressed daily, without impediment, they suddenly took peace away from us, and raised an unsanctified47 war. But before the second year of what they had put in motion was finished, and something totally revolutionary happened in the imperium, everything was put in disarray. 11 When an inauspicious illness struck him who was the most senior of the aforementioned [rulers], and it was already making his mental faculties swoon, he, together with him who was honored as second in rank, resumed common, private life. But this had barely happened when the whole of the imperium was split in two, something that had never happened in recorded memory. 12 But after a short time, Emperor Constantius, upright in all aspects of his life, most favorable to his subjects, and most friendly to the 47. Aspondon: a war undertaken without making the requisite offerings to the gods and thus “illegal.”

414

the ecclesiastical history

Divine Logos, ended his life according to the common law of nature, leaving his legitimate son Constantine in his place as emperor and Augustus, and became the first among [his colleagues] to be declared among the gods, and deemed worthy of every honor that could be due an emperor after death, being most kind and gentle among emperors. 13 He was, indeed, the only one of those in our day who completed the whole period of his reign in a manner worthy of imperium, and furthermore, presented himself to everyone as most gracious and concerned for the public good, and he did not in any way participate in the war against us. Rather, the god-fearing under him he kept free from harm and molestation, and did not demolish the buildings belonging to the churches, nor devise any innovative measures against us. He received an end to his life that was happy and thrice blessed; alone bounteous and glorious during his reign, he died leaving as his successor a legitimate son who is most wise and pious in all respects. 14 His child, Constantine, began ruling immediately, having been proclaimed most perfect emperor and Augustus by the soldiers even as long before he had been by God himself, the absolute monarch, and established himself as a zealous emulator of his father’s piety toward our doctrine. That was the kind of man he was. Licinius, moreover, was at this time named emperor and Augustus by the joint decision of the rulers. 15 All of this vexed Maximinus horribly, who was still only termed Caesar by all [the imperial colleagues]. He, then, being especially tyrannical, stole the honor for himself and named himself Augustus. At this time, he who had resumed office after abdicating, as was indicated above, was caught stitching together a death plot against Constantine, and was undone by a most shameful death.48 He was the first to have his honorary inscriptions, statues, and everything such as is customarily erected demolished, as an unholy and most impious man. chapter 14. His child, Maxentius,49 who set himself up as tyrant in Rome, began by feigning our faith to ingratiate and flatter the Roman people, and for this purpose ordered his subjects to cease the persecu48. Maximian who had abdicated along with Diocletian in 305. Compare Deaths 26–29 and Pan. Lat. VI. 49. Compare 8.14.1–6 with Pan. Lat. XII, an oration in honor of Constantine delivered in 313 that likewise portrays Maxentius as tyrant.

book 8

415

tion against the Christians, faking piety so as to appear kind and much gentler in comparison to his predecessors. 2 But this man, through his deeds, has shown himself to be not such as he was hoped to be, having steered his course toward everything unholy. Not a single deed full of pollution and licentiousness has he set aside, bringing about adulteries and all sorts of corruption. He would, in fact, separate legally married wives from their husbands, shame them with the greatest dishonor, and send them back again to their husbands, and he deliberately did this not to men insignificant or inconspicuous, but particularly to the most prominent of the men who held first rank in the Roman Senate. 3 Cringing in fear of him, the people and the leaders, those with status and those without, all were exhausted by the awful tyranny, and even though they remained quiet and bore the bitter servitude, there was nevertheless no relief from the tyrant’s murderous savagery. Once, in fact, on some small pretext he handed the populace over to his personal guard to be killed, and they killed a myriad multitude of the Roman people in the middle of the city, by the spears and swords not of Scythians or barbarians of their own people. 4 Exactly how many murders of senators he effected in plots for their property it is impossible to count, myriads being killed at various times on various manufactured charges. 5 But the final flourish for the tyrant’s evils drove him to sorcery. Sometimes for magical purposes he cut up pregnant women, and at other times he investigated the entrails of newborn babies, slaughtered lions, and established certain unmentionable incantations to the demons to prevent war, for all his hope for achieving victory lay in these means. 6 This tyrant in Rome, then, did what it is impossible even to say in order to enslave his subjects, so that they even stood in utter lack and want of necessary food, the likes of which those of our day cannot remember having occurred in Rome or elsewhere. 7 The tyrant in the East, Maximinus, made a secret alliance with his friend in Rome, with a brother in evil, as it were, and thought he could keep it hidden for quite a while. Later, though, he was discovered and paid the just penalty. 8 It was amazing how this man even took on kinship and brotherhood with the evildoing of the tyrant in Rome, or rather took first place and the prizes of victory over him. For by him the foremost of the sorcerers and magi were even deemed worthy of the highest honor, for he was frightened by every sound and especially superstitious, setting great stock in the error that concerns idols and

416

the ecclesiastical history

the demons. He was the kind of person who would not, as they say, dare move even a fingernail without divinations and oracles. 9 For this reason, he pressed the persecution against us even more violently and constantly than his predecessors. He ordered temples built in every city and the diligent renovation of those temple precincts that had crumbled with age, and he appointed priests of the idols in every locale and city, and above them a man from among those clearly considered especially distinguished for every form of public service in their officeholding as high priest for each province, and gave them a military detachment and personal guards, and he liberally granted positions of authority and the highest privileges to all sorcerers, as though to pious men who were the friends of the gods. 10 Moving on from this, he grieved and oppressed not just one city or territory, but all the provinces under him at once, with levies of gold, silver, and untold amounts of property, with heavy injunctions and other injustices at various times. Moreover, he seized from the wealthy the property acquired by their ancestors, and granted these riches and heaps of property as lump sums to the flatterers that surrounded him. 11 He was, in fact, carried to such drunken and inebriated heights that he became deranged and out of his mind when drinking, and gave such drunken commands that when he sobered up the next day he regretted them. He forsook no excess of drunkenness and extravagance, and appointed himself as a teacher of evil to both the rulers and the ruled around him. He made the army dissolute by introducing every kind of luxury and licentiousness, and encouraged governors and military commanders to give in to theft and greed, all but making them his co-tyrants against his subjects. 12 What need is there to mention the man’s shameful, impassioned deeds, or to count the multitude of those he forced to commit adultery? There was no city, indeed, that he passed through without trying to subject women to every kind of corruption and to rape virgins. 13 In fact, he succeeded in most cases, except Christians alone. Preferring death, they thought nothing of his tyranny. For some men suffered fire and the sword, being nailed up, wild beasts, the depths of the sea, amputation and burning of limbs, the gouging and plucking out of eyes, the mutilation of their whole bodies, and in addition to all this, hunger, the mines, and prisons, showing endurance on behalf of piety rather than transfer the awe due God to idols. 14 The women, for their part, under the teaching of the Divine Logos, were no less manly than

book 8

417

the men. Some, when subjected to the same contests as the men, won equal prizes for virtue, while others, when dragged off to be corrupted, gave the soul up to death rather than the body to corruption. 15 One of the women forced into adultery by the tyrant, a Christian from Alexandria who was most noble and distinguished, was victorious over the impassioned and licentious soul of Maximinus through a deed of manly courage. She was held in honor for her wealth, family, and learning, among other things, but nonetheless considered it all second to self-control. He earnestly begged her, but she was willing to die. He, though, could not kill her, for his desire overpowered his anger, so he condemned her to exile and took all her property. 16 Myriad other women could even hear the threat of fornication made by the rulers of each province, and submitted to every form of torture, torment, and death-dealing punishment. And they were amazing, though the most exceedingly amazing of all those whom Maxentius drunkenly assaulted in Rome (for he acted just like Maximinus) was a truly wellborn and most self-controlled woman. 17 For when she learned that those who served the emperor in such deeds were in the house (for this woman was also Christian), and her own husband, who was a Roman prefect, had out of fear turned her over to be seized and led away, she asked leave for a moment, so that she could beautify her body. She went into her chamber and when she was alone impaled herself on a sword, and died immediately, leaving a dead body for those who were going to take her away, and with actions that were louder than any words declaring to all people, now and those who come later, that among Christians the only kind of unconquerable and indestructible wealth is virtue. 18 To such heights of evil, then, did things come to pass at one and the same time under the two tyrants, who had divided the East and West. But who in searching for the cause of such [evils] would hesitate to declare that it was the persecution against us, especially when all of this ruination did not cease until after Christians regained the ability to speak and act openly. O N W HAT HA P P E N E D T O T HO SE OU T SI D E [THE CHURCH]

chapter 15. Through the whole ten years of persecution, in fact, there was no break in their plotting and war against one another. The

418

the ecclesiastical history

sea could not be sailed, nor could one sail anywhere without being led into all kinds of torments—stretchings and being raked along the flanks, and every kind of torture—to make sure that he hadn’t come from the other side’s enemies, and upon final judgment subjected to crosses or punishment by fire. 2 In addition, everywhere was arranged for the production of shields and armor, arrows, spears, and the other preparations for war, triremes and soldiers to fight naval battles; no one expected anything but enemy attack every day. And on top of this, famine and plague came afterward, about which we will recount what is necessary at the appropriate time. O N T H E C HA N G E O F T H I N G S F O R THE BETTER

chapter 16. So it was during the whole stretch of the persecution, but in the tenth year, with the grace of God, it completely ceased, though it had begun to relax in the eighth year. For when the divine and heavenly grace showed that it kindly and mercifully watched over us, then indeed did the rulers of our day, the same ones who had of old whipped up a state of war against us, change their attitude in a way most contrary to expectation, and sang a song of recantation in the form of merciful edicts and most civilized ordinances, quenching the great flame of persecution that had been kindled. 2 But the cause of this was nothing human, nor was it the pity or philanthropy of the rulers, as some may claim. Certainly not. For from the beginning right to the end they were on a daily basis thinking up more and harsher things to do against us, at various times variously developing new torments against us using diverse contrivances. But the oversight of Divine Providence was evident, when it reconciled with the people, but took vengeance upon the author of these evils, {full of bile against him as the man who prompted the evil of the whole persecution. 3 For even if this had to happen according to divine judgment, the passage says, “Woe to him who brings offense.”50 For god-sent retribution sought him out, beginning in his flesh and proceeding to his soul.}51 4 All at once, he got a lesion in the middle of the unseen parts of his 50. Luke 17:1. 51. The bracketed text appears in manuscripts ATER but not BDM.

book 8

419

body, and then an incurable fistula developed in his bowels and spread throughout his innards. From his insides, an unspeakable mass of worms burst out, and a deathly stench wafted up. The whole mass of his body had been turned into lard already by his gluttony before the illness, and then rotted, offering an unbearable and disgusting sight to those who visited him. 5 Some of the physicians could not even endure the excessive stench, and they were slaughtered, while the others, who were unable to do anything, because the whole mass had become swollen and had progressed beyond hope of any cure, were killed without mercy. O N T H E PA L I N O D E O F T H E RU L E R S

chapter 17. So, then, as he wrestled with such vile symptoms he ceased doing what he had dared do against the god-fearing. He gathered his rational faculty within himself; first, he gave thanks to the God of the Universe, then he summoned his court, and without delay commanded the cessation of the persecution against the Christians, and by law and imperial decree urged them to build their churches and to engage in their habitual practices, [and in doing so] to make prayers on behalf of the emperor. 2 Immediately, action followed word; the imperial ordinance was promulgated in every city. The recantation52 of the [measures] against us went this way:53 3 Emperor Caesar Galerius Valerius Maximianus Invictus Augustus, pontifex maximus, Germanicus maximus, Egyptiacus maximus, Thebaicus maximus, five times Sarmaticus maximus, twice Persicus maximus, six times Armeniacus maximus, Medicus maximus, Adiabenicus maximus, twentieth time with tribunician power, nineteenth time imperator, consul for the eighth time, father of the fatherland, proconsul; 4 and Emperor Caesar Flavius Valerius Constantine Pius Felix Invictus Augustus, pontifex maximus, with tribunician power, fifth time imperator, consul, father of the fatherland, proconsul;

52. Palinōdia: “recantation,” but also a subgenre of ode written to recant one’s previous actions or decisions. Eusebius’s use of the word functions almost like a stage direction to mark a dramatic turn of events. 53. The text of Galerius’s order can be compared with the Latin version quoted by Lactantius (Deaths 34).

420

the ecclesiastical history

5 {and Emperor Caesar Valerius Licinianus Licinius Pius Felix Invictus Augustus, pontifex maximus, fourth time with tribunician power, third time imperator, consul, father of the fatherland, proconsul, to their respective provincials, greetings.}54 6 Amid the other things that we formulate for the benefit and advantage of the Republic, we had earlier wished that all matters be brought into order according to the ancient laws and public discipline of the Romans, and that precaution be taken in order that the Christians, too, who had abandoned the sect of their own ancestors, return to a sound disposition, 7 since thanks to some notion such arrogance had sway over them and such mindlessness seized them that they did not follow what the ancients taught, which in all likelihood their [own] ancestors had established, but, according to their own disposition and as each wished, they thus made laws for themselves and followed them, and in various [places] gathered various crowds. 8 Therefore, when we issued a command in connection with this, to the effect that they should bring themselves back to what was established by the ancients, many were placed in peril, and many were harassed and endured every sort of death. 9 And when, because most persisted in the said madness, we saw that they were not performing the worship owed to the supercelestial gods, nor were they attending to the god of the Christians, we therefore, having in view our love of humanity and our constant custom whereby we are in the habit of granting clemency to all people, thought it necessaary to extend our indulgence in this matter with ready goodwill, that there once again be Christians and that they meet in the buildings in which they used to gather, so that, in this way, they not behave contrary to discipline.55 In another letter we will indicate to the judges what they must take care to do.

54. The passage in brackets appears in ATER, not in BDM, or the Syriac or Latin version. 55. This phrase has usually been translated as though Galerius is making a condition: “always provided that they do nothing contrary to order” (Lawlor and Oulton); “on condition that they do nothing contrary to the public order” (Williamson). In the Latin it is a negative purpose clause or indirect command (“so that they not”); in the Greek it is a result clause (“with the result that they will not”). In short, the document is stating that allowing Christians to worship will accomplish the purpose stated at 8.17.9—namely, that the Christians, too, should be following Roman discipline by offering worship and thus securing the welfare of the emperor and empire. The document is not framed as a “recantation,” then, but as an indulgence granted by Galerius to solve a larger problem.

book 8

421

10 Hence, according to this clemency of ours, they must supplicate their own god for our well-being, that of the Republic, and their own, in order that in every way the Republic will be made sound, and they will be able to live free from worry in their own place.

11 It runs thus in the language of the Romans, translated into the Greek tongue as far as is possible. But now, then, it is time to investigate what happened after this. T H E “A P P E N D I X” T O B O O K 8

Manuscripts AER append what may have been an alternate ending to or variant reading in book 8. On the significance of the appendix to the question of the “editions” of the Ecclesiastical History, see “General Introduction.” The appendix is presented in A with the following note: This is missing in some copies in the eighth book.56

It is presented in E with the following note: Some copies have this at the end of this book; not as missing, but as [a passage] found in a different manner of phrasing in other copies.57

The passage: But the man responsible for this document was released from sufferings and quit this life immediately after making this confession, not much later at all, in fact. Indeed, word has it that he was the one primarily responsible for bringing about the event of the persecution, and that long before action was taken by the rest of the emperors he had forced the Christians in the army (and first among them those in his own household) to turn away, depriving some of their military rank and treating others with the most ignoble contempt, while others still he threatened with death.58 Finally, he encouraged his imperial

56. The scribe of A means that he or she is appending the passage because it has been found appended in some manuscripts, and takes it as a passage that is missing from certain other manuscripts. 57. The scribe of E, like the scribe of A, has found the passage appended at the end of book 8 in some manuscripts, but argues that it is appended not as a missing passage, but merely as a variant of 8.13.12–14. 58. Compare 8.4.1–4.

422

the ecclesiastical history

colleagues to persecute all. It is not right to pass by the deaths of these [emperors] in silence. 2 The universal imperium having been divided among four, those who were senior in age and honor set aside the emperorship less than two full years after the persecution began, as we indicated earlier, and lived out the rest of their lives as regular, private citizens.59 Their ends were as follows. 3 The one who was deemed superior in age and honor was destroyed by a long and painful bodily illness, while he who was second to him was killed by strangulation, in accordance with a certain prediction from the daimones, for the many dirty dealings he had ventured. 4 Of those who came after them [in rank], the one who held last place (who, as we said, was the architect of the whole persecution) suffered a death such as we have indicated already,60 while the one who preceded him [in rank], the most kind and most gentle emperor Constantius, completed the entire period of his imperium in a manner worthy of supreme rule and conducted himself most rightly and most beneficently toward everyone. He even, moreover, kept out of the war against and protected the pious people under his rule unharmed and unmolested. He did not tear down the churches’ buildings, nor did he in any way invent any other [measure] against us. He departed life with a truly happy and thrice-blessed end, for he alone died favorably and gloriously while still an emperor, with a legitimate son who was in every respect most temperate and most pious as his successor. 5 He was immediately acclaimed as most perfect emperor and Augustus by the armies,61 and established himself as zealous emu-

59. Diocletian and Maximian retired to private life on 1 May 305. Diocletian retired to a place in Spalatum (present-day Split, Croatia) and Maximian to Italy. Diocletian died in late 311 (or perhaps 312). Maximian embroiled himself again in imperial politics soon after abdicating (see Lactantius, Deaths 27–30). After 306, when Constantine assumed rule over his father’s territories and his son Maxentius usurped power in Italy and Africa, he brokered an alliance between Maxentius and Constantine against Galerius. In 308, Maximian challenged his son’s rule, but failed to rally the army to his side; he ultimately fled to Constantine’s court in Trier. Finally, in 310 Maximian rebelled against Constantine in Gaul, was defeated, and in July 310 died (committed suicide?) by strangulation. 60. See 8.16.1–5. 61. Though Constantine was acclaimed by his father’s troops in 306, the legitimacy of his claim to rule was tenuous. Galerius, the senior Augustus upon Diocletian’s and Maximian’s retirement, would acknowledge him only as Caesar, not Augustus. He was granted the title Augustus by Maximian in an effort to garner his support of Maxentius in 307, and though he asserted the rank in his own realms, he was not recognized as Augustus by Galerius until 310.

book 8

423

lator of his father’s piety concerning our doctrine. Such was life’s result for the four we have written of above, which came to them at different times. Now, then, the only one of them who remained was he who was mentioned a little earlier, who, together with those brought into the imperium afterward, posted openly for all the aforementioned confession by means of the written document included above.62

62. I.e., the “Edict of Toleration.”

Book 9

OV E RV I EW

Book 9 begins in 311, with Galerius’s junior colleague, Maximinus Daia, publishing the cancellation of persecution in the Eastern provinces, and concludes after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius in the West at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (October 312), Maximinus’s defeat in the East at the hands of Licinius (April 313), and Maximinus’s death (August 313). Much of the book consists of imperial letters of Maximinus Daia. Eusebius’s selection and framing of these documents portrays Maximinus as a single-minded anti-Christian persecutor. This portrait of Maximinus serves as a foil for his encomiastic representations of Constantine and Licinius as pious liberators. SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

Maximinus’s Anti-Christian Measures and His “Pagan Church” In 9.4.2–3, Eusebius claims that Maximinus’s anti-Christian fervor was accompanied by an effort to invigorate traditional piety by appointing priests and high priests. Lactantius provides more detail (Deaths 36). According to him, Maximinus introduced a “new custom” by appointing a high priest for each city responsible for offering daily sacrifices to “all the gods.” The high priest and other priests were encouraged to prevent Christians from building gathering places and meeting in public or 424

book 9

425

private. They were also given legal sanction to force Christians to sacrifice, and accuse them before judges. Finally, he appointed a chief priest for each province, assigning them a white cloak indicating public office. Maximinus’s actions are sometimes described as the institution of a kind of “pagan church”—that is, a reorganization and homogenization of traditional cult in imitation of Christian ecclesiastical structure. On this reading, the Christian hierarchical structure of archbishops, metropolitan bishops, and local bishops and clergy is mimicked in Maximinus’s system of provincial supervisors and a high priest for each city. Maximinus’s actions may presage the much more elaborate measures of the emperor Julian in the early 360s. Julian did, indeed, draw explicit comparisons and contrasts between his system and the Christian church. But Maximinus’s actions may look like a deliberate imitation of Christianity because this is how Eusebius (and Lactantius) frames them. It is also possible to interpret Maximinus’s program not as innovation but the latest in a long line of “restorations” of traditional piety. On this reading, Maximinus’s actions would be read in continuity with, for example, Diocletian’s and, earlier, Decius’s emphases on restoring traditional piety. One should also question whether persecuting Christians was Maximinus’s primary aim; such a reading risks merely reproducing Eusebius’s and Lactantius’s highly stylized framing of the evidence. It does seem clear that anti-Christian sentiment was a symptom of the ethos that Maximinus was fostering, however. According to Eusebius, Maximinus fanned the fire of anti-Christianity with measures such as banning assembly in cemeteries (9.2.1) and ordering the anti-Christian Acts of Pilate publicly displayed and taught in grammar schools (9.5.1). More significantly, anti-Christian sentiment figured prominently in diplomatic relations between the cities and Maximinus. Eusebius and Lactantius relate that several cities in the East petitioned Maximinus to expel Christians, and claim, moreover, that Maximinus had conned the cities into sending these embassies (HE 9.2.1; Deaths 36.3). Eusebius quotes Maximinus’s reply to the petition from Tyre, saying that he has copied it from an inscription there. This document can be compared with two similar inscriptions, one from Arycanda in Lycia and another from Colbasa in Pisidia. A careful reading of Maximinus’s letter and the inscriptions suggests that Eusebius’s and Lactantius’s narratives are disingenuous.

426

the ecclesiastical history

Both Lactantius and Eusebius are committed to portraying Maximinus as superstitious and bloodthirsty. The documents that Eusebius quotes in book 9 have usually been read as Eusebius has framed them—evidence of Maximimus’s concerted, but secret plan to continue persecuting Christians. Again, what is known of Maximinus’s political and military situation between 311 and 313 would suggest that other matters may have loomed larger for him. When Galerius died in 311, Maximinus made a mad dash with his army to the eastern shores of the Bosporus to ensure that Licinius would not take control of his territory. After coming to terms with Licinius, he returned to Antioch, but in 312 fought a campaign in Armenia (9.8.2). By early 313, he had learned of Licinius’s alliance with Constantine and set out to attack Licinius preemptively. The petitions and Maximinus’s responses should be read in this context. It was good diplomacy for cities to send embassies to new emperors or to junior colleagues recently elevated as Augusti, as Maximinus was in 311/2. It was also normal for such petitions to include appeals to a shared sense of tradition and piety (including calls for the eradication of superstition) and requests for benefactions in the form of temples and priesthoods. Piety served as diplomatic currency between city and emperor. Thus, when Eusebius describes cities sending “sham” embassies to Maximinus, his story is based on the normal practice of cities currying favor with newly minted emperors. Maximinus’s letter to his praetorian prefect, in which he describes his response to cities’ petitions, raises the question of whether anti-Christianity was a “popular” sentiment or an imperial desideratum (9.9a.1–9). Eusebius frames the letter as unadulterated prevarication—he claims that Maximinus was trying to backpedal his persecution after hearing that the pious emperorors Constantine and Licinius had taken power. In fact, the letter shows Maximinus trying to walk a fine line—he reiterates that Christians should no longer be corrected and punished, but acknowledges that he felt it incumbent to bend to the cities that claimed Christians remained a threat to piety (9.9a.6). Apparently, anti-Christian sentiment still had enough currency that some cities, like Tyre, Antioch, and Nicomedia, felt it was a diplomatic chip worth playing. It would be incorrect, then, to read either Maximinus or “the masses” as lone instigators. Good relations between a city and emperor relied on complicity between local elites and the imperial administration. We can see as much in Eusebius’s

book 9

427

account of Theotecnus and the cult of Zeus Philias in Antioch (9.2.1– 4.1). Theotecnus, the curator (a local imperial finance minister) of Antioch, for example, played on anti-Christian sentiment and manipulated the oracle of Zeus Philias in Antioch in order to prompt the city to petition Maximinus (9.3.1). This was smart politicking on Theotecnus’s part; he was eventually promoted to a provincial governorship and enjoyed a close relationship with Maximinus (so close that he was executed in Licinius’s purges in 313; 9.11.6). Eusebius actually describes the give-and-take between local officials and the emperor well when he writes that other provincial governors followed suit when they saw how effective Theotecnus’s politics were (9.4.1), and that Maximinus’s reorganization of priesthoods followed upon these petitions. In short, when Eusebius’s (and Lactantius’s) framing of Maximinus as a tyrannical persecutor is removed, the documents provide an important source for understanding the place of piety in diplomatic relations between emperors and provincials. The letters of Constantine to these same Eastern provincials in 324 c.e., preserved by Eusebius in the Life of Constantine, can be compared with the Maximinus dossier. On piety as a diplomatic strategy, see R. Van Dam, The Roman Revolution of Constantine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 150– 83; on collaboration between local elites and the imperial administration as a key to Roman power, see C. Ando, Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). Encomia of Constantine (and Licinius) In 9.9.1–13, Eusebius describes in brief but lofty terms Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Eusebius knows very little about affairs in the West, and here his account of Constantine’s victory may also depend in part on a written source, likely a panegyric, that came from the West.1 Eusebius likens Constantine to Moses (9.9.5–8), a comparison he was to extend further in the first book of the Life of Constantine. Readers should note that the account here does not include Constantine’s famous vision before the 1. Thanks to Raymond Van Dam for sharing his insights on this previously unidentified source (“A Lost Panegyric: The Source for Eusebius of Caesarea’s Description of Constantine’s Victory and Arrival in Rome in 312,” JECS 27 [forthcoming, 2019]).

428

the ecclesiastical history

battle. That story, or rather two differing versions of it, appear in Lactantius (Deaths 44) and in Eusebius’s Life of Constantine. Eusebius began writing the Life in the late 330s; it seems, then, that he did not know of the story of the vision when composing the History. In turn, this suggests that the early panegyric that Eusebius used as his source was also unaware of (or omitted) the story of the vision. The legend of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge was a narrative that developed over the course of Constantine’s reign, with new elements added and different elements emphasized as the ideology of Constantine’s court and the Constantinian dynasty developed.2 The encomiastic section on Constantine and Licinius also illustrates some of the variant readings that have led to theories that Eusebius may have produced different versions of the History in response to changing political circumstances. In one group of manuscripts (ATER), this section begins with praise of Constantine and Licinius as imperial colleagues, but in another set of manuscripts (BDM) the reference to Licinius has been removed, and it is only Constantine whom God raises up against the tyrants. There are also two parenthetical comments that Licinius was “not yet raving mad.” Some argue that these variants show that an earlier version of the History portrayed Licinius as God’s chosen co-liberator with Constantine, but that Eusebius edited Licinius out after their alliance broke down and Constantine finally defeated Licinius in 324. Others counter that these variants can be better explained as later marginal comments by a scribe or later reader that subsequently found their way into the manuscript tradition. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S •

• •

Eusebius — Life of Constantine — Martyrs of Palestine Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors 36–52 Arycanda inscription (CIL III.13132); English translation: J. Stevenson and W. H. C. Frend, eds., A New Eusebius, rev. ed.

2. For a detailed account of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the politics of memory, see R. Van Dam, Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

book 9

•

(London: Society for the Preservation of Christian Knowledge, 1987), 281 Martyrdom of Habib the Deacon (a Syriac text recounting the martyrdom of a deacon in Edessa under the governor Theotecnus); English translation: B. Pratten, ANF 8:690–95

429

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 9

On the faked relaxation On the turnabout that followed On the newly erected statue in Antioch On the petitions against us On the faked Acts3 On the those martyred at that time On the rescript against us that was inscribed on monuments On the calamities that came after this: famine, plague, and wars On the victory of the God-beloved emperors On the catastrophe of the tyrants’ lives, and what statements they made before their death On the final destruction of the enemies of the fear of God O N T H E FA K E D R E L A X AT IO N

chapter 1. The details concerning the recantation of what had [previously] been established by imperial command were sent to all Asia and everywhere throughout the surrounding provinces.4 Once this 3. I.e., the Acts of Pilate. 4. The “recantation” = the “Edict of Toleration” (8.17.3–10).

430

book 9

431

had been accomplished, the tyrant in the East, Maximinus, an impious man if there ever was one and most inimical to piety toward the God of the Universe, did not conform at all to what had been written. Instead of [sending on] the aforementioned letter, he gave verbal orders to those who governed under him to slacken the war against us. For since there was no other way for him to oppose the judgment of the senior emperors, he put the aforementioned law away in a corner and took care that it was not seen publicly in the region under his control and then gave an unwritten order to those governing under him to slacken the war against us. They then reported the details of the order to one another in writing. 2 Then Sabinus, honored by them with the rank of eminent prefect, made the opinion of the emperor known to those governing each province by letters in Latin.5 The translation of the letter goes this way:6 3 With most salubrious and devoted diligence, the divinity of our lords, the most divine emperors, previously decided to lead all people to the holy and right way of living, so that even those who think to follow any custom foreign to the Romans should perform the acts of worship owed to the immortal gods. 4 But the obstinacy and harsh determination of some became so strong that it was impossible to bring them back from their peculiar attitude by means of the just reasoning of the order or to make them fear the punishment that was threatened. 5 Since, therefore, such an attitude has resulted in many placing themselves in danger of penalty, the divinity of our lords, the most powerful emperors, in accordance with the nobility of their piety, consider it foreign to the intention of their own divinity to subject these people to penalty on such a charge, and, therefore, have ordered, via My Devotedness, to command Your Sagacity in writing, that if any of the Christians be found pursuing the worship of his own people,7 you should keep him from the harassment and penalty with which he is threatened, and that you should not think that anyone needs to be chastised with punishment based on this allegation, since over so long

5. Sabinus was praetorian prefect. Maximinus’s orders are described as following the normal chain of command: emperor/court—praetorian prefect—provincial governors. 6. The letter is quoted only in ATER, and is not found in BDM or the Syriac version. 7. As in other Tetrarchic documents, the Christians are described as an ethnos (“people” or “nation”) like other ethnic groups (e.g., Egyptians, Greeks, or Jews) under the authority of Roman rule.

432

the ecclesiastical history

a period of time it has become clear that they cannot be persuaded by any means to pull back from such obstinacy. 6 Your Attentiveness, therefore, must write to the logistai, the strategoi, and the praepositi of the district of each city,8 that they may know it is no longer appropriate for them to have regard for that letter.9

7 After this, the [governors] in each province thought that the decision sent to them in writing represented Maximinus’s genuine intention, and openly notified the logistai, the strategoi, and those in charge of rural districts of the imperial opinion. They, in turn, put this into effect not only in writing, but even more so by their actions. So that they might fulfill the imperial will, they brought out in public and freed whomever they were holding under arrest in the prisons for confessing the Divine and released those of them who had been condemned to the mines. They were deceived, and assumed this was the emperor’s true intention. 8 Once this had been done it was like a light suddenly shone in the gloom of night and one could see churches gathered together in every city and crowded assemblies, and the pursuits customarily done at them being performed. Every one of the unbelieving Gentiles was not a little amazed at this, marveled at the miracle of such a change, and proclaimed aloud the god of the Christians as the great and one true God. 9 Among our people, those who had faithfully and courageously competed in the contest of the persecution once again resumed their outspokenness toward all, while those who had fallen ill when it comes to faith and whose souls had been battered as though by a storm showed eager concern for their own recovery, presenting themselves to those who had remained strong and entreating them to enter the right hand of salvation, supplicating God to be merciful.10 10 Then 8. Presented here is a list of imperial officials under the authority of provincial governors. Logistai translates the Latin curatores; a curator was an imperial official responsible for the collection of taxes in large cities under Roman rule. The strategoi governed Egyptian nomes; the praepositi are officials in charge of the rural district associated with a given city. 9. That is, they should no longer regard as valid a previous letter from Sabinus implementing aspects of the Diocletianic-Galerian-era persecution. 10. The question of the “lapsed,” or those who had capitulated to imperial officials during the Diocletianic persecution, was a controversial topic in Eusebius’s day. Some, like the Meletians in Egypt and the Donatists in North Africa, contended that the lapsed could not reenter the community, or could do so only with great difficulty, while others

book 9

433

those noble athletes who had been freed from their vile suffering in the mines also returned to their own [cities], going through every city in exaltation and joy and full of a boldness that cannot be spoken and an outspokenness that cannot be translated into words. 11 Crowds of many people went along with them as they traveled, praising God with odes and psalms in the middle of the roads and agoras. You would see those who shortly before were prisoners driven from their ancestral lands with their harshest punishments taking back their own hearths with happy and joyful faces, so that even those who previously committed murder against us, when they saw this marvel that was counter to every hope, rejoiced together in what had happened. O N T H E T U R NA B OU T T HAT F O L L OW E D

chapter 2. But the tyrant (who we said was ruling the Eastern regions), being a hater of the good and having designs against everything that is good, could not bear this any longer, and did not allow things to continue in this way for more than six months. Having devised all his plans then, having concocted to overturn the peace, he first tried, on a false pretext, to ban us from assembling in the cemeteries. Then, he employed certain wicked men to have embassies sent to himself to petition against us, and egged on the citizens of Antioch to request that none of the Christians be in any way permitted to live in their ancestral home, as though it were a great gift granted by him, and through intrigue he encouraged other [cities] to do the same. The instigator of all this sprang up in the said city of Antioch, Theotecnus, a terrible wicked man and a sorcerer, who was a stranger to his name. He was the seeming “caretaker” of affairs in the city.11 O N T H E N EW LY E R E C T E D STAT U E I N A N T IO C H

chapter 3. This man soldiered against us many times; he eagerly used every means to hunt our people as if they were some unholy (Eusebius among them, as is clear here) took a more lenient approach and argued that the lapsed could return to the community after performing penance. 11. A wordplay on his name (Theotecnus means “child of God”) and a jibe on the title of his office, curator, or “caretaker.” On Theotecnus, see also PE 135b-d.

434

the ecclesiastical history

thieves hiding in caves, and engineered everything to falsely accuse us and bring charges against us, and became the cause of death for so many myriads. Finally, with magic and sorcery, he erected an idol of Zeus Philios and instituted impure rites, ill-omened initiations, and abominable purifications for it, going so far as to show the emperor the terrifying fakery with which it seemed to give oracles. To flatter the ruler’s pleasure, he roused the demon against the Christians and said that the god commanded that the Christians be driven beyond the borders of the city and the rural districts around the city, as they were his12 enemies. O N T H E P E T I T IO N S AG A I N ST U S

chapter 4. Once this man had first taken action based on this sentiment, all the other officials who lived in the cities under the same regime were egged on into making the same decision, for the governors in each province saw together that this was pleasing to the emperor and suggested their subjects do the same. 2 When the tyrant assented most gladly to the petitions of the said [officials] with a rescript, once more the persecution against us was kindled anew. Then Maximinus himself appointed priests for the statues in each city, and, in addition, he appointed as high priests those who were especially prominent in the government and who had distinguished themselves with every honor.13 These men introduced great zeal about the worship of those they served. 3 The insane superstition of the ruler, to put it succinctly, was encouraging all those under him, both those who governed and those they governed, to do everything against us in order to gain his favor. In return for the public benefactions he would grant, they decided to grant him this favor—to act murderously against us and to put on display some even more innovative forms of malevolence toward us.

12. I.e., Zeus’s enemies, but sufficiently ambiguous to insinuate that Zeus was being made to identify Maximinus’s enemies as his own. 13. In other words, the high priesthood is a public office granted to those who had already progressed in the cursus honorem—the “course of offices” held by those with public careers.

book 9

435

O N T H E FA K E D AC T S

chapter 5. They even forged written records of Pilate and our Savior,14 full of blasphemies against Christ, and with the assent of the mighty [emperor] they were sent everywhere under his control with public proclamations ordering that in every place—rural districts and cities—they should be placed on public display for all, and that teachers of letters should teach them to the children instead of [the usual] lessons and that they commit them to memory. 2 As this was being done as ordered, another military commander, whom the Romans term a dux,15 snatched some disreputable women from the agora in Damascus in Phoenicia and threated to subject them to torture, forcing them to say in a written statement that they had once been Christians, and had seen their illegal activities, and that in the Lord’s buildings16 they had witnessed licentiousness and whatever else he wanted them to say to slander the dogma. This man set down their oral statements in written records and shared them with the emperor, and on his order made these writings public in every region and city. O N T HO SE M A RT Y R E D AT T HAT T I M E

chapter 6. But, not much later, the military leader committed suicide when threatened with punishment for his mischievousness.17 Once again exile and harsh persecution were reenergized against us, and the governors in every province antagonized us so awfully that some of the most distinguished followers of the Divine Logos were arrested and received the merciless sentence of death. Among them were three in the city of Emesa in Phoenicia who confessed themselves to be Christians, and were fed to the beasts. There was a bishop among them, Silvanus, advanced in age, who had served a full forty years.

14. I.e., Acts of Pilate. 15. Dux: the military commander of frontier troops. 16. Kyriakoi: literally, “buildings pertaining to the Lord,” i.e., church buildings. 17. Whether by order of Maximinus or as part of Licinius’s post-Maximinus purge is not clear, but probably the latter.

436

the ecclesiastical history

2 During the same time, too, Peter, who led the communities in Alexandria with the greatest distinction, a divine possession18 among bishops because of his way of life, virtue, and training in the Holy Words, was arrested for no reason at all and completely unexpectedly. Then all at once and without any rationale, as though Maximinus ordered it, he was beheaded. Many other bishops throughout Egypt endured the same along with him. 3 And Lucian,19 a man who was in all ways the best in his way of life and self-control, and well trained in sacred learning, and was a presbyter of the community in Antioch, was brought to the city of Nicomedia, where the emperor happened to be residing at that time, and presented to the ruler his defense on behalf of the teaching he professed, was put in prison, and was killed. 4 Such, then, was what Maximinus, the hater of the good, had prepared for us in so brief a time, that to us this persecution seemed to be pressed much more severely than the previous one. O N T H E R E S C R I P T AG A I N S T U S T HAT WA S I N S C R I B E D O N M O N UM E N T S

chapter 7. In the middle of the cities, moreover, there was something that had never happened before: petitions from the cities against us and rescripts with imperial decisions in response to them were set up, inscribed on bronze plates. And every day the children in the schools had Jesus and Pilate and those outrageously forged records in their mouths. 2 Here it seems necessary for me to include the very writing of Maximinus that was put on the plaques, in order that both 18. The phrase suggests Peter is a living sacred relic; compare 7.32.5, where Eusebius of Laodicea is described using the same language. 19. Lucian: head of a Christian intellectual circle in Antioch (see 8.13.2). Not much is known of Lucian, but he was a significant figure—his following was probably larger and included more influential figures than that of Eusebius’s own teacher Pamphilus. According to Philostorgius, he was the teacher of Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius “the Sophist” of Cappadocia. All of these individuals were part of an alliance of bishops that opposed Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria and their allies in the controversies leading up to and following the Council of Nicaea. Philostorgius also claims that Constantine’s mother, Helena, venerated Lucian’s burial site (HE 2.12, 12a).

book 9

437

the pretentious and arrogant presumption of the man’s hatred of God and the sacred judgment that followed on its heels, which is tireless in its hatred of the wicked, be made evident. He was plagued by this [sacred judgment], and not much later decided on an opposite course of action concerning us, and gave instruction [to that effect] in written laws. copy of a translation of the rescript of maximinus, in reply to the petitions against us, taken from the plaque in tyre 20 3 Now, when the petty boldness of human understanding has shaken off and scattered every shadow of error and the gloom that before this time assaulted the senses of people who were not so much impious as they were wretched, entangling them in a deadly gloom of ignorance, it21 is strong enough to recognize that it is administered and made steady by the benevolent providence of the immortal gods.22 4 In respect of this, it is remarkable to say how thankful and how pleased and well disposed it has made us that you have given such a great sign of your god-loving disposition, when even before this no one was ignorant as to how observant and pious you are toward the immortal gods, trust in whom is not based on mere empty words, but is recognized in their constant and remarkable deeds. 5 Therefore, your city is deservedly called a temple and dwelling place of immortal gods; indeed, many examples show that she blossoms because she is visited by the heavenly gods. 6 Behold, therefore, how your city neglected all of her own concerns and set aside earlier petitions made on behalf of her interests, when she perceived that those who had come under the control of that accursed folly were beginning to spread once more, the great blaze of its rekindled flames rising again, just like a fire that has been left unattended and its embers allowed to sleep. And [behold] how she immediately,

20. An inscription from the town of Arycanda in Lycia includes an example of the type of petition to which this rescript responds (CIL III.13132; English translation in Stevenson, New Eusebius, 297). An inscription from Colbasa in Lycia preserves part of the text of the rescript sent to that community (text and translation in S. Mitchell, “Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription” JRS 78 [1988]: 105–24). 21. I.e., human understanding. 22. Compare with similar “error” and “darkness” rhetoric in Constantine’s letters of 324; e.g., the “Letter to Palestine” (VC 2.24 ff.) and the “Letter to the Eastern Provincials” (VC 2.48 ff.).

438

the ecclesiastical history

without any hesitation, fled to our Piety, just as to a metropolis full of the fear of god, to request a remedy and help. 7 It is clear that the gods gave you this salutary notion. That god, therefore, that one—Zeus, Highest and Greatest—who presides over your radiant city, who protects your ancestral gods, your women and children, your hearth and home, from every destructive danger, inspired your souls with this saving counsel, showing and revealing how special, splendid, and salutary it is to approach the worship and sacred rituals of the immortal gods with the required awe. 8 Is there anyone so mindless and alien to all reason that he does not perceive that it is by the benevolent attention of the gods that the earth agrees not to reject the seeds sown in her and foil the farmers’ hope with empty expectation? And, moreover, that the sight of impious war not gain unhindered footing upon the earth, with squalid bodies being dragged down to death and the temperateness of heaven being destroyed? And that the sea not be whipped into waves by the breath of immoderate winds? Or that unexpected storms not strike and raise a destructive tempest? Or, moreover, that the nurturer and mother of all, the earth, is not wracked by fearful tremors in her deepest recesses, and that the mountains that lie upon her do not fall down, and turn into chasms? That all of this and even harsher evils have occurred, no one is ignorant. 9 And absolutely all of it has happened on account of the destructive error of these unlawful people in their utterly hollow vanity, which overflows their souls and, one might almost say, heaps shame on the affairs of the entire inhabited world..

10 After other things, he adds: Let them observe the crops flourishing in the valleys and plains, the meadows resplendent with leaves and flowers thanks to abundant rain, and the temperate and mild weather that has been granted. 11 Furthermore, may all rejoice, on account of our piety, sacred actions, and reverence, which has propitiated the most powerful and mighty air, and on account of this let them delight, enjoying securely and with gladness the ease of peace. And those who have been altogether helped to get away from that blind and errant course and have returned to a right and virtuous state of mind, let them rejoice even more, as though they have been rescued from an unexpected storm or a grave illness, and are afterward plucking the fruits of the sweet enjoyment of life. 12 But if they persist in their accursed folly, let them be driven out and sent far away from your city and territory, just as you requested, in order that, in accordance with your praiseworthy diligence concerning

book 9

439

this matter, your city be removed of all pollution and impiety, and submit her innate disposition with fitting dignity to the ritual actions of the immortal gods.23 13 In order that you may know how pleasing your request concerning this matter is to us, even apart from proposals and apart from petitions our soul, which is eagerly full of the love of what is good, of its own volition grants to Your Devotedness whatever largess you may wish to request, in acknowledgment of your god-loving disposition. 14 And, moreover, may you deem it right to do this and accept [the largess], for you shall have it without any delay. What your city receives will for all the ages be a testimony of god-loving piety concerning the immortal gods, and it will stand as proof to your sons and descendants of your obtaining worthy prizes from our benevolence for this, the [pious] character of your life.24

O N T H E C A L A M I T I E S T HAT C A M E A F T E R T H I S : FA M I N E , P L AG U E , A N D WA R S

15 These [rescripts] against us were erected in every province, closing off our affairs to any good that could be hoped for—at least among humans—so that according to that divine saying itself, during this time, if it were possible, “even the elect themselves were scandalized.”25 16 Indeed, the expectations of many were already deflated, when all at once, as those who were serving the aforementioned letter against us were still finishing their journey to some territories, God, the champion of his own church, paraded a heavenly troop of allies on our behalf, all but choking the tyrant’s arrogance against us. chapter 8. The usual storms and rains of the winter season withheld their tribute from the earth, and an unexpected famine pressed in, and plague followed it, and the sudden eruption of another disease. It was a sore named anthrax after its fiery red appearance,26 and it

23. Notice that the rescript defers the immediate expulsion of Christians. 24. Maximinus is granting the petitioners what they probably were looking to obtain: an imperial benefaction. 25. Matt. 24:24. 26. In Greek, anthrax means “coal,” and by extension refers to red gems, which gleam like hot red coals.

440

the ecclesiastical history

spread over the whole body, putting those who suffered from it in dire straits, but it affected the eyes especially, and maimed myriad men, women, and children. 2 In addition, the tyrant was faced with the war against the Armenians, men who since long ago were friends and allies of the Romans, and who were themselves Christians,27 and practiced piety toward the Divine with diligence. That god-hater had tried to force them to sacrifice to idols and demons, and thus made them hostile instead of friendly, and enemies instead of allies.28 3 All at once, all of this came together at one and the same time, and confounded the tyrant’s arrogant insolence against the Divine, because, in fact, he had bragged that as a result of his diligence for the idols and his attack on us neither famine nor plague nor war occurred during his time.29 And so, all of this occurred at the same time, and comprised the prelude to his undoing. 4 He, together with his soldiers, was exhausted by the war against the Armenians, while the famine and the plague together were dreadfully wasting away the rest of those living in the cities under his control, so much so that one measure of wheat cost twenty-five hundred Attic [drachmas].30 5 Myriads were dying throughout the cities, and even more of those in the rural districts and villages, to the extent that the [tax] registers for the rural areas, which used to be crowded, quickly had to be erased completely, since almost everyone had been destroyed all at once by the lack of food and by plague.31 6 Just to have a morsel, some decided to sell their most cherished possessions to those who were better-off, while others went through their property bit by bit, and were driven to the depths of poverty. Still others died because they chewed on tiny scraps of animal feed and did not hesitate to eat poisonous plants, which wasted their bodies. 7 And among the wellborn women in the cities, some were driven to the most shameless necessity by their need that they went into the agoras to beg, showing the evidence of their 27. According to a tradition preserved by Sozomen, Armenia became a Christian kingdom when its king, Tiridates III, converted (HE 2.8). 28. This is the only reference to Maximinus’s war in Armenia. 29. Note Eusebius’s implicit counter to the argument in Maximinus’s rescript that it is piety toward the traditional gods that maintains the balance of nature. 30. An unbelievable price, along the lines of thousands of dollars. 31. Compare Dionysius’s description of depopulation during famine at 7.21.9–10, which has probably influenced Eusebius’s description of events in his own day.

book 9

441

previous free upbringing by the shame on their faces and the propriety of their clothing. 8 Some had withered and looked like pictures of death, hobbling and limping here and there. Unable to stand, they fell stretched out facedown in the middle of the street, pleading for someone to hand them a tiny bit of bread, and with their souls’ last breaths cried out that they were hungry, having the strength only for this most painful cry. 9 Others, who seemed to be from among those better-off, were struck by the sheer number of beggars. After giving myriads [in charity] they then took a harsh and hard-hearted attitude, for they worried that they themselves would suffer the same as the beggars. Consequently, in the middle of agoras and narrow streets, naked dead bodies lay scattered and unburied for days on end, presenting a most pitiful sight to those who saw them. 10 Some even became food for dogs, and it was especially because of this that those who were alive turned to dog killing, for fear that otherwise they would go mad and become human-eaters. 11 Not least of all, the plague fed on every house, and especially those that the famine was unable to rub out because they were well supplied with food. Those, therefore, who had more than enough—rulers, governors, and myriads of those in the government—as though purposely left behind by the famine for the plague—endured a quick, painful death. Everywhere was utterly filled with wailing; throughout every alley, agora, and forum there was nothing to see but lamentation and the customary dirges and clamor that come with it.32 12 Campaigning in this way, with the two aforementioned weapons—famine together with plague—death made quick work of whole families, so that one could see bodies of two or three of the dead brought out in a single load. 13 Such was the reward for Maximinus’s arrogance and the cities’ petitions against us, while the sure signs of the Christians’ diligence and piety concerning all things were absolutely clear to all the Gentiles. 14 In such vile circumstances, they alone manifested sympathy and love of humanity in their very actions. Some spent all day attending dutifully to the care and burial of those who were dying, while others gathered together the multitude of people throughout the city who were worn out by the famine, and distributed

32. I.e., the mournful music and wailing associated with funerals.

442

the ecclesiastical history

bread to everyone. This deed became famous to all people, and they glorified the God of the Christians, and, refuted by these very deeds, they confessed that the Christians were pious and the only ones who truly feared God. 15 After this had been brought to completion in this way, [that is] after God, the great, heavenly champion of the Christians, had, by means of the events just elaborated, made a demonstration of his threats and wrath against all people in return for the excess they had displayed against us, he once again sent down to us the kind and happy ray of his providential care for us, as the light of peace wondrously shined down from him upon us who were in the depths of darkness, and made it evident to everyone that through it all God himself had been the overseer of the actions taken against us, castigating and correcting his people with difficulties at the critical time, and then after sufficient instruction showing mercy and kindness to those who placed their hopes in him. O N T H E V IC T O RY O F T H E G O D - B E L OV E D EMPERORS

chapter 9. Then indeed, Constantine—who as we said before was an emperor born from an emperor, a pious man born from a most pious and most prudent father—{and Licinius, who was next in rank, men honored for their sagacity and piety, were raised up by the God who is Absolute Ruler and the Savior of the Universe against the most impious tyrants.}33 When they had legally declared war [against the tyrants], God fought miraculously as their ally. Maxentius fell to Constantine in Rome, and the [tyrant] in the East did not outlive him by much, and was himself overthrown by Licinius (who was not yet raving mad),34 dying a most dishonorable death. 33. The text within brackets is in ATER. The variant reading in BDM is: “So, then, Constantine—who as we said before was an emperor born from an emperor, a pious man born from a most pious and prudent father, and a man honored for his sagacity and piety—was raised up by the God who is the Absolute Ruler and Savior of the Universe against the two most impious tyrants. When he had legally declared war [against the tyrants] . . .” 34. Schwartz and others have claimed that this parenthetical comment was added in a later “edition” of the work, after Constantine eliminated Licinius. The reading is

book 9

443

2 Then Constantine, who was first in honor and imperial rank, was the first to take consideration for those in Rome who had been subject to tyranny, and calling upon the heavenly God and his Logos, the Savior of all, Jesus Christ himself, as his ally, he marched with his full army, seeking to give the Romans their ancestral liberty. 3 Maxentius, however, putting faith in the tricks of sorcery rather than the favor of his subjects did not even dare to go outside the gates, but placed an innumerable multitude of soldiers and myriad detachments of troops in every field and city he had enslaved within the orbit of Rome and all of Italy. The emperor, holding fast to his alliance with God, attacked the first, second, and third formations of the tyrant, and defeated them quite easily, advanced through most of Italy, and was already just outside of Rome itself. 4 Then, so that he would not be forced by the tyrant to make war on the Romans, God himself dragged the tyrant far from the gates as if by chains, and the ancient inscriptions against the impious that are set down in sacred books35—which by most were disbelieved as mythical accounts but were believed by the faithful— were vividly confirmed when, to put it simply, believers and unbelievers alike saw these miracles right before their eyes. 5 For then, just as “he cast Pharoah’s chariots and his forces into the sea; his best cavalry, his officers he drowned in the Red Sea, the sea covered them,”36 in the same manner Maxentius and the soldiers and guards around him “plunged like a stone into the depths,” when by turning his back to the power that came with Constantine from God and crossing the river that stood in his way, which he had bridged easily by joining together a number of pontoons, he set up the device that would bring his own destruction. 6 About this one can say, “He made a pond and dug it, and he will fall into the depths which he had made; his work will fall on his own head, and his injustice will come upon his pate.”37 consistent in all manuscripts, however, and could be explained as a marginal gloss that subsequently made its way into the text of the manuscript tradition. 35. A multivalent reference that could be read as indicating the scriptures or the Sibylline books; Zosimus, for example, wrote that Maxentius consulted the Sibylline books before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, but met his end because he misread the prophecies (New History 2.16.1). 36. Exod. 15:4–5. 37. Ps. 7:16–17.

444

the ecclesiastical history

7 In this way, in truth, when the bridge over the river broke apart, the crossing sank, and the pontoons and the men all sank en masse into the depths—that most impious one himself first, then the bodyguard surrounding him, as the divine sayings foretold: “They sank like lead into the powerful water.”38 8 And so it was fitting that, if not in words, then with their actions those who had prayed to God for victory could now sing hymns like the companions of the great servant Moses, and say just so: “Let us sing to the Lord, for he has been gloriously glorified, he has cast horse and rider into the sea. The Lord is my helper and protector, he saves me,”39 and “Who among the gods is like you, Lord, who is like you, glorified among holy men, marvelous in glories, and working wonders?”40 9 Things akin and similar to these Constantine with his deeds sang in praise to the all-powerful God, the Absolute Ruler and cause of victory, and marched into Rome with triumphed celebrations. En masse, the members of the Senate along with their wives and children and other men of renown, and the whole Roman people with joyful eyes, received him with their souls as their redeeming Savior and benefactor with acclamations and insatiable joy. 10 He, though, being innately pious toward God, and not at all shaken by their shouts nor excited by their praises and readily perceiving that help came from God, immediately ordered a trophy of the salvific Passion be placed in the hand of his own image, and, verily, once they had placed the image in the most public place in Rome, holding the salvific sign in its right hand, he commanded them to carve this very inscription in these very words, in the Roman language: 11 “With this saving sign, the true proof of courage, I liberated your city, saving it from the tyrant, and moreover, having liberated it, restored the Roman Senate and People to their ancient glory and splendor.” 12 And after this, Constantine himself and [Emperor] Licinius with him (he had not yet fallen into the madness to which he would succumb later) propitiated God, the cause of all the good they had experienced, and both, with one intention and opinion, wrote a most solidly perfect law on behalf of the Christians,41

38. 39. 40. 41. 14).

Exod. 15:10. Exod. 15:1–2. Exod. 15:11. I.e., they sent notice of the measures laid out in the “Edict of Milan” (see 10.5.2–

book 9

445

and sent news of the miracles that had been done for them by God and of their victory against the tyrant, as well as the law. to Maximinus, who still held power over the peoples in the East and was feigning friendship toward them [i.e., Constantine and Licinius].

O N T H E C ATA S T R O P H E O F T H E T Y R A N T S’ L I V E S , A N D W HAT S TAT E M E N T S T H EY M A D E B E F O R E T H E I R D E AT H

13 He, as tyrants do, became sick upon hearing of this. Then, not wanting to appear to be yielding to the others, nor to contradict what they had ordered because he feared those who had commanded it, he was compelled to pen, as though on his own authority, his first letter on behalf of the Christians to the governors under him. In it he falsely claims for himself that he had done things that he never had. 9a Jovius Maximinus Augustus to Sabinus. I trust it is evident to your Firmness and to all people that our rulers Diocletian and Maximian, our fathers, when they saw, as the worship of the gods was being abandoned, nearly all people commingling themselves with the nation of the Christians, correctly ordered all people who were forsaking the worship of those same gods, the deathless gods, be recalled to the worship of the gods by means of public correction and punishment. 2 But when I was fortunate to come to the East for the first time and recognized that in some places many people capable of contributing to the public good were being banished by the judges for the aforementioned reason, I had sent orders to each of the judges that none of them should treat the provincials harshly any longer, but rather call them back to the worship of the gods with cajoling and exhortations. 3 At that time, then, when in accordance with my command the orders were observed by the judges, none from the Eastern regions were either banished nor treated humiliatingly; rather, because nothing oppressive was done against them, they were recalled to the worship of the gods. 4 But after this, when the following year I was fortunate to come to Nicomedia and was residing there, citizens from the same city came to me with statues of the gods, forcefully requesting that in every way such a nation must not at all be allowed to reside in their fatherland. 5 But when I recognized that many men of the said mode of worship resided in those

446

the ecclesiastical history

regions, I delivered my responses as follows: that I was pleased and thankful for their request, but I saw that this had not been requested by everyone. If, then, some persist in the said superstition, thus may each maintain the purpose [fixed] in his own resolve, and if they should wish, acknowledge the worship of the gods. 6 Nevertheless, to both the Nicomedians of the said city and to the other cities, which themselves were also most diligent in making the same request to us—that is, that none of the Christians reside in their cities—I was required to respond kindly, because all the emperors of old observed this practice, and it was pleasing to the gods themselves, through whom all people and the very administration of the Republic are supported, that I should confirm such a request, made as it was on behalf of the worship of their divinity. 7 Therefore, even though it has been communicated quite specifically to Your Devotedness before this time through letters and likewise has been ordered through ordinances that those of our provincials engaged in observing such custom should not be dealt with harshly, but with forbearance and moderation, nevertheless, that they not be made to endure insults or harassment from beneficiarii42 or any others who would do so, I deemed it necessary by these letters to remind Your Firmness thus to use cajoling and exhortation to make our provincials acknowledge the care of the gods. 8 Hence, if anyone takes it into his purpose that the worship of the gods ought to be acknowledged, it is right to receive them. But, if some wish to follow their own form of worship, you should leave it in their own power. 9 Therefore, Your Devotedness must observe the orders I have given you: that no one be granted the power to treat our provincials with insults and harassment, since, just as we have written before, it is appropriate, rather, with exhortations and cajoling to recall our provincials to the worship of the gods. So that this our order may come to the attention of our provincials, you should make what has been ordered clear in an ordinance that you put out.43

He had been forced into this by necessity, and his orders did not reflect his own attitude. He was no longer considered honest or believable by 42. Beneficiarii were soldiers serving as attachés to imperial officials. 43. In other words, Sabinus is being encouraged to use “soft power,” in the form of preferential treatment for non-Christians, to encourage the worship of the traditional gods, while, in keeping with Galerius’s order of 311, Christians are not to be subject to legal harassment and are granted the capacity to worship as they please.

book 9

447

anyone, because he had always reversed and had lied about his attitude before, after making a similar concession. 11 Therefore, none of our people dared to gather a meeting or present himself [as Christian] openly, because this was not what his letter intended; it only stated that we should be protected from harassment. It did not encourage us to have meetings, build buildings for the churches, nor to practice any other of our customs. 12 And he did this even though the advocates of peace and piety44 had written to him to allow this and had conceded it to all under their rule through public proclamations and laws. Nevertheless, that most impious man was determined not to give in to this—until, that is, he was later driven to it by divine judgment and forced into it against his will. chapter 10. The causes of his being in this situation were as follows. He could not handle the gravity of the authority that had, without merit, been entrusted to him. Rather, being without a temperate and kingly mind, he pursued matters without tact. Above all his soul was irrationally seized by overblown arrogance, even against his imperial colleagues, who were in every way superior to him in birth, upbringing, education, honor, understanding, and, in what is most important of all, temperance and piety concerning the true God. He was driven to dare to publicize himself overconfidently as being first in honor [among his imperial colleagues]. 2 His mania stretched to utter insanity, and breaking the agreements he made with Licinius, he opted for undeclared war. Then, in short order, he threw everything into disarray, harassed every city, gathered all the military forces—a crowd of innumerable myriads— and marched out in battle formation against him, his soul buoyed up by his hope in the demons he thought to be gods, and in his myriad soldiers. 3 And when he began the battle, he was left bereft of God’s oversight, for victory had been granted by the one and only God of the Universe himself to the man who was then ruling.45 4 First, the armed force in which he had placed his trust was destroyed. Then, when his personal guards left him exposed, bereft of all [protection], deserting him to go over to the man then ruling, as 44. I.e., Constantine and Licinius. 45. I.e., Licinius.

448

the ecclesiastical history

quickly as he could the wretch cast off the imperial regalia—which he was not fit to wear—and wretchedly, ignobly, and with cowardice disappeared into the crowd. Then, he hid out, running from one rural estate and village to another, just barely escaping the clutches of his enemies. By these very deeds he proved faithful and true the divine oracles in which it is said: 5 “A king is not saved by great power, and a giant is not saved by his great strength. A horse is false security—its great power will not save. Behold the eyes of the Lord watch over those that fear him, who place their hope in his mercy; their souls will be delivered from death.”46 6 And so the tyrant, full of shame, returned to his own territory. First, his heart was so filled with mad rage against many priests and prophets of those he had previously regarded with wonder as gods, whose oracles had kindled his going to war, that he killed them as sorcerers, charlatans, and traitors to his own security.47 Then, after giving glory to the God of the Christians and most perfectly and completely crafting a law on behalf of their liberty, he immediately and without being granted any stay ended his life by dying horribly. The law promulgated by him was as follows: 7 Emperor Caesar Gaius Valerius Maximinus, Germanicus, Sarmaticus, Pius Felix Invictus Augustus. No one is ignorant that we perpetually and in every way take forethought for the benefit of our provincials and wish to provide it to them, effecting what is most advantageous and whatever is conducive to the advantage and benefit of their common [interest] and what is in accord with public advantage and is agreeable to the state of mind of each. But we are convinced that each person reflects on the fact itself and each knows and has a clear sense in himself. 8 When, therefore, it previously became clear to our knowledge that, on the pretense that it had been ordered by the most divine Diocletian and Maximian, our parents, that the gatherings of the Christians be banned, much extortion and fraud had been committed by officials, and that this continued against our provincials, to whom we are especially diligent that [these officials] should show fitting concern, and as their private property was being squandered, we legislated in letters sent to the governors of each province this past year that if anyone wished to

46. Ps. 33:16–19. 47. Or “salvation.”

book 9

449

busy himself with said people or the ritual observance of the same, he can have his own disposition without impediment and not be impeded and prevented by anyone, and that they are given license to do that which is amenable for each [of them], without fear and apprehension. 9 It has not escaped our notice, however, that some of the judges have thought ill of our orders and put our people in doubt about this, our determined ordinance, and made them reluctant to engage in these acts of worship, which were amenable to them. 10 In order, therefore, that from now on all reluctance, doubt, and fear may be removed, I legislate that this imperial constitution be posted, so that it be clear to all that thanks to this, our indulgence, it is allowed to whomever wishes to follow this sect and mode of worship to engage in that mode of worship that he is from custom determined to practice, just as each wishes or it is pleasing to him. And the “Lord’s houses”48 they may build are permitted. 11 Moreover, that our indulgence be all the greater, I deem it right to legislate this as well—that if any houses and lands that previously belonged to the Christians by legal right of ownership were, based on the order of our parents,49 appropriated to the legal ownership of the fisc or were seized by any city, whether they were sold or given to anyone as grants, we order that all these be returned to the ancient legal ownership of the Christians, so that in this all may feel our piety and care.

12 These words of the tyrant came less than a year after the ordinances of his that had been erected on the monuments. That man who shortly before thought us impious and atheists and a plague on all life, such that we should not be allowed to live in cities, nor even in the country or in deserts, that man issued ordinances and laws on behalf of Christians. And those who shortly before were destroyed before his eyes by fire, iron, and made food for beasts and birds, and who endured every form of correction and the most pitiful departures from life, as though they were atheists and impious—these people were now allowed by this same man to worship and to build Lord’s houses; and the tyrant himself agrees to grant them certain rights [of ownership]. 13 And after he had made these concessions, as if, thanks to them, he obtained a certain kind of benefaction by suffering less than he should have suffered, he was struck at once by the scourge of God and fell in the second engagement of the war. 14 His fall, though, was not like the 48. I.e., “church buildings.” Eusebius also uses the term “prayerhouses” (10.3.1). 49. I.e., Diocletian and Galerius.

450

the ecclesiastical history

glorious end granted to generals leading troops in battle, who constantly show their manliness on behalf of virtue and their friends. Instead, being an impious man and an opponent of God, he got the appropriate punishment while he stayed in hiding at home, while his troops were still deployed in the field. God’s scourge struck his whole body all at once, so that he fell facedown as he was wracked by dreadful pain and suffering. He was emaciated by hunger and his innards were melted by an invisible and god-sent fire, so that as he faded away, the image of his body’s old form completely disappeared, and only a likeness made of dry bones remained, like a body that had long ago become a skeleton. Those who were present could only ponder how the body had become a tomb for his soul, already buried in something dead and completely wasted away. 15 And as the heat burned him even stronger in the depths of his marrow, his eyes protruded, fell from their sockets, and left him maimed. But after all this he was still breathing, and making confession; he asked the Lord for death, and at last, confessing that he suffered this justly, because of his drunken violence against Christ, he gave up the soul.50 O N T H E F I NA L D E S T RU C T IO N O F T H E ENEMIES OF THE FEAR OF GOD

chapter 11. With Maximinus out of the way, the only one of the enemies of the fear of god who still remained and who had shown himself to be the worst of them all, the renewal of the churches from their foundations was advanced by the grace of God,51 and the doctrine52 of Christ, which shines forth to glorify the God of the Universe, was declared even more openly than before. The impiety of the enemies of the fear of god, by contrast, was full of utter shame and dishonor. 2 For Maximinus himself was the first to be publicly declared a common enemy of all by those then ruling, and public proclamations were posted declaring him most impious, and one whose name is to be despised, and a tyrant most hated by the gods, and of the inscriptions erected in honor of him and his children in every city, some were 50. Maximinus’s death parallels the accounts (quoted from Josephus) of the deaths of Agrippa (2.10.6–9) and Herod (1.8.5–16). 51. See Eusebius’s oration for the dedication of one of these rebuilt churches at 10.4. 52. Logos.

book 9

451

torn down from on high and smashed to the ground, while others were marred with the faces blacked out by dark paint. Likewise, whatever statues had been erected in his honor were similarly torn down and smashed, and were left there to be laughed at and toyed with by those who wanted to mock and drunkenly abuse them.53 3 Then, too, all honors were taken away from the other enemies of the fear of god, and all those of Maximinus’s way of thinking were killed, especially those he had given the honors of leadership who had pompously committed drunken violence against the doctrine we propound, just to cajole him. Such a person was Peucetius, who among them all was the most honored and respected by Maximinus, and was the closest of his comrades. He was consul a second and third time, and was appointed by Maximinus as prefect of the accounts. Likewise, Culcianus, who had passed through the whole cursus honorem,54 and who was the same man who gained distinction by the blood of myriad Christians in Egypt.55 And there were not a few others besides them, by whom Maximinus’s tyranny was supported and increased. 5 Thus did justice summon Theotecnus, and did not at all let what he did against the Christians be forgotten. For, upon his establishing the statue at Antioch, he seemed to have good fortune, and was honored by Maximinus with a governorship. 6 But when Licinius arrived at Antioch, he searched out the sorcerers, and tortured the prophets and priests of the newly erected statue, inquiring as to the scheme they used to perpetrate the fraud.56 When those subjected to the torture could no longer keep the secret, they revealed that the whole mystery was a fraud engineered by the skill of Theotecnus. He gave all of them the fitting punishment, condemning them to death after much torture—first Theotecnus himself, then his colleagues in sorcery.57 7 To all these the children of Maximinus were added as well, who had just been made colleagues in imperial honor and had been placed on placards and paintings. And those who had previously plumed

53. The preceding passage claims that Licinius and Constantine ordered a formal damnatio memoriae upon Maximinus. 54. “Course of honors”: the sequence of offices held by those in public life. 55. Clodius Culcianus, prefect of Egypt. 56. Literally, “by what logos they had perpetrated the fraud.” 57. See also PE 4.2.

452

the ecclesiastical history

themselves with their kinship to the tyrant and had flattered themselves as being lords over all people suffered the same fate as those just mentioned, with utter dishonor, for they did not accept [corrective] teaching, nor recognize nor understand the exhortation in sacred words which says: 8 Do not put your trust in rulers and in sons of men, who have no deliverance. His breath will depart, and he will return to his earth; in that very day all their designs will perish.58

And so, once the impious ones had been cleared away, the affairs of the empire, which were rightfully theirs, were preserved for Constantine and Licinius alone, secure and with no resentment. They, before all else, had purified life of enmity against God, and perceiving the good things supplied to them by God, displayed their love of virtue, love of God, and piety and thanks toward the Divine through legislation on behalf of Christians.59

58. Ps. 145:3–4. 59. Compare the closing sentences of book 10 to those here; they are nearly identical, but for a few words and phrases. Some scholars interpret this as evidence of an earlier version of the History that ended with book 9, though the repetition could also be ascribed to Eusebius’s tendency to repeat favorite turns of phrase. See the discussion of the “editions” of the Ecclesiastical History in the “General Introduction.”

Book 10

OV E RV I EW

The final book of the Ecclesiastical History runs from 313 until Constantine’s victory over Licinius and his assumption of sole rule in September 324. Eusebius concludes his work with an encomium—rhetoric of praise—for Constantine and his sons. In the late 330s, near the end of his own life, Eusebius composed a full encomiastic biography, the Life of Constantine. The Ecclesiastical History and the Life of Constantine were often transmitted together in manuscripts, and late antique and Byzantine readers often read them together as a unified narrative. In fact, the first and second books of the Life overlap the period covered by the ninth and tenth books of the History, while the remainder of the Life traces the events of Constantine’s reign until his death and his sons’ accession in 337 c.e. Book 10 is dedicated to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. After describing Constantine and Licinius as liberators who have freed the empire from tyrants, the bulk of book 10 consists of a lengthy oration that Eusebius originally delivered in Tyre at the dedication festival of a new Christian basilica complex, ca. 315 c.e. The oration is a panegyric for Paulinus as well as the basilica. Despite the local and specific context of the oration, Eusebius claims it serves as an example of an empirewide blossoming of church-building. The remainder of the book can be divided into two additional sections. First, Eusebius presents a version of a decree issued jointly by Constantine and Licinius in 313 453

454

the ecclesiastical history

reiterating the abolishment of the anti-Christian measures of the Diocletianic era and ordering the restoration of property to Christian individuals and churches. This document has traditionally been titled the Edict of Milan. It is followed by a dossier of letters evidencing the nascent Donatist controversy in Africa. The book ends with an account of Licinius’s “madness” and his abortive efforts to persecute, followed by Constantine’s ultimate victory and assumption of sole rule. SIG N I F IC A N T F E AT U R E S

The Panegyric on the Occasion of the Building of Churches In chapter 4, Eusebius includes a very long quotation of himself: the complete text of a public oration he gave in honor of the dedication of a new basilica in Tyre. The speech was also an encomium of Tyre’s bishop, Paulinus. The oration was probably delivered in 314 or 315. We know this because this basilica was built on the site of an earlier Christian building, which had been destroyed under Diocletian’s decree of 303. Enough time must have elapsed since Constantine’s and Licinius’s joint reiteration of the restitution of church property in February 313 (in the documents commonly known as the Edict of Milan) and Licinius’s assumption of control over Maximinus’s territories in late spring and summer of that year for the new building to have been completed. The speech also references Constantine and Licinius as colleagues—a reference that would be difficult to imagine after the two came to blows from 317 onward. The oration is an important source for Eusebius’s political and ecclesiological rhetoric before Constantine’s assumption of sole rule in 324. The text also contains the earliest description of a Christian basilica (10.4.37–45). Eusebius performs an ekphrasis—a vivid description designed to engage the senses of the audience. Visual sensation was privileged—the speaker encouraged an audience to picture a building or work of art in their mind’s eye. An ekphrasis often described a building or work of art that was absent to the audience. For readers of the oration as it appears in the History, the ekphasis performed and continues to perform this function. The original Tyrian audience, however, would have been present within the very structure he describes as he is describing it. Eusebius’s speech repeatedly connects the present space of the basilica with the biblical past and with

book 10

455

transcendent realities. He reads the basilica, the congregation, and their bishop as tangible fulfillments of the biblical, prophetic past within a triumphant Christian present. His aesthetics are broadly Platonic. He points to the beauty of the building, but uses it as a launching point to guide the audience away from changeable, material beauty toward the contemplation of the immaterial archetypes and paradigms that underlie it. He directs the audience from the macrocosmic beauty of the basilica to the microcosmic beauty of individual souls: the basilica is an image of the Logos, as is the individual soul (10.4.56). Eusebius also presents the basilica as making ecclesiology manifest. The hierarchical architecture of the basilica embodies the hierarchical structure of the community. The outer wall differentiates those with “unerring faith” from those outside the community. More advanced Christians serve as doormen, while others are presented as the colonnades that support the courtyard; souls within the basilica itself are those who have attained sight of the Divine; all are led by Paulinus, who sits at the front of the building and in whom “the entire Christ has taken his seat” (10.4.63–69). Two additional orations of Eusebius are extant, both delivered two decades after the Tyrian speech: the Oration on Christ’s Sepulcher, given at the dedication of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem in 335 c.e., and In Praise of Constantine, delivered in Constantinople in 336 c.e. in honor of the thirtieth anniversary of Constantine’s reign. For detailed discussions of the Tyrian oration, see C. Smith, “Christian Rhetoric in Eusebius’s Panegyric at Tyre,” VigChr 43 (1989): 226–47; and J. Schott, “Eusebius’s Panegyric on the Building of Churches (HE 10.4.2–72): Aesthetics and the Politics of Christian Architecture,” in S. Inowlocki and C. Zamagni, eds., Reconsidering Eusebius (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 177–97. The “Edict of Milan” The text known as the Edict of Milan was not, in fact, an edict. The text quoted in 10.5.1–14 is an imperial letter informing an imperial official (probably a provincial governor) of certain measures decided on by Constantine and Licinius during their summit in Milan in January 313. Lactantius (Deaths 48) preserves another imperial letter (this one in Latin to the governor of Bithynia) that publicized the measures. The two texts overlap, but differ; for complete notes on these differences, see the accompanying commentary.

456

the ecclesiastical history

The common use of the term “Edict of Milan” is symptomatic of the way in which this document has been interpreted—that is, as an innovative declaration about “religious freedom” and/or “religious tolerance.” In fact, the two imperial letters are directly related to and follow patterns familiar from other Tetrarchic letters included in the History, especially Galerius’s Edict of Toleration at the end of book 8 and Maximinus’s letters in book 9. Like them, the Edict of Milan reiterates the emperors’ commitment to piety and the value of piety for their subjects before laying out the measures to be taken by the governor. The Edict of Milan repeats the fact that the ban on Christian buildings and assembly has been lifted (compare 8.17.9 and 10.5.7). In other words, the Edict of Milan simply reiterates what had been the case in the Western provinces since ca. 306, and in the territory controlled by Licinius since 311, when Galerius’s Edict of Toleration had nullified the persecuting measures of 303. Even Maximinus had rescinded the persecution when he received Galerius’s notice in 311 (9.1.3–6). The Edict of Milan goes further than Galerius’s Edict of Toleration, however, by ordering the return of confiscated property, at imperial expense (10.5.9–11). To understand this text in in the broader context of Tetrarchic law and public policy, one should avoid reading it as a declaration of “religious freedom.” The text is not, as the modern term “religious freedom” suggests, a clarification or enforcement of “natural law,” or an inalienable right to self-determination or “choice.” Like other imperial declarations (e.g., Diocletian’s order to confiscate Christian property and ban Christian assemblies), this is positive law—the granting of specific rights or the mandating of specific actions. In this case, persons in the empire, including Christians, are being granted the capacity (potestas, Lat./exousia, Gr.) to do something—namely, to perform acts of worship (10.5.2; 10.5.5), with a specific public good in view: that the gods “be kindly to us and to all those who live under our authority” (10.5.5). The decree has Christians in view because it was that group that had previously (by Diocletian’s order of 303 and certain orders of Maximinus in 312/3) been denied this capacity. The Donatist Schism In chapters 5–7, after quoting the Edict of Milan Eusebius quotes five letters of Constantine. These certainly came to him as a collection, and almost certainly included the version of the Edict of Milan that is

book 10

457

quoted just before the five letters. The letters concern matters in the West and were in Latin; it is not certain whether Eusebius has translated them into Greek, or if the collection as he received it was already a translation. The headings given to the letters show that Eusebius included them as evidence of Constantine’s and Licinius’s benefactions and the unity of the church (e.g., “the one universal church,” 10.5.15; “the concord and unity of the churches,” 10.5.18). Whether Eusebius added these headings to the letters, or whether they already stood in the collection he used, is not certain. For modern scholars, the letters are important sources for the history of what is usually termed the Donatist schism. The documents here should be read along with the account of Optatus of Milevis and the related documents he includes in his appendices. The schism began with a controversy over the episcopal succession in Carthage, but it raised significant ecclesiological questions and fueled social divisions that would persist for centuries. The documents here all date to the beginnings of the controversy. A very brief summary of the emergence of the controversy follows. When Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, died in 311 he was succeeded by Caecilian. The consecration of a bishop required the laying on of hands by another bishop, in this case Felix, bishop of Apthunga. Bishops from the more rural province of Numidia argued that they had not been consulted in the election of Mensurius’s successor, and, moreover, accused Felix of being a traditor, that is, that he had handed over church property and writings to imperial officials. Seventy Numidian bishops consecrated a rival bishop, Majorinus. This faction was termed Donatist after Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, one of the seventy who initially opposed Caecilian. From that point, the rival successions—Caecilianist and Donatist—competed for legitimacy. When Constantine defeated Maxentius and took control of Italy and North Africa in 312, the rival factions appealed to the emperor to arbitrate the dispute. There was precedent; Aurelian had arbitrated the dispute about Paul of Samosata in the late 260s c.e. (see the account in book 7). At stake from the perspective of Roman law were property rights (if Christian property was to be restored, as ordered by the Edict of Milan, to whom, exactly, was it to be restored?) and imperial benefactions (if the emperor granted privileges and resources to the “church,” to which church, exactly, should they be given?). Eusebius quotes the

458

the ecclesiastical history

letters in the order they appeared in his manuscript; they are not in chronological sequence. A brief contextualization of each letter follows. 1. Letter of Constantine to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (first quarter of 313): Constantine informs the proconsul of the order to restore Christian property. 2. Letter of Constantine to Miltiades, bishop of Rome (mid-313): In April 313, the Donatists had given the proconsul a dossier of materials to send to Constantine, asking him to arbitrate the dispute. He agreed to call a synod of bishops in Rome to arbitrate; this letter informs the Roman bishop of the plan. 3. Letter of Constantine to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse (before August 314): The synod in Rome decided in favor of Caecilian, but the Donatists made a second appeal, demanding that the case be heard by impartial bishops from Gaul. Constantine thus called the Council of Arles, which met in 314 c.e. Similar letters to the one here would have been sent to bishops called to Arles. This action on Constantine’s part set precedent for his calling the more famous Council of Nicaea in 325. 4. Letter of Constantine to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage (last quarter of 313): Constantine grants cash donatives to specified clergy and encourages unity. 5. Letter of Constantine to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa (early 313): Constantine grants clergy exemption from public liturgies, that is, the requirement of local elites (the decuriones—members of local town councils) to fund public works and serve in public offices (which likewise required spending one’s own resources). Constantine seems unaware of the dispute in North Africa in this letter. By putting in play a significant material benefit, Constantine’s benefaction unintentionally helped to fuel the controversy. PA R A L L E L A N D R E L AT E D S OU R C E S • • •

Eusebius, Life of Constantine 1.41.3–2.19.3 Lactantius, On the Deaths of the Persecutors 48–52 Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists (esp. Optatus’s “Appendices,” which include Constantinian documents related to those included in book 10); English translation: M. Edwards, Optatus: Against the Donatists (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997)

Translation

CONTENTS OF BOOK 10

On the peace we obtained from God On the renewal of the churches On the dedication festivals everywhere Panegyric on the happy state of affairs Copies of imperial laws concerning matters pertaining to Christians On the exemption of clerics from public service On Licinius’s later evildoing and his undoing On the victory of Constantine and the benefits he brought to those under Roman authority O N T H E P E AC E W E O B TA I N E D F R OM G O D

chapter 1. Grace be to God, the Absolute Ruler over all and King of the Universe, and the greatest [grace] to the Savior and Redeemer of our souls, Jesus Christ, through whom we pray for peace from external turmoil and that our minds be kept safe and unshaken through everything. 2 With these prayers we add here the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History to those that have been marched out already,1 and we

1. Prodiexodeuō: literally, “to march out prior”; the entry in the Patristic Greek Lexicon adduces only the usage in this passage. It is not clear from this term if Eusebius

459

460

the ecclesiastical history

dedicate it to you, my most holy Paulinus, as though calling upon you as a confirming seal for the whole project. 3 We will place here, fittingly, to make a perfect number, the final, panegyrical account of the renewal of the churches, obeying the Holy Spirit, which commands thus: “Sing to the Lord a new song, for he has worked wonders; his right hand, his holy arm, has preserved him. The Lord has made known his salvation, before the Gentiles he has revealed his righteousness.”2 4 And with this [book] we do indeed sing out in accordance with the oracle that commands the new song, because after horrible and dark sights and stories, we were now deemed worthy to see and to praise what the many truly righteous and martyrs of God who came before us longed to see upon the earth, but did not see, and to hear, but did not hear.3 5 They pressed on swiftly and attained much greater things in the very heavens itself and were taken up to the paradise of divine luxury, and while we confess that this is greater than what we have, we are beyond astounded at the grace of the munificence of the one who is the cause of it all, and we look on with fitting amazement, rendering him reverential awe with the power of our whole soul and bearing witness to the truth in the written predictions, in which it is said: 6 “Come and see the works of the Lord, the wonders which he has set upon the earth, doing away with war unto the ends of the earth. He will break the bow and smash the armor, and will burn the shields in fire.”4 Rejoicing in this, which has manifestly been fulfilled among us, let us continue on with the account. O N T H E R E N EWA L O F T H E C H U R C H E S

7 The whole race of God-haters had been destroyed in the way described earlier and thusly obliterated all at once from human sight, so that once again a divine statement obtained its end, the one that says: “I saw the impious elevated and lifted up like the cedars of Lebanon. And I was passing by, and behold, he was gone, and I searched his

means that the other books have been made public prior to book 10, or if they have simply come before book 10 in sequence. 2. Ps. 98:1–2. 3. Matt. 13:7. 4. Ps. 46:8–9.

book 10

461

place, and he was not found.”5 8 Moreover, a bright, radiant day, without a cloud to darken it, shone with rays of heavenly light throughout the whole inhabited world upon the churches of Christ, nor was there any grudge against those outside our society for sharing in the joy, if not equally, at least partially, of the outpouring of the God-sent conditions that held sway for us. chapter 2. All people were liberated from the oppression of the tyrants. Released from the earlier evils, some in one way, some in another, confessed that the champion of the pious was the one true God. But for us, in particular, who had placed our hopes in God’s Christ, there was unspeakable happiness and a divine joy flowered for us all, as we saw every place that had just a little while before been smashed by the impieties of the tyrants coming to life again as if from a long, fatal destruction, and temples rising again from their foundations to infinite heights, and having even more adornment than those that had previously been besieged. 2 And with successive pieces of legislation on behalf of the Christians, the most exalted emperors kept confirming the fact of God’s munificence toward us more and more. And personal letters from the emperor went sent to bishops, and honors, and donations of property. It would not be unreasonable to inscribe these statements in this book at the proper point in this account, as though on a sacred stele, translated from the Roman language into the Greek, so that they may be preserved for the memory of all who come after us. O N T H E D E D IC AT IO N F E ST I VA L S EV E RY W H E R E

chapter 3. After this, the spectacle we had prayed and yearned for came to pass: rededication festivals throughout the cities and consecrations of the newly built prayerhouses, bishops convening together in the same place, meetings with those from faraway, foreign lands, courtesies given by one people to another, the members of the body of Christ coming together in a single harmonious unity. 2 Then, in

5. Luke 22:37; Ps. 37:35–36.

462

the ecclesiastical history

accordance with the prophetic prediction which had mystically indicated beforehand what was going to happen, “bone came together with bone and joint with joint,”6 and everything that the divinely inspired passage expounded without falsehood in enigmatic language [was fulfilled]. 3 One was the power of the Divine Spirit coursing through all the members, and the soul of all was one, and the same desire for faith, and there a single theological hymn was heard from all. Yes, indeed, [one could see] the perfect devotions of the leaders and sacrifices of the priests, and the god-approved ordinances of the church, here the singing of psalms and the other recitations of the utterances given to us from God, there the performance of divine and mystical services, and the ineffable symbols of the salvific Passion. 4 Together, those of every age group, male and female, praised God, the cause of these goods, with the whole strength of their rational faculty, rejoicing in mind and soul with prayers and thanks. And all of the leaders who were present gave panegyrical orations, as each was able, inspiring the assembly. PA N E G Y R IC O N T H E HA P P Y S TAT E O F A F FA I R S

chapter 4. And a certain person,7 moderately suited to the task, came forward into their midst, and presented a speech he had prepared, as to a gathering in the church. As the many shepherds who were present listened in orderly silence, he delivered this speech in the presence of one bishop who was superlative in every respect and beloved by God, whose diligence provided lavishly for the construction of that temple that is the most distinguished among the Phoenician people: panegyric on the occasion of the building of churches, delivered to paulinus, bishop of the tyrians 2 O Friends of God and priests clothed with the holy robe8 and heavenly crown of glory, the inspired chrism and the priestly stole of the Holy Spirit, and you,9 the new pride of God’s holy temple, who are 6. 7. 8. 9.

Ezek. 37:7. Eusebius himself. Exod. 29:5. Singular: Paulinus, bishop of Tyre.

book 10

463

honored by God with the wisdom of age yet have shown yourself by your valuable works and actions to be a paradigm of a flourishing youthful virtue, to whom God himself, who embraces the entire cosmos, has gifted the special privilege of the construction of his house upon earth and its renovation for Christ, his Only-Begotten and Firstborn Logos and [Christ’s] Holy and God-Picked Bride.10 3 Should one call you a new Beseleel, the architect of the divine tabernacle,11 or Solomon, king of a new and much greater Jerusalem, or even a new Zerubbabel,12 who added even greater glory than before to God’s Temple? 4 And you, too, O creatures of Christ’s holy flock, a hearth full of good discourses, a schoolroom full of self-control, and an auditorium of august and divinely beloved fear of God. 5 In the past, from the divine readings we heard of miraculous divine signs and of the wondrous benefactions the Lord performed among humanity, and sent up hymns and odes to God, having been taught that we should say, “O God, we heard with our ears; our fathers reported to us the deeds you wrought in their days of old.”13 6 But now, no longer do we ascertain the lofty arm and the heavenly right hand of our God, Absolutely Good and Absolute King, by hearing or the spread of words, but, as one might say, in fact and with our very eyes we behold what in the past was handed down in memory is trustworthy and true, and we can raise a second victory hymn and palpably raise our voices, and say, “As we have heard, so we saw in a city of the Lord of hosts, in a city of our God.”14 7 In what city other than that newly constructed and God-built city which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth, about which another divine oracle also evangelizes, just so: “Glorious things were spoken of you, O city of God”?15 The Absolutely Good God has gathered us in this city through the grace of his Only-Begotten; let each of those who have been called sing a hymn, all but shouting, and say, “I was glad in those who had said to me, ‘To the Lord’s house we shall go,’ and ‘O Lord, I loved your house’s majesty and the place where your glory makes its tabernacle.’ ”16 8 Yes,

10. The church is likened to a bride and Christ to a bridegroom, a comparison first attested in Eph. 5:22–33. 11. Exod. 35:30. 12. Hag. 2:2–9. 13. Ps. 44:1. 14. Ps. 48:8. 15. Ps. 87:3. 16. Ps. 122:1 and 26:8.

464

the ecclesiastical history

and not only each one individually, but let all of us call out together giving honor with one spirit and a single soul, saying: “Great is the Lord and most praiseworthy, in the city of our God on his holy mount.”17 For it is truly great, and “great is his house, lofty and wide, ripe with beauty in comparison to the sons of men.”18 “Great is the Lord who alone works wonders.”19 “Great is he who does great and incomprehensible things, things that are glorious and marvelous, which are without number.”20 “Great is the one who changes the times and seasons, removes and establishes kings, raises up the poor from the earth, and lifts the needy off the dunghill.”21“He has thrown rulers down from their thrones and raised up the humble from the earth. He has filled the hungry with good things and has broken the arms of the haughty.”22 He has confirmed the memory of the ancient accounts, 9 not only for believers, but also for the unbelievers, he, the Wonderworker, the Doer of Great Things, the Master of the universe, the demiurge of the entire cosmos, the Almighty, the Absolutely Good, the One and Only God. To him let us sing the new song, understanding this implicitly as well: “To him who alone works wonders, because his mercy lasts forever; to him who smote great kings and killed mighty kings, because his mercy lasts forever; because he remembered us in our humiliation and freed us from our enemies.”23 10 Let us never stop praising the Father of the Universe with these words, while also keeping honor on our lips for the Second Cause24 of the good things that have come to us, the Introducer of the knowledge of God, the Teacher of true piety, the Destroyer of the impious, the Tyrant Killer, life’s Corrector, our Savior in our desperation, Jesus. 11 Because he alone, as the most singular, Absolutely Good child of the Absolutely Good, at the determination of the Father’s love of humanity, quite willingly put on the nature of we who were lying here below in corruption, as an excellent physician who for the sake of saving those who are afflicted “sees dreadful things, but touches nauseous things and

17. Ps. 47:2. 18. Bar. 3:24–25. 19. Ps. 44:3. 20. Ps. 71:18. 21. Job 9:10. 22. Luke 1:52. 23. Ps. 136:4, 17, 18, 23, 24. 24. Eusebius’s designation of the Son as “Second Cause” was often pointed out by his detractors as evidence of subordinationism and “Arianism.”

book 10

465

plucks the fruit of his own grief from those of others.”25 He himself, by himself, saved us from the very darkest depths of death, we who were not only suffering from dreadful injuries and oppressed by already septic wounds, but even lying among the dead, because no other [being] in heaven was strong enough to render service for the salvation of people in such a state without suffering harm. 12 He alone, then, took hold of our own deep-suffering corruption, he alone endured our toils, he alone placed upon himself the penalties for our impieties. He—the Giver of Life, the Illuminator, our Great Physician, King, and Lord, God’s Christ—raises us up, we who were not half-dead, but utterly rotting and stinking in our graves and tombs already, and saves us, in the past and now, by the diligence of his love for humanity, which goes beyond what anyone, including ourselves, could hope for, and abundantly provides the good things of the Father. 13 But at the moment when he saw the whole human race sunk in the depths of dark and gloomy night by the error of destructive demons and the activities of god-hating spirits, then by his epiphany alone, as though melting wax with the rays of his light, he released the well-knotted chains of our impieties. 14 And then, when that envy that hates the good, the evil-loving daimōn, was all but torn asunder upon the occasion of such grace and benefaction, and was lining up all his death-dealing powers in battle against us, he at first, like a mad dog that bares its teeth at the stones thrown at him and vents its anger against those defending themselves by biting at the inanimate objects, directed his animalistic madness at the stones of the prayerhouses and the inanimate materials of the buildings, so that, as he thought to himself, he might desolate the churches. Then with his horrible hissing and serpent-like vocalizations he hurled at us, first, the impious tyrants’ threats, then impious rulers’ blasphemous laws. And further still, he vomited up death from within himself, and poisoned the souls he had captured for himself with virulent soul-destroying concoctions, all but making them dead by means of the death-dealing sacrifices offered to dead idols, and blowing the trumpet to call upon every savage animal in human form and every kind of wild thing to attack us. 15 Once again, after the great soldiers of his kingdom had evidenced their instinctive training through their endurance and perseverance in everything, the Angel of Great Counsel, God’s great Generalissimo, appearing suddenly, made all that was inimical and hostile disappear into nothingness, so that it seemed never to have had a name, while everything friendly

25. Hippocrates, On Human Nature 1.

466

the ecclesiastical history

to him and belonging to him he elevated beyond every glory, not only human glory, but even that of heavenly powers like the sun, the moon, the stars, and the entire heaven and cosmos. 16 Consequently, now—which has never happened before—the supreme emperors of all, having perceived the honor they have received from him, spit in the faces of dead idols, stomp on the unlawful customs of the demons, and laugh at the ancient error handed down from their fathers. They recognize him as the One and Only God, the common benefactor of everyone and themselves, and confess Christ, the Child of God, the Sovereign King of the universe, and call him Savior on steles, chiseling an indelible memory of his virtuous deeds and his victories over the impious with imperial inscriptions in the middle of the city that reigns as Queen over everyone on earth. Thus Jesus Christ, our Savior, alone of all those throughout the ages, is acknowledged even by the most supreme rulers of the earth themselves, not as a common human king, but is worshipped by them as the legitimate Child of the God of the Universe, and as God himself. 17 And rightly so. For what king has ever borne such great virtue that his name filled the ears and tongues of all people upon the earth? What king reigned so completely that upon enacting such pious and sound laws they were read out in the hearing of all people from the ends of the earth to the edges of the whole inhabited world? 18 Who undid the barbarous and uncivilized customs of uncivilized peoples with his civilized and most philanthropic laws? Who, when attacked by all for whole ages of time, displayed such superhuman virtue as to flourish daily and remain young throughout the whole of life? 19 Who founded a people that, throughout the ages, had never even been heard of, and did not establish them hidden in some corner of the earth, but everywhere under the sun? Who so fortified the soldiers of piety with weapons that they showed their souls stronger than adamant in their contests against their opponents? What king exerted such strength and took command even after death and set up trophies against his enemies and filled every place—both rural and urban, Hellene and barbarian—with imperial houses and divine temples with votive decorations, like the fine ornaments and votive offerings of this temple? They are truly august and great, and worthy of awe and wonder, even as they are clear proofs of the kingdom of our Savior. Because even now he has spoken, and they have come into being, he has commanded, and they have been erected,26 for

26. Ps. 148:5.

book 10

467

what was going to stand in the way of the will of the Universal King and Absolute Ruler, the Logos of God himself? Detailed contemplation and interpretation of these matters would require leisure for discourses dedicated to the subject.27 21 However, the diligent efforts of those who have [so] labored are not to be judged enough nor sufficient to [describe] the one about whom they have theologized, who looks down on this ensouled temple comprised of all of us and sees the building made of living but firm stones, well and securely founded upon a foundation comprised of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ himself as the cornerstone that the evil architects of evil things rejected—not only the architects of that old structure which no longer exists, but also of that which in the present is comprised of most of humanity. But the Father approved [the cornerstone], both then and now, and set it at the head of the corner of this shared church28 comprised of us. 22 Indeed then, this living temple of the living God, made up of us ourselves, I mean this greatest sanctuary that is, as true as the word can be, “fit for God,” of which the hidden places within are unseen by the multitude, and are truly holy and a holy of holies—who upon seeing this would dare to describe it?29 For who can peer within the surrounding temples, except the great High Priest of the Universe alone, to whom alone it is permitted to inspect the invisible parts of every rational soul? 23 But perhaps it is accessible to another, to one alone who seconds him in the same tasks, to that leader seated before this army, whom the first and great High Priest has privileged with the secondary honors of the sacred rites in this place as the shepherd of your divine flock, allotted your people by the decision and judgment of the Father, as though he appointed him his own servant and interpreter, the new Aaron or Melchisedek in the likeness of the Son of God who remains and abides with him continuously in your communal prayers.30 24 Indeed, then, let it be for this man alone, if not as the first, at least as the second after the first and greatest high priest, to observe and oversee the deepest contemplations of your souls, this

27. Like the extended discussions of these topics in Eusebius’s Gospel Preparation and Gospel Demonstration, for example. 28. Ekklēsia: literally, “gathering”; it is the word in early Christian texts usually translated “church.” 29. The “hidden places” are the souls of the congregants, which are likened to the sanctuary, separated from the laity by a chancel screen, where the altar was located and where the eucharistic ritual was performed. 30. The other who “seconds” Christ is the bishop, Paulinus.

468

the ecclesiastical history

man who through experience and length of time has made accurate inspection of each [of you], who by his diligence and care has set you all piously in beautiful order and reason and who is himself better able than anyone to give accounts equal to the facts of what he, with the help of divine power, has restored. 25 Our first and great High Priest says that whatever he sees the Father doing, the Son also does likewise,31 while this [high priest],32 gazing up with the pure eyes of the mind at the first as though to a teacher, takes whatever he sees him doing, and uses it like an archetype and paradigm to craft it in likeness, perfecting its image. He lacks nothing of that Bezalel,33 who God himself filled with a spirit of wisdom and understanding and also with technical knowledge, and called him to be the craftsman34 to furnish heavenly types through the symbols of the Temple. 26 In this way, then, the man before us, who bears in his own soul a complete image of Christ, the Logos, Wisdom, and Light, has established this magnificent temple of the Highest God, which in its nature resembles the higher pattern as something seen [corresponding to] something unseen. With what magnanimity and a generous hand he did this, without any thought of greed, and how you all competed so earnestly with one another in the generosity of your donations that you did not in any way fall short in your desire to imitate his own attitude, is beyond words. It is worth mentioning first that he did not disregard this space, though it had been buried under all kinds of unclean material thanks to the enemies’ plots, nor did he abandon it to the wickedness of those responsible, though he could have found another [place], for there were many other options in the city, and thus have found easy work and have avoided difficulties. 27 But first he rallied himself for the work, then strengthened the whole people with enthusiasm, making a single hand out of them all, and fought the first contest. Indeed, he thought that she who had been besieged by enemies, she who had struggled earlier and had endured the same persecutions with us and before us—the church— like a mother bereft of children, must share in enjoying the great gener-

31. Heb. 4:14. 32. I.e., Paulinus. 33. According to Exod. 31:1–11, Bezalel was the craftsman responsible for overseeing the construction of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, and the tools and priestly vestments. 34. Demiourgos: demiurge.

book 10

469

osity of the All-Good. 28 For once the Great Shepherd35 had again scared off the beasts, wolves, and every cruel and savage species, and smashed the lions’ teeth,36 as the divine oracles say, he thought it right to bring his children together again. He reestablished the flock’s pasture most righteous, to put the enemy and avenger to shame37 and confute the god-battling audacity of the impious. 29 And now the god-haters are no more, for they never were; they raised confusion but briefly and were confounded, and then received no meager punishment from justice, utterly undoing themselves, their friends, and their households. And so the ancient predictions inscribed on ancient tablets are confessed trustworthy by events, those [predictions] in which the Divine Logos tells the truth about a variety of matters, even proclaiming about them: 30 “The wicked have drawn out the sword and have bent their bow; to cast down the poor and needy, to slay the upright in heart; may their sword enter into their own hearts, may their bows be broken.”38 And again: “Their memory perished resoundingly.”39 And: “Their name has been blotted out forever and forever and ever.”40 Because, indeed, when they were in evil circumstances “they cried, and there was no one to save them; to the Lord, and he did not hear them.”41 But they “had their feet bound together and fell, but we rose and stood upright.”42 And what was predicted in these words, “Lord, in your city you will despise their image,”43 has been shown to be true before everyone’s eyes. 31 But those who raised war against God like the Giants have obtained just such a catastrophic end to their lives,44 while she who was deserted and rejected by humanity has won for her godly endurance the results that we see, so that the prophecy of Isaiah calls out to her: 32 “Be glad, O thirsty wilderness, let the wilderness rejoice and blossom like a lily; and the desert places shall blossom forth and rejoice. Be strong, you weak hands and feeble knees. Be of good courage, you feeble-hearted, be

35. Heb. 13:20. 36. Ps. 58:6. 37. Ps. 8:2. 38. Ps. 37:14–15. 39. Ps. 9:6. 40. Ps. 9:5. 41. Ps. 18:41. 42. Ps. 20:8. 43. Ps. 73:20. 44. In Greek mythology, the Giants were headstrong warriors who thought they could fight the Olympian gods.

470

the ecclesiastical history

strong, fear not; behold, our God is repaying judgment, and will repay; he will come and save us. Because,” it says, “water has broken forth in the desert, and a gully in thirsty ground. And the dry place shall become marshlands and in the thirsty land there will be a spring of water.”45 33 What was foretold long ago, and set down in words in the sacred books, has indeed been communicated to us, no longer just to our hearing, but by events. The “wilderness,” the “dry place,” the “defenseless widow” whose gates they cut down with axes like trees in a wood,46 whom they broke with hammer and chisel, and whose books they destroyed and whose sanctuary of God they put to the flame, the tent of his Name which they cast upon the ground, from which all who passed by on the road plucked pieces after her fences had been knocked down, whom the wild boar of the forest savaged and the ferocious beast tore to pieces47—now by the miraculous power of Christ, as he wishes, she has become “like a lily.” For at his command, like the command of a careful father, she was educated. For the one whom the Lord loves, he educates, and he beats every son he receives. 34 Then, having received the necessary measure of correction, she is ordered to rejoice once more, as at the beginning, and she blooms like a lily and wafts divine fragrance over all. For, he says, “water has broken forth in the desert,” the stream of the divine regeneration of the salvific lustration, and now what was just a short time ago a desert has become “marshland,” and “in the thirsty land a spring of ” living “water” has sprung up. And truly, “hands” that before were “weak” have “become strong,” and these great labors are the manifest evidence of the strength of these hands. And the old enfeebled and weakened knees have recovered their proper stride, and walk straight down the road of the knowledge of God, eager to reach the proper flock, that of the All-Good Shepherd. 35 But if some have had their souls stiffened by the tyrants’ threats, the salvific Logos does not pass them by without attending to them; he heals them quite well, 36 and urges them on toward the divine summons, saying: “Be of good courage, you feeble-hearted, be strong, fear not.” This man, our fine new Zerubbabel,48 heard with the sharp ear of his mind the utterance predicting that she whom God had made a desert

45. Isa. 35:1–4, 6–7. 46. Ps. 74:5–7. 47. An allusion to the demolition of Christian buildings under Diocletian and Galerius. 48. Zerubbabel was one of the priests who supervised the construction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem after returning from exile in Babylon (Ezra 3:1–2).

book 10

471

would come to enjoy these benefits after that bitter captivity and the abomination of desolation.49 He did not ignore the dead corpse, but first of all, with your common consent, he appealed to the Father with invocations and entreaties. And taking as his ally and coworker the only one who can make the dead live, he raised up her who had fallen, after making her clean and healing her ailments, and wrapped her with a robe, not the one she had of old, but with one like that he had been taught about by the divine oracles that say clearly: “And the later splendor of this house shall be great beyond the first.”50 37 So, then, the whole space he enclosed was much larger.51 He fortified the area surrounding [the basilica] with a wall that fully encircled it, to be a most unshakable palisade for the whole [complex]. Then he laid out a large, high propylaeum,52 leading toward the rising sun, which even gave those standing far outside the sacred spaces an abundant view of the things within, all but turning the eyes of those foreign to the faith toward the first entrances. He hoped that that no one would pass by without his soul being struck by the memory of the prior desolation and the miraculous wonderwork of the present, and once struck, also be drawn by the sight to enter within.53 39 But he does not allow a person entering through the gates immediately to tread with unholy and unwashed feet upon the holy spaces within, but has placed a large space between the temple and the first entrances, and adorned it with four surrounding stoas, enclosing the area within the shape of a quadrangle, with pillars on all sides, and enclosed [the stoas] with wooden lattices placed in the space between the pillars and rising to just the right height. The middle he has left open with a view of the heavens, providing it with air and brightness from the rays of light.54 40 There he placed symbols of sacred purifications, building fountains directly in front of the temple, which

49. “Abomination of desolation”: in Dan. 12:11 a prediction that the sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple will be desacralized and polluted; repeated in Mark 13:14 and parallels. Here, Eusebius applies it to the church building in Tyre, desecrated by Diocletian’s order to despoil church buildings and confiscate property. 50. Hag. 2:9. 51. I.e., the area of the new complex was larger than the old. 52. The entranceway or porch leading to the interior of a temple precinct. 53. Note how Eusebius claims that the structure will reshape the memories not only of Christians, but of the entire Tyrian population, as the architecture of the site compels their contemplation. 54. An open courtyard surrounded on three sides by stoas with the propylaeum on the fourth side.

472

the ecclesiastical history

with their abundant flow of water provide purification to those who are going to enter within the sacred enclosures. This is the first place for those entering to linger, for it provides the whole with beauty and splendor and a place for those still needing their initial introductions.55 41 Leaving this sight behind, he has made the entrances of the temple with even larger propylaea further inside, once again placing three gates beneath the rays of the sun, differentiating the central one by making it wider and taller than the other two and beautifying it with bronze hardware and detailed reliefs framed in iron, setting the other two beside it like bodyguards for a queen. 42 In the same way he has arranged the number of stoas along each side of the whole temple,56 and above them placed various openings to let more light into the building, and decorated them with screens crafted from wood. As for the royal building,57 he has made abundant use of the most expensive materials, begrudging no expense. 43 Here it seems enough for me to describe the length and breadth of the building, the beauty and fineness of which is beyond words, and the dazzling sight of the work, which surpasses our speech, the height of the walls that reach to heaven and the luxurious cedars of Lebanon that sit atop them. The divine oracle is not silent about mentioning this, saying: “The trees of the Lord shall be glad, even the cedars of Lebanon, which he planted.”58 44 What need is there now for me to attempt an accurate description of the utter wisdom and architectural skill [evident in this building] and the exceeding beauty of each part of it, when the evidence of the sight shuts out any instruction that might come through the ears?59 But when he completed the temple he adorned it fittingly with high thrones to honor the presidents and with benches in rows throughout

55. I.e., for the catechumens, who were not admitted to the mysteries of the liturgy; it is possible that he is also alluding to catechetical instruction taking place in this courtyard. 56. Whether he means there are stoas along each exterior wall of the basilica, or that the interior has a double colonnade, is unclear. 57. basilikos oikos: “basilica.” A basilica was a “royal building” because the design— a rectangular building with semicircular apses at each end—was typically used for courts, assembly halls, and other buildings where the activities of imperial government took place. When Christians adopted this architectural form, the term also took on a new valence: the “royal building” was the house of God, the Universal Sovereign. 58. Ps. 104:16. 59. I.e., the audience won’t listen to his description of the building’s beauty, because they are looking at it and are captivated by it.

book 10

473

the whole space, setting the sacrificial altar, the holy of holies, in the middle of it all. So that the vulgar would not tread there, he fenced it with wooden lattices crafted with the highest skill, to provide a marvel to those gazing at the sight.60 45 But he did not even let the pavement go without consideration. He made this brilliant with beautiful marble stone. At last, going on to the outside of the temple, he attached outbuildings and larger buildings along each side and skillfully attached them, uniting them to the central building with communicating entrances.61 These, too, were constructed by our most peaceful Solomon,62 who built this new temple of God, for those still needing purification and ablutions with water and the Holy Spirit,63 so that no longer is the prophecy mentioned above accomplished only in word, but in deed. 46 For the glory of this building is now truly greater than that of the former.64 For since it followed rightly that, as her Shepherd and Master suffered death one time on her behalf and after the Passion changed the body of pollution that he had put on for her sake into one that is resplendent and glorious, and conveyed that very flesh which had been dissolved in corruption into incorruption,65 She, likewise, will enjoy the Savior’s dispensations, because she has received from him the promise of glory much greater than this, the new birth in the resurrection of an incorruptible body, together with the light of the chorus of angels in the kingdoms of God that lie beyond the heavens, with Christ Jesus himself, the Supreme Benefactor and Savior, lastingly in the ages to come. 47 But, here in the present, she who used to be a widow and barren has been clothed by the grace of God with flowers and has truly become “like a lily,” as the prophecy says,66 and having received the bridal robe and wearing the crown of beauty she is instructed by Isaiah as though

60. The wooden lattices are a chancel screen separating the sanctuary, altar, and seating for the clergy from the nave, where the congregation gathered. 61. Eusebius is describing other structures that are part of the basilica complex and communicate with the central basilica. These could have served a variety of functions, from residences for the bishop and clergy to places for instruction of catechumens, a baptistery, storage, etc. 62. According to 1 Kings 6:1 ff., the First Temple was completed during the reign of King Solomon. 63. One of the other structures may have been a baptistery. 64. Hag. 2:9. 65. The language is Pauline: Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:42. 66. Isa. 35:1, the passage Eusebius was quoting earlier at 10.4.33.

474

the ecclesiastical history

to dance, presenting her thank-offerings to God the King with words of praise. She says: 48 “Let my soul be glad in the Lord, for he has clothed me with a garment of salvation and with a tunic of joy; he has put on me a headdress as on a bridegroom and adorned me with ornaments like a bride. And as the earth making its flowers grow, and as a garden its seeds, so the Lord will cause righteousness and gladness to spring up before all the nations.”67 49 To these words she dances. But as for the words with which the bridegroom, the heavenly Logos, Jesus Christ himself, requites her, hear the Lord as he says: “Do not fear because you were put to shame, neither feel disgraced because you were reproached, because you will forget your ancient shame and you will not remember the reproach of your widowhood. The Lord has not called you as a forsaken and faint-hearted woman, nor as a woman hated from youth, your God has said. For a brief moment I forsook you, but with great mercy I will have mercy on you. With a little wrath I turned my face away from you, but with everlasting mercy I have had mercy on you, the Lord who delivered you has said.”68 50 “Awake, awake! You who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his fury, for you have drained dry and emptied the cup of ruin, the goblet of wrath. And there was none who comforted you from among all your children whom you have borne, and there was none who took hold of your hand.” See I have taken from your hand the cup of ruin, the goblet of wrath, and you shall not continue to drink it any longer. And I will put it into the hands of those who have wronged you and humbled you.” 51 “Awake, awake! Put on your strength. Put on your glory. Shake off the dust and rise up; sit down; take off the bond from your neck.”69 “Lift up your eyes all around, and see them all; look, they have gathered and have come to you. ‘I live,’ says the Lord; you shall clothe yourself with all of them and put them on like a bride’s ornament, because your desolate and spoiled and ruined places will now be crowded on account of your inhabitants, and those who swallow you up will be far away from you. For your sons whom you have lost will say in your ears: ‘The place is too narrow for me; make a place for me so that I may settle.’ Then you will say in your heart, ‘Who has begotten me these? But I was childless and a widow, so who has reared these for me? But I was left all alone, so where did I have these?’”70 67. 68. 69. 70.

Isa. 61:10–11. Isa. 54:4, 6–8. Isa. 51:17–18, 22, 23. Isa. 49:18–21.

book 10

475

53 Isaiah prophesied these things. Long ago they were set down about us in sacred books, but it was necessary at some point to understand their truthfulness by the reality of the very facts. 54 For the Logos, as bridegroom, declares these things to his own bride, the sacred and holy church, and the bride’s servant here71 fittingly reached out with the common prayers of you all and awoke and set upright her who was desolate, who lay like a corpse, who had no hope of help from people, by the nod of God the Absolute Ruler and by the manifestation of the power of Jesus Christ. Having raised her up he restored her, as he had been taught from the description of the sacred oracles. 55 This72 is indeed a great marvel, beyond stunning, especially to those who set their mind only to the mental image of external things. But a marvel beyond marvels are the archetypes and intelligible prototypes of these things, their God-approved paradigms—I mean the renovations of the god-inspired and rational structure within our souls.73 56 This the Child of God74 crafted according to his own image and in everything and in every respect endowed with the divine likeness, an incorruptible nature, incorporeal, rational, foreign to all earthly matter, a self-intelligible essence. In a single originary moment he brought her into being from not-being, and made her a holy bride and an all-sacred temple for himself and the Father. This he himself clearly shows, confessing: “I will dwell among them and walk among them, and I will be their God and they will be my people.”75 Such is the perfect and purified soul, having been begotten so from the beginning, so that it contains the statue of the heavenly Logos.76 57 But thanks to the envy and jealousy of the demon who hates what is good, she, based on her own capacity to choose, became a lover of passion and a lover of-evil, and when the Divine left her, leaving her without a protector, she was easy prey for those who had for a long time been jealous of her. Beaten down by battering rams and siege engines

71. Paulinus, who is here called a nyphostolos, the attendant of the bride. 72. I.e., the basilica. 73. Note how Eusebius redirects the audience’s gaze from the building inward, to contemplate the soul as a temple. The soul-as-temple trope was commonplace, but the echo here is probably Pauline (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:16–17). 74. Theopais: “Child of God” or “God the Child.” 75. 2 Cor. 6:16. 76. Agalma: “statue”; in other words, the soul is like a temple that contains a statue of the god. Picturing Eusebius’s metaphor is easier if one keeps in mind that he understands the human soul to possess reason (logos), which is a likeness of the Logos.

476

the ecclesiastical history

of invisible foes and intelligible enemies, she had taken a great tumble, so that not even a stone upon a stone77 of her virtue remained standing within her. She lay sprawled out, wholly dead, completely deprived of her innate conceptions of God. 58 As she lay there fallen, she who was constructed according to the image of God, it was not the wild boar of the woods seen by our eyes that savaged her, but a death-dealing demon and intelligible savage beasts, who enflamed her with the missiles of their own evils, and set on fire that truly divine sanctuary of God, casting down the tabernacle of his Name to the earth, then heaping a huge pile of dirt upon their victim, leaving her without any hope of salvation. 59 But her guardian, the Logos, the Divinely Bright and Saving One, restored her once again as she had been from the beginning, after she had paid the just penalty for her sins, commending her to the All-Good Father’s kindness toward humanity. 60 Indeed, then, choosing first the souls of the highest rulers,78 through these most God-beloved men he purified the whole inhabited world of all the impious and destructive people and of those dreadful and God-hating tyrants themselves. Then his closest followers, those who long ago had consecrated their lives to him, but had been kept safe in hiding by his oversight, as though sheltered in the midst of a storm of evils, he brought out into the open and worthily honored them with the great gifts of the Father. Through them he again purified and cleaned off the souls that had shortly before been buried under and were caked with all the material and garbage contained in impious ordinances, using the well-honed picks and shovels of [his/their] teachings. 61 And once he had made the space of all of your minds bright and gleaming he then gave it over to this all-wise and God-beloved leader.79 He, being critical and thoughtful about everything, and having an excellent ability to recognize and judge the reasoning faculty of the souls allotted to him, has from the first day, so to speak, never stopped his work of building, setting shining gold here, pure and refined silver there, and costly and valuable stones here, among all of you, so as to once again fulfill among you in very fact the mystical prophecy, in which it is said: 62 “See, I am preparing carbuncle as your stone and lapis lazuli as your foundations. And I will make your battlements of jasper and your gates of crystal stones and your enclosure of precious 77. Compare Luke 21:6. 78. I.e., Constantine and Licinius. 79. Paulinus.

book 10

477

stones. And I will make all your sons taught by God and your children to be in great peace. And in righteousness you shall be built.”80 63 Indeed, building in righteousness, he divided the whole people based on their abilities. With some he built only the outer surrounding wall, erecting a wall of inerrant faith (this is the great multitude of the people, who are not strong enough to bear the weight of the building). Others he placed at the entrances to the building, arranging them to act as doormen and guide the steps of those entering; they are not without reason considered the propylaea of the temple. Others he positioned atop the colonnades in the outer quadrangle, establishing them with their first introductions to the letter or the four Gospels. Still others he set up attached around the royal house, those who are still catechumens and who are still increasing and advancing, but are joined with the faithful not all that far from the divine sight of things within.81 64 From among them, he took these souls cleansed like gold by divine washing, supporting some of them upon pillars much larger than those further outside, thanks to the innermost mysteries of the divine writings, and with others, opened to the light, he provides illumination.82 65 He adorned the whole temple with a single great propylaeum, the doxology of God, the One and Only Universal King, placing two beams of light on each side of the Father’s authority, Christ and the Holy Spirit. The rest he placed throughout the whole building, displaying abundantly in great variety the clearness and brightness of the truth of each one, placing everywhere and in every direction the living and firm and solid stones of their souls. He has constructed the great royal house from them all, bright, and full of light inside and out, because not only their souls and minds alone, but their bodies, too, have been glorified with the flowering adornment of purity and self-control. 66 There are in this temple thrones, benches, and myriad seats, as many as there are souls in which the gifts of the Divine Spirit take their seat,83 [gifts] such as long ago appeared to those associated with the sacred apostles, to whom forked tongues of fire appeared and rested on each one of them.84 67 Likewise, the whole Christ himself has taken his seat in the

80. Isa. 54:11–14. 81. Catechumens could be present in the church until the time of the eucharistic liturgy, when they were sent out. 82. I.e., some are the clerestory windows, and others are the walls that hold the windows, supported atop a double colonnade of pillars. 83. 1 Cor. 12:11. 84. Acts 2:3.

478

the ecclesiastical history

one who rules over you all, and analogously in those who hold the second ranks after him, according to what each is given by way of his allotted portion of the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. And the souls of any who have been given the task of guiding and protecting each [person] may be the benches of angels. 68 But the august, great, and unique85 sacrificial altar, what else could it be except the spotless Holy of Holies of the common Priest of All. Standing to its right, the Great High Priest of the Universe, Jesus himself, the Only-Begotten of God, receives from everyone with a joyful face and upturned hands the fragrant incense and the bloodless and immaterial sacrifices made through prayer, sending them up to the Father in heaven, the God of the Universe. He is himself the first to worship and alone honors the Father with the required service, and then asks him to remain kind and well disposed toward us all forever. 69 Such is the great temple which the great demiurge of the universe, the Logos, has established throughout the whole inhabited world under the sun, again constructing this one on earth as an intelligible image of those heavenly vaults above, so that his Father would be honored and feared by all of creation and the rational animals upon the earth. 70 But the supercelestial region and the paradigms there of things here, and what is called the Jerusalem above, and the Mount Zion that is in the heavens, and the city of the living God that is beyond the cosmos, in which myriad assemblies of angels and the church of the firstborns who are enrolled in the heavens praise their Maker and the Absolute Ruler of the Universe with ineffable and inconceivable theologies—none of this is such that a mortal is fit to sing any praises. Because, indeed, no eye has seen nor ear heard, nor has there ever entered a human heart these things that God prepared for those who love him.86 71 We who have now been deemed worthy to be a part of this, men, women, and children, the small and the great, all of us together, with a single spirit and with one soul, let us not stop confessing and praising the one who is responsible for all these good things of ours, he who is merciful to all our sins, who heals our ailments, who ransoms our life from destruction, who crowns us with mercy and compassion, who fills our desire with good things. For he has not acted toward us in accordance with our sins nor paid us back for our trespasses; as far as the distance from the East to the West, that is how far away from us he took our trespasses. Just as a father has compassion for his sons, the Lord has compassion for those who fear him. 85. Monogenes: also an epithet of the Son (unique/Only-Begotten). 86. 1 Cor. 2:9.

book 10

479

72 Now and in the times to come, as we rekindle all of this in our memories, let us keep the cause and festival leader of this present festival and this happy and resplendent day at the front of our minds night and day, at all hours and, so to speak, with every breath, esteeming and fearing him with all the power in our soul. And now let us rise up and beseech him with a loud voice, that he preserve and watch over us within his pasture to the end, obtaining from him the prize of unbroken and unshakable eternal peace, in Christ Jesus our Savior, through whom his is the glory forever and ever. Amen.

C O P I E S O F I M P E R IA L L AWS C O N C E R N I N G M AT T E R S P E RTA I N I N G T O C H R I ST IA N S

chapter 5. Come, then, it remains for us to include the translations of the imperial ordinances of Constantine and Licinius, translated from the Romans’ language.87 copy of imperial ordinances translated from the roman language 2 Some time ago already, having in view that liberty to worship88 was not to be denied, but that power ought to be granted to the rational faculty and intention of each one to take care of divine matters, each according to his sect,89 we have also ordered the Christians to observe the faith of their own sect and worship. 3 But since many and various conditions clearly seem to have been added to that rescript in which the said authority was granted to them, it is perhaps the case that some of them after a short time have been dissuaded from the said observance. 4 Fortunately, when I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, had met in Milan, in our inquiry, amid the other matters that

87. The passage 10.5–7 presents a series of six imperial letters, the first of which is the so-called Edict of Milan. The six documents appear in ATER and M, but not BD or the Syriac or Latin version. 88. Hē eleutheria tēs thrēskeias: though this phrase is often translated as indicating a natural right (“freedom of worship” or “freedom of religion”), it is an objective genitive that indicates leave to do something, and is closer to the English “being at liberty to X.” This is a positive law—a specific power or capacity (exousia, the word translated as “power” in the next clause) is being granted. 89. The Greek is prohairesis, which can connote “inclination” or “intention,” but can also, as here, mean a “sect” or “school of thought.” The Latin version in Lactantius has secta (sect).

480

the ecclesiastical history

seemed beneficial for most everyone—or rather we considered it to rank among the most primary concerns—we held fast to what would ensure that reverence and awe are offered to the Divine, and therefore that we should grant both to the Christians and to all liberty of ability90 to pursue the worship to which they are disposed, so that whatsover divinity and heavenly thing there is be kindly disposed to us and to all those who live under our authority.91 5 Therefore, we decided upon this plan with sound and correct reasoning, so that no one at all be denied the ability either of following and associating with the observance and worship of the Christians, and that to each be granted power to commit his own rational faculty to that worship, which he thinks accords with himself, so that the Divine may be able to provide us the customary care and beneficence in all things. 6 Consequently, we are pleased to write that, given that all conditions have been removed which had been imposed about the Christians in our previous letters sent to your Devotedness and which seemed to be improper and foreign to our gentleness, these [conditions] are to be removed, and that now each of those possessed of the said determination to observe the worship of the Christians may freely and simply observe the same without any impediment. 7 This we have determined to make most clear to Your Attentiveness, that you should know that we have granted to the said Christians free and unrestricted ability to attend to their own worship. When you see that this has been gifted to them by us without restriction, Your Devotedness will also understand that permission has been granted to those who plan to attend to their own observation and worship. It is evident that this accords with the calm of our times—that each has ability to opt for and attend to what sort he intends.92 We have done this, so that we not be mistaken to be taking away anything from any honor or worship.

90. The Greek reads eleuthera hairesis, which might be translated “the free option.” The legal sense is clearer in the Latin, libera potestas: the liberty of capacity to do something; the emperors are allowing people to engage in whatever form of worship they opt to engage in. 91. The translation reflects the awkward Greek; the Latin in Lactantius reads: “that whatever divinity there be in the seat of heaven be pleased and propitious to us and to all who are placed under our authority.” 92. The Latin is clearer: “that in attending to what he opts for, he should have unrestricted faculty.”

book 10

481

9 And, in addition, we determine this as regards the person93 of the Christians: that their places, in which it was previously their custom to gather, and about which other plans had been laid out in letters sent to Your Devotendess earlier, whether anyone has purchased them either from our fisc or from anyone else, should be restored to the said Christians free of payment and without any demand for compensation, and handed over without any delay or ambiguity. And if anyone has received the property as a grant, let them speedily restore them to the said Christians, 10 and consequently, let those who have purchased the said places or who have received them as a grant request something from our benevolence by going to the administrator serving as judge in the region,94 and thus there be providence for them through our kindness.95 All of this must be handed over to the body of the Christians via Your Diligence without any delay. 11 And since the said Christians not only possessed those [places] in which they customarily gathered, but are also known to have had other places, not owned by each of them but by the legal right of the body of them, that is of the Christians,96 all these [places], in accordance with the law which we declared before, you shall order to be restored without any controversy at all, to the said Christians, that is, to the body of them and to each group of them, while clearly observing the aforementioned rationale, that whomsoever restores the same without compensation, just as we said above, may expect an indemnity for himself from our benevolence. 12 You must use the utmost care in carrying out everything as respects the aforesaid body of the Christians, in order that our command be fulfilled quickly, so that by this, too, there shall be providence through our kindness for the common and public calm. 13 For by this rationale, just as was said before, the divine care [shown] to us, which we have already proven in many matters, remains secure for all time, 14 and in order that the decision of this our legislation and our kindness

93. Prosopōn in the Greek, persona in the Latin; it can refer, as here, to a legal “person.” 94. In the Latin version, the official named here is vicarius, the deputy of the praetorian prefect. 95. The Greek of this last clause can be read as though Constantine and Licinius are conduits of [divine?] providence. The Latin is a bit different: “by going to the vicarius, who will have regard for their concerns on behalf of Our Clemency.” 96. The Latin is clearer: “the body of them, that is, of the gatherings/churches”; i.e., the letter also has in view property other than church buildings owned corporately by individual churches.

482

the ecclesiastical history

be brought to the knowledge of all, it is incumbent that what we have written be ordered posted everywhere by your command, so that the legislation of this our kindness go unnoticed by no one. 15 copy of another imperial ordinance made in turn, indicating that the benefaction 97 had been granted to the universal church alone Greetings, our most honored Anulinus.98 It is the practice of Our Benevolence to wish that which belongs by legal right to another not only not be harmed but also be restored, most honored Anulinus. 16 Hence we wish that whenever you receive these letters, if anything of that which belonged to the universal church of the Christians in each city and also in other places has been transferred and is now held in possession either by citizens or by any others, you should cause this to be restored immediately to the said churches, since it is our preference that that which the said churches earlier possessed be restored to their legal ownership. 17 Because, therefore, Your Devotion sees that this is most clearly what our order commands, be diligent that everything that has been transferred from the said churches’ legal ownership—whether precincts, buildings, anything whatsoever—be completely restored to them as quickly as possible, that we may learn that you have given the most careful attention to this our order. Be well, our most honored and missed Anulinus. 18 copy of an imperial letter with which he orders that there be a synod of bishops in rome for the sake of the unity and concord of the churches Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, bishop of the Romans, and to Mark. Since so many documents have been sent to me by Anulinus, vir clarissimus and proconsul of Africa, in which it is claimed by certain of his colleagues stationed in Africa that Caecilian, the bishop of the city of Carthage, must be corrected on many matters, and because it seems to me to be quite serious that, in those provinces, which divine providence has placed in the care of My Devotedness and where there is a vast population, most are found to persist in a worse way, splitting [into factions], as it were, and their being differences between the bishops, 19 I thought it right that Caecilian himself with ten of the bishops who think he needs correction, and ten others that he thinks necessary for 97. The “benefaction” refers to the return of property, etc. granted in the previous document. 98. Anulinus: the proconsul of Africa.

book 10

483

his own case, sail to Rome. Once there, with you present, and also Reticus, Maternus, and Marinus, your colleagues, whom I have ordered to come quickly to Rome for this purpose, he should be given a hearing, in the manner you determine is in agreement with the most august law99. 20 Moreover, in order that you may have the most complete knowledge about all these matters, copies of the documents Anulinus sent to me are attached to these, my letters, and I sent them to your aforementioned colleagues. When Your Firmness reads them, you will determine in what manner to judge the aforementioned case most diligently, and arrive at what is just, since it does not escape Your Diligence’s notice that I have such reverence for the lawful universal church that I intend that you allow no schism or separation to remain in any place. May the divinity of the great God keep you for many years, you most honored men. 21 copy of an imperial letter with which he orders that there be a second synod for the sake of removing every division among the bishops Constantine Augustus, to Chrestus, bishop of the Syracusans. Previously, when some became spiteful and contentious about the worship of the holy and supercelestial power and began to fracture the universal sect,100 I intended to excise such love of contention and wrote that once certain bishops from Gaul had been sent, as well as the factions from Africa, which were in revolt and battling implacably with each other, and with the bishop of Rome present, that the issue which seemed to be at stake be corrected by those present using every careful judgment. 22 But, as it happened, some lost sight of their own salvation and the most august service they give the most holy sect, and now even still do not cease extending their own hostilities, wishing not to adhere to the judgment already given and contending that, in fact, only a certain few presented their own opinions and statements, or even that they came to deliver a judgment without first making an accurate inquiry into everything pertinent to the case, because they were more concerned about speed and spite. Out of all this, the following has occurred: that those on whom it is incumbent to have a shared feeling of brotherhood and concord are shamefully, or rather are pollutingly standing in opposition to one

99. The term “law” as used here and in other Constantinian letters refers to the traditions and rules of the church. 100. Hairesis, which translates the Latin secta in other texts in this dossier.

484

the ecclesiastical history

another, and providing other people whose souls101 are outside the most holy worship with an excuse to joke. Hence it has become necessary that I take providential care that what should have ceased on their own recognizance after the judgment was delivered, now be able to find an end with many present. 23 Since, therefore, we have ordered that many bishops from various and countless places come to the city of Arles by the Kalends of August,102 we have thought to write to you as well, that, once you have obtained public conveyance from Latronianus, vir clarissimus and corrector of Sicily,103 and bringing with you any two of those who hold second chair,104 whom you yourself should choose, and, moreover taking three boys to serve you along the journey, you should come by the said day to the aforementioned place, so that by Your Firmness and by the consensual and like-minded wisdom of the rest of those gathered this matter which has still endured thanks to some shameful quarreling may, once you have heard all that will be said by those who now oppose each other, whom we have also ordered to be present, be recalled to the requisite worship and faith and brotherly concord, even if only belatedly. May God the Almighty Ruler preserve you in health for many years.

chapter 6. copy of an imperial letter with which he grants money to the churches Constantine Augustus to Caecilian, bishop of Carthage. Since it is our pleasure, throughout every region in Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania, to supply something for the expenses of certain specified servants of the legitimate and most holy universal worship, I have sent letters to Ursus, the most distinguished catholikos105 of Africa indicating that he take care to distribute three thousand folles106 to Your Firmness.

101. Or “minds,” “attitudes.” 102. This letter calls the Council of Arles, 314 c.e. Note that Constantine takes the initiative in ordering the bishops to gather and authorizes the use of the imperial transportation network; Constantine would follow the same pattern in arranging the Council of Nicaea. 103. Domitius Latronianus; he later become proconsul of Africa (PLRE I:496). 104. I.e., presbyters and deacons. The “boys” referenced next are servants/slaves in the bishops’ households. 105. Catholikos: chief finance minister of an imperial province. 106. In this period, 1 follis was roughly equivalent in value to 1/10 lb. of gold or 1 lb. of silver (A. H. M. Jones, JRS 49 [1959]: 34–38).

book 10

485

2 You, therefore, when you receive the indicated amount of money, order this money distributed to all the aforementioned [servants] according to the chart sent to you by Hosius.107 3 But if, in fact, you learn that there is not enough [money] to fulfill my intentions for all of them, without hesitation ask for whatever you need from Heraclides the minister of our fisc, for when he was here I informed him that if Your Firmness asked him for any money he should take care to grant it without any doubts. 4 And since I have learned that certain people whose minds are not stable wish to divert the people of the most holy universal church by means of some foul seduction, know that I have given orders to Anulinus the proconsul and also to Patricius, vice praetorian prefect, when they were here, that they take care of all matters, but especially this one and not allow what is happening to be overlooked. 5 For this reason, if you are aware of any such people persisting in this mania, without any hesitation go to the aforementioned judges and bring this same matter to them, so that they, just as I ordered them when they were here, may correct them. May the divinity of the great God preserve you for many years.

O N T H E E X E M P T IO N O F C L E R IC S F R OM P U B L IC SE RV IC E

chapter 7. copy of an imperial letter with which he orders that the presidents of the churches be released from all public services Greetings, our most honored Anulinus. Since many things make it clear that when the worship which observes the highest reverence for what is most holy and supercelestial is neglected, it brings danger to public affairs,108 and when the same is legitimately taken up and maintained it brings great fortune to the Roman name and special

107. Hosius, bishop of Cordoba. He had an influential position in Constantine’s court. Later, he would be tasked with communications between Constantine and the bishops of the East during the events immediately preceding the Council of Nicaea. Apparently, Hosius has a chart listing the servants (i.e., bishops and other clerics) to whom the donations are to be granted. It is not clear whether this would be a list of certain amounts given to certain offices, with Caecilian naming the individuals in those offices (probably), or whether Hosius had also determined which individuals were to get the funds. 108. Probably translating res publica (“public affairs” or “the Republic”) in the Latin.

486

the ecclesiastical history

well-being to all human affairs. Since it is divine benefactions that provide this, it has seemed good, most honored Anulinus, that those men who with necessary holiness and constant attention to this law provide their assistance to the service of the divine worship from their own [resources] gain the rewards of their own toil.109 2 Therefore, it is my intention that those in the universal church within the province which you have been entrusted with, in which Caecilian presides, and who supply for the service of this holy worship from their own [resources], and who are customarily called clerics, should once and for all be completely protected as being free from the obligations of public services, so that they not be drawn away from the service owed the Divinity through some error or sacrilegious slip, but rather that they serve their own law without any encumbrance, for when they provide this great service concerning the Divine, it seems to confer great benefits to public affairs.110 Be well, our most honored and missed Anulinus.

chapter 8. Such, then, was what the divine and heavenly grace of our Savior’s appearance gifted us, and so great was the abundance of good things that held sway for all people thanks to our peace.111 2 And so our times saw festivities and celebrations. O N L IC I N I U S’ S L AT E R EV I L D O I N G AND HIS UNDOING

But, alas, the sight of these spectacles was unbearable for that jealous hater of the good, that demon who is the friend of wickedness. Likewise, what had recently befallen the aforementioned tyrants was not enough to bring Licinius to temperate reason. He who, when he was ruling well, was deemed worthy of honor second in rank to the great emperor Constantine and of marriage ties and the highest kinship,112

109. I.e., because clergy provide for the churches’ work, including the liturgical services that serve the Divine, out of their own resources, they should not in addition have to contribute their own resources to public services (e.g., provision for festivals, theater, gladiatorial shows, and public works) that members of the decurial class (the enfranchised hereditary elites of a given community) were expected to supply. 110. Probably translating res publica (“public affairs” or “Republic”) in the Latin. 111. Note Eusebius’s elision of Pax Romana and Pax Christi. 112. To secure the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, Licinius married Constantine’s sister Constantia in 313 c.e.

book 10

487

left off imitating good [emperors] and zealously emulated the evil habits of the tyrants’ wickedness. He preferred to follow the attitude of those whose downfall he had seen with his own eyes, than maintain the friendly arrangement with his superior. 3 He became jealous of his benefactor, and raised an unholy and most terrible war against him, having no concern for the laws of nature, nor taking any thought for sworn oaths, blood ties, nor treaties. 4 For the All-Good Emperor had provided him with true symbols of his goodwill, and did not begrudge him kinship with himself, nor did he deny him partnership in splendid marriage with his sister. He even deemed him worthy to share in the noble birthright of his ancestors, and his blood of imperial origin, and granted him the enjoyment of full authority of rule, as to an inlaw and co-emperor, and graced him with the management and administration of no lesser a portion of the provinces under Roman rule. 5 He, though, acted in the completely opposite way, every day contriving all sorts of machinations against his superior and thinking up every sort of intrigue, paying back his benefactor with evil, as it were. At first he tried to hide his plot and pretended to be a friend, hoping that he could easily achieve his goal using deception and deceit. 6 God, though, was Constantine’s friend, guardian, and protector, and dragged those conniving plans out into the light for him, and confuted them—such great armor is the virtue of the fear of God as a defense against enemies, and a strong protector of our salvation. Defended by this [armor], our God-beloved emperor escaped the tangled plots of that man with the hated name. 7 When he saw that his secret plot was not at all proceeding as he planned, for God had made every deception and fraud evident to the God-beloved emperor, he could not keep it hidden and opted for open war. 8 At the same time that he decided to go to war against Constantine, moreover, he was also driven to line up against the God of the Universe, whom he knew Constantine revered, and in the meantime launched a silent siege against the god-fearing people under his113 authority, who had never in any way at all been ill disposed to his rule. He was forced to do this because his innate wickedness had blinded him horribly. 9 He did not keep the memory of those before him who

113. I.e., Licinius’s.

488

the ecclesiastical history

had persecuted Christians before his eyes, not even of those whose destroyer and avenging punishment he had himself become for the impieties they had committed. But turning away from temperate reason to a flood of insane thoughts, he decided to go to war against God himself, as Constantine’s helper, instead of the man God was helping. 10 First, he drove all Christians out of his own household, and the wretch left himself bereft of their prayers to God on his behalf, which according to their ancestral teaching they make on behalf of all people. Then he ordered the soldiers in each city to be kicked out [of the army] and deprived of the dignity of their rank, unless they opted to sacrifice to the demons. And yet this was a small thing in comparison with his larger decisions. 11 What need is there to mention each and every thing that God-hater did, and how that utterly lawless man invented unlawful laws? For instance, he legislated that those suffering hardship in prisons should receive no human kindness in the form of food distributions, and that no mercy be granted to those dying of hunger while in bondage, and, to put it simply, he legislated that those moved by nature itself to compassion for their neighbors could not be kind or do any good deed. And of his laws this one was outright ruthless and most cruel: setting aside all civilized nature, he ordered those showing mercy to suffer the same punishment as those to whom they were showing mercy and that those offering any humane service be bound in chains in prison and endure the same punishment as those who had been so sentenced. 12 Such were the ordinances of Licinius. What need is there to enumerate his innovations concerning marriage and his newfangled notions regarding those who had departed this life, with which he dared to delimit the laws of the Romans that were established long ago so well and so wisely and to introduce some barbaric and uncivilized laws in their place, truly unlawful laws, opposed to what is lawful? And he thought up myriad injunctions against the provinces under his control, all kinds of levies of gold and silver, revaluations of land, and greedy penalties upon the property of men in rural districts who had long ago left. 13 On top of this, the banishments that misanthrope invented against people who had committed no crime, the exiling of wellborn men of dignified rank, whose wedded wives, moreover, he declared divorced and handed over to myriad of his own men to be treated with outrageous shame, and with what married women, young girls, and virgins the old dotard himself, in his drunken stupor, fulfilled

book 10

489

the unbridled lust of his own soul—what need is there to go on at length about all this, when the excess of his final actions puts the earlier ones to shame as small and nothing by comparison? 14 In the end, his insanity went after the bishops, for, as servants of the God over All, he already thought of them as opposition to what he wanted to accomplish, and plotted against them, not openly, out of fear of his superior, but again, secretly and deceptively, and killed the most well-respected of them through the scheming of his governors. And the manner of death leveled against them was strange and unlike any ever heard of before. 15 What happened around Amaseia and the rest of the cities of Pontus outstripped every savage excess. Of the churches of God there, some were again demolished from top to bottom, while others were locked, so that none of those accustomed to offering the services due to God could gather. 16 For he did not think the prayers were offered on his behalf, coming up with this notion thanks to his paltry understanding, and had persuaded himself that we did everything on behalf of the God-beloved emperor, including appeasing God. Based on this, he readily set his anger against us. 17 And in fact those governors who were his flatterers were persuaded to do what pleased the impious man, and subjected some of the bishops to punishments usually given to criminal men, and those who had done nothing unjust were arrested and chastised without hesitation, like murderers. Some even endured newfangled forms of death, their bodies butchered into many pieces by the sword and, after this cruel and most terrifying spectacle, thrown into the depths of the sea as food for fish. 18 With this, God-fearing men fled once more, and again the fields and again the deserts, valleys, and hills received the servants of Christ. As the impious one advanced these measures in this way, he put it into his mind to pursue the persecution against all [of us]. 19 And this opinion held sway over him and nothing prevented him from in fact pursuing it, except that God, the champion of the souls that belong to him, quickly anticipated what was going to happen, and all at once shined a great, saving light upon all, as though into a deep darkness and gloomy night, leading forth onto the scene with his lofty arm114 his servant Constantine.

114. Exod. 6:1.

490

the ecclesiastical history O N T H E V IC T O RY O F C O N STA N T I N E A N D T H E B E N E F I T S H E B R OU G H T T O T HO SE U N D E R R OM A N AU T HO R I T Y

chapter 9. To this man, then, God provided from heaven above the fruit merited by piety, [that is,] the trophies of victory against the impious, while he cast the guilty man facedown, along with all his advisers and friends, under Constantine’s feet. 2 For as Licinius drove to the ends of madness against Constantine, the emperor, the friend of God, knowing it could be tolerated no longer, using temperate reason and mingling the staunchness of justice with love for humanity, decided to come to the aid of those oppressed by the tyrant. He set out to save the majority of the human race by getting a few villains out of the way. 3 For before this he had only used his love for humanity and had shown mercy to a man unworthy of sympathy, and nothing had come of it. Licinius did not turn from evil, but magnified his rage even more against the peoples under his control, and those who were being mistreated had no hope left, tyrannized as they were by a horrible animal. 4 On this account, then, did the helper of good people mix a hatred for evil with love of humanity and set out together with his son, the most philanthropic emperor Crispus,115 holding out his saving right hand to all those who were being destroyed. Then, having as they did God, the Universal Sovereign, as their guide and ally, and God’s Son, the Savior of all, together, father and son,116 they divided their forces, encircled the God-haters and took away an easy victory, since all aspects of the engagement had been made easy for them according to God’s judgment. 5 All at once, indeed, quicker than it takes to tell, those who today and the day before were breathing death and threats were no more, even to the point that their names were no longer remembered; their inscriptions and honors received the deserved shaming. And Licinius himself suffered a fate similar to what with his own eyes he had seen befall the earlier tyrants, because he had not learned his lesson nor had he been tempered by the scourging of his

115. Instead of the reference to Crispus, the Syriac version has “his sons beloved by God and like their father in every way.” 116. The Syriac version has “sons.”

book 10

491

fellows;117 following the same impious path as they, he was justly carried over the same cliff. 6 But as Licinius lay fallen, Constantine, the great victor, excellent in all god-fearing piety, with his son, Crispus,118 the most God-beloved emperor and like his father in every way, received the East as theirs, and provided a single united Roman imperium, as there had been of old, bringing the peace of their reign to the whole of the inhabited world, from the rising sun through its circuit, the north as well as south, unto the setting sun. 7 All the fear of those that had oppressed them before was removed from humanity, bright and celebratory festivals were held daily, all was full of light, and those whose faces were downcast before looked upon each other with smiling faces and joyful eyes. They raised up choral dances and hymns throughout the cities and the countryside, above all to God, the Universal Sovereign, because this is indeed what they had been taught, and then to the pious emperor with his God-beloved sons. 8 The evils of old were forgotten, and there was no memory of any impiety, while people enjoyed their present goods and expected more to come. Moreover, ordinances full of the victorious emperor’s philanthropy were sent to every place, and laws containing clear evidences of magnanimity and true piety. 9 And so, once all tyranny had been cleared away, the affairs of the empire, which were rightfully theirs, were preserved for Constantine and his sons alone, secure and with no resentment. They, before all else, had cleansed life of the hatred of God, and perceiving the good things supplied to them by God, they manifested love of virtue, love of God, and piety and thanks toward the Divine, for all humanity to see.119

117. Compare Jer. 2:30. 118. The Syriac version reads “with his god-beloved sons who were like their father in every way.” 119. Compare the closing sentences of book 10 to those in book 9; they are nearly identical, but for a few words and phrases. Some scholars interpret this as evidence of an earlier version of the History that ended with book 9, though the repetition could also be ascribed to Eusebius’s tendency to repeat favorite turns of phrase. See the discussion of the “editions” of the Ecclesiastical History in the “General Introduction.”

appendix a

Maps

The maps presented here provide a general orientation to the cities and regions mentioned in Eusebius’s text. Maps 1–5 are purposefully limited to locations mentioned by either Eusebius or the sources he quotes, and thus can help the reader visualize “the world” as imagined in the text (e.g., the much higher density of sites in the eastern Mediterranean and the detailed focus on sites in Palestine and Egypt). Maps 6–8 should help orient readers to some of the complexities of the Tetrarchic period and Constantine’s rise to sole rule. For an indispensable atlas of the Greco-Roman world, see J. A. Talbert, ed., The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).

493

Pella

Perea Archelaus (4 B.C.E.–6 C.E., then province of Judaea)

Samari

Herod Antipas (4 B.C.E.–39 C.E.)

Batanea Auranitis

Iturea Trachonitis

Philipp (4 B.C.E.–34 C.E.)

Ascalon

Yavneh

Province of Judaea

Samaria

Galilee

Idumaea

Jerusalem Judaea Bethlehem

Caesarea

Nazareth

Paneas/Caesarea Philippi

Map 1. The Herodian Tetrarchy and the Creation of the Province of Judaea; Judaea on the Eve of the Jewish War, ca. 66 c.e.

Ascalon

Samaria

Galilee

Jerusalem Judaea Bethlehem Idumaea

Yavneh

Caesarea

Nazareth

Paneas/Caesarea Philippi

Roman Province of Syria

Pella

Perea

Herod Agrippa II

Auranitis

Batanea

Iturea Trachonitis

Roman Province of Syria

Map 2. “Apostolic Times” and the Second Century, HE books 3–5.

Corinth

Gortyna

Cnossus

Patmos

Ephesus

Smyrna

Arsinoë

Alexandria

Tymion Philadelphia Sardis Pepouza Magnesia Hierapolis Tralles Laodicea

Pergamum

Caesarea

Apamea

Antioch

Melitēnē

Flavia Neapolis

Ptolemais

Laodicea

Tarsus

Caesarea

Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem)

Ancyra

Sinope

Map 3. The Eastern Mediterranean in “Apostolic Times” and the Second Century, HE books 3–5.

Corinth

Athens

Thessalonica

Amastris

Edessa

Map 4. The World of Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, HE 6.1–7.26.

Hermopolis (D)

Tyre

Berytus

Antinoöpolis

Aelia (Jerusalem)

Bostra

Antioch

Bernikē (D) [on Egyptian coast of Red Sea]

Jericho

Laodicea (D)

Rhosus

Tarsus (D)

Caesarea (D)

Caesarea (D)

Iconium Laranda

Synnada

Alexandria (incl. Pirouchion/Bruchion district) Paraetonium Taposiris Libya Mareotis Kollouthion (located in Nilopolis Mareotis specific site unknown) Arsinoë

Cephro (located in Libya, specific site unknown)

Athens

(D) = Recipients of letters in the Dionysian corpus

Pentapolis

Ptolemais (D)

Carthage

Rome (D)

Nicopolis

Armenia (D)

Alexandria (incl. Pirouchion/Bruchion district)

Map 5. The World of Eusebius’s Day, ca. 264–324 c.e., HE 7.27–10.9.

Africa (i.e., the dossier of imperial letters in HE 10.5.15–7.2)

Rome

Thebaid

Thmuis

Ancyra

Nicomedia Nicaea

Byzantium (Constantinople)

Jerusalem

Caesarea

Tyre

Berytus

Bostra Scythopolis

Damascus Paneas

Emesa Palmyra

Mines at Phaeno

Laodicea

Samosata

Melitēnē

Antioch

Caesarea

Viennensis

Gallia

Africa

Trier

Rome

Pannonia

Augustus 286–305, succeeded (307) by son MAXENTIUS

MAXIMIAN

Italia

DIOCLETIAN

GALERIUS Caesar 293–305, Augustus 305-311

Nicomedia

Asiana

MAXIMINUS DAIA

Thracia

Oriens

Antioch

Pontica

Caesar 305–310, Augustus 310–313 Caesarea

Moesia

Sirmium

Diocletian and Galerius controlled all territory from Pannonia eastward, and ruled more collegially than their counterparts in the West, often operating together in the same territories.

Augustus 284–305

Map 6. The Tetrarchy during the Diocletianic Persecution, Feb. 303–Spring 311, HE book 8.

Hispania

Caesar 293–305, Augustus 305–306, succeeded by son CONSTANTINE

CHLORUS

CONSTANTIUS I

Britannia

York

CONSTANTINE

Viennensis

Africa

Trier

Rome

LICINIUS

Asiana

Nicomedia

Antioch

Pontica

Battle of Tzirallum, April 313

MAXIMINUS DAIA

Thracia

Oriens (defeated by Licinius at Battle of Tzirallum, April 313,died Aug. 313) Caesarea

Moesia

(in control of Pannonia, Moesia,Thracia, Asiana, Pontica, then soleruler of the East after Aug. 313)

Pannonia

Sirmium

(defeated byConstantine at Battle of Milvian Bridge, Oct. 312)

MAXENTIUS

Italia

Map 7. Civil War, ca. Spring 311–ca. Summer 313, HE book 9.

Hispania

(sole ruler in the West after Oct. 312)

Gallia

Britannia

Africa

Trier

CONSTANTINE

Rome

Italia Moesia

Sirmium

Battle of Cibalae, 316 (314?) Licinius cedes Pannonia and Moesia to Constantine

Pannonia

Sole ruler of the West (Britannia, Gallia,Viennensis, Hispania, Italia, Africa) from Oct. 312 C.E.

LICINIUS

Asiana

Nicomedia

Caesarea

Oriens

Antioch

Pontica

Battle of Chrysopolis, Sept. 324

Battle of Adrianople, July 324

Sole ruler of the East (Pannonia, Moesia, Thracia, Pontica, Asiana, Oriens) from Aug. 313

Thracia

Map 8. Constantine and Licinius: Colleagues and Enemies, Summer 313–Sept. 324, HE book 10.

Hispania

Viennensis

Gallia

Britannia

appendix b

Eusebius’s Bishop Lists and Chronology

Translations of the Ecclesiastical History are often accompanied by “bishop lists,” that is, a chronological list of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as Eusebius presents them in the text. These lists can be misleading, since Eusebius’s lists cannot be assumed to represent the successions accurately. Readers should keep in mind that the successions are a crucial ideological concept in Eusebius’s history. He is most interested in presenting an unbroken chain of successions to reinforce his claims about the apostolic authority of the episcopacy and the validity of his and his contemporaries’ claims to be the authentic, orthodox inheritors of those successions. One may take Eusebius’s dates as “reliable” in the sense that he felt he was recording historical reality and that when his chronologies can be compared with other sources he is often broadly correct with his dates, and sometimes quite precise. The chronology of the Ecclesiastical History is based on the regnal years of Roman emperors, which Eusebius had previously charted in his Chronici Canones. Eusebius synchronized all of the dates in the Chronici Canones to the civic year of Caesarea, which began on October 3. In Eusebius’s counting, the first regnal year of a given emperor is the one-year period from 3 October preceding the date of his accession through the following 2 October. For example, when Eusebius states at 3.34.1 that Evarestus succeeded Clement in the third year of Trajan’s reign, he is indicating that this succession occurred between 3 October 99 and 2 October 100. The Chronici Canones presented a universal history in a synoptic format. In parallel columns, Eusebius charted the histories of Egypt, Greece, Rome, and other kingdoms, along with the chronologies presented in the Hebrew Bible. Consequently, his dating schemes functioned best on the macro level; they allowed him to synchronize a great 503

504

appendix b

deal of data and different calendrical systems (e.g., Olympiads, regnal years, and years since Abraham) in an effective format. The dating system did not aim to capture micro-level detail, such as the precise month or day on which events occurred.1 In the case of the bishops of Rome, Eusebius’s list can be compared with the Liberian Catalogue, a list of Roman bishops preserved in a text known as the Chronography of 354, a compendium of lists and other information relating to the history of Rome (e.g., a list of consuls, a list of the urban prefects of Rome, an illustrated Roman calendar). Eusebius’s chronology of the Roman bishops and the Liberian Catalogue are based on similar sources. Comparing the lists side by side shows how Eusebius has rounded the dates by omitting months and days, as well as instances in which Eusebius has very probably miscopied his source (or, alternatively, was working from a damaged manuscript). The bishop lists included here present, in synoptic form, the successions as Eusebius describes them in the Ecclesiastical History and the Chronici Canones. The format is as follows, taking as an example Clement’s succession of Linus in Rome. In the Chronici Canones Eusebius indicates the following for the twelfth year of Domitian: “Clement leads as third bishop of the church of the Romans, [for] nine years.” At HE 3.34.1, Eusebius writes: “But in the third year of [Trajan], Clement handed on the office of the bishops of Rome to Evarestus, having been in charge of the teaching of the Divine Logos for nine complete years.” In the Chronici Canones, moreover, we find the following entry for the second year of Trajan: “Evarestus received the episcopacy of the church of the Romans, [and held it for] nine years.” The entry in this list, then, reads as follows: 3. Clement 92–3rd Trajan (100)2 [9y] This can be read as follows: Eusebius locates Clement’s succession as fourth bishop of Rome from Anecletus in 92 c.e. and dates his successor’s (Evarestus) assumption of the episcopacy to 100 c.e. The footnote indicates that the Chronici Canones locate this event a year earlier, in the second year of Trajan. The period 9y in brackets indicates the period of time Eusebius assigns to Clement’s episcopacy. The parallel entry in the Liberian Catalogue is also included to the right of Eusebius’s list. These entries list the years, months, and days that the Catalogue assigns to each bishop, as well as their years in office (dated by consular years in the Catalogue). Lacunae (missing or damaged sections of the manuscript) are indicated by (. . .). The Liberian Catalogue should not be 1. The preceding summarizes Richard Burgess, Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999), 28–30. Burgess’s study is foundational for all work on Eusebius’s chronological system. 2. The 2nd year of Trajan, according to the Chron.

Appendix b

505

taken as inherently more reliable than Eusebius’s lists; the entries are presented here so that readers can compare Eusebius’s lists with another that covers the same time period. T I M E I N O F F IC E

Rome ACC. TO EUSEBIUS Peter 1. Linus 2. Anecletus 3. Clement 4. Evarestus 5. Alexander 6. Xystus 7. Telesphorus 8. Hyginus 9. Pius 10. Anicetus 11. Soter 12. Eleutherus 13. Victor 14. Zephyrinus 15. Callistus

16. Urban 17. Pontian

ACC. TO LIBERIAN CATALOGUE until 68 14th Nero (68)–2nd Titus (80) [12y] 80–12th Domitian (92) [12y] 92–3rd Trajan (100) [9y] 100–ca. 12th Trajan (108) [8y] ca. 108–3rd Hadrian (119) [10y] 119–12th Hadrian (128) [10y] 128–1st Antoninus Pius (138) [11y] 138–5th Antoninus Pius (142) [4y] 142–20th Antoninus Pius (157) [15y] 157–8th Marcus Aurelius (168) [11y] 168–17th Marcus Aurelius (177) [8y] 177–10th Commodus (189) [13y] 189–ca. 9th Severus (201) [10y] 201–1st Elagabulus (218) [18y] 218–4th Elagabulus/1st Alexander Severus (222) [5y] 5y 2m 10d [218–222] 222 (or 225)-12th Alexander Severus (234) [8y] 234–1st Gordian (239) [6y]

25y 1m 9d [30–56] 12y 4m 12d [56–67] 12y 10m 3d [84–95] 9y 11m 12d [68–76] (“Aristus”) 13y 7m 2d [96–108] 11y 2m 1d [109–116] 10y 3m 21d [117–126] 11y 3m 3d [127–137] 12y 3m 6d [150–153] 20y 4m 21d [146–161] Anicetus not listed 9y . . . m . . . d ...y...m...d [171–185] 9y 2m 10d [ . . .–. . . ] ...y...m...d [198–217]

8y 11m 12d [223–230] 5y 2m 7d [231–235]

506

appendix b

18. Anteros 19. Fabian 20. Cornelius 21. Lucius 22. Stephen 23. Xystus II 24. Dionysius 25. Felix 26. Eutychian 27. Gaius 28. Marcellinus

239–239 [1m] 239–1st Decius (251) [13y] 251–2nd Gallus and Volusianus (254) [ca. 3y] 254–254 [