The Church History of Eusebius (part 1 of 28)

Notes

1. 1

   It is interesting to notice that the creed of the Cæsarean church which Eusebius presented at the Council of Nice contains a clause which certainly looks as if it had been composed in opposition to the familiar formula of the Sabellians: "The same one is the Father, the same one the Son, the same one the Holy Spirit" (ton auton einai patera, ton auton einai hui& 232;n, ton auton einai hagion pneuma; see Epiphan. Hær. LXII. 1; and compare the statement made in the same section, that the Sabellians taught that God acts in three forms: in the form of the Father, as creator and lawgiver; in the form of the Son, as redeemer; and in the form of the Spirit, as life-giver, etc.). The clause of the Cæsarean creed referred to runs as follows: "That the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit" (patera alethos patera, kai hui& 232;n alethos hui& 232;n, kai pneuma hagion alethos hagion). It is significant that in the revised creed adopted by the Council these words are omitted, evidently because the occasion for them no longer existed, since not Sabellianism but Arianism was the heresy combated; and because, more than that, the use of them would but weaken the emphasis which the Council wished to put upon the essential divinity of all three persons.

2. 2

   For a translation of the creed see below, p. 16, where it is given as a part of Eusebius' epistle to the Church of Cæsarea.

3. 3

   The translation is that of Newman, as given in the Oxford edition of Athanasius' Select Treatises against Arianism, p. 59 sq.

4. 4

   In the preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius' writings Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most helpful.

5. 5

   Since the above section was written, another possibility has suggested itself to me. As remarked below, on p. 45, it is possible that Eusebius issued a second edition of his History in the year 324 or 325, with a tenth book added, and that he inserted at that time two remarks not contained in the first edition of the first nine books. It is possible, therefore to suppose that the references to the Vita Pamphili, as an already published book, found in H. E. VI. 32 and VII. 32, may have been added at the same time. Turning to the latter passage we find our author saying, "It would be no small matter to show what sort of man he [Pamphilus] was, and whence he came. But we have described in a separate work devoted to him all the particulars of his life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all who were there he was the most admirable" (all' houtos men ton tede thaumasiotatos). The alla, but, seems very unnatural after the paragraph in regard to the work which Eusebius had already written. In fact, to give the word its proper adversative force after what precedes is quite impossible, and it is therefore commonly rendered (as in the translation of the passage on p. 321, below) simply "indeed." If we suppose the passage in regard to the Biography of Pamphilus to be a later insertion, the use of the alla becomes quite explicable. "It would be no small matter to show what sort of man he was and whence he came. But (this much I can say here) he was the most admirable of all who were there." Certainly the reference at this point to the Vita Pamphili thus has something of the look of a later insertion. In VI. 32, the reference to that work might be struck out without in the least impairing the continuity of thought. Still further, in VIII. 13, where the Vita is mentioned, although the majority of the mss. followed by most of the modern editions have the past tense anegr?psamen "we have written," three of the best mss. read anagr?psomen "we shall write." Might not this confusion have arisen from the fact that Eusebius, in revising the History, instead of rewriting this whole passage simply substituted in the copy which he had before him the word anegr?psamen for the earlier anagr?psomen, and that some copyist, or copyists, finding the earlier form still legible, preferred that to the substituted form, thinking the latter to be an insertion by some unauthorized person? If we were then to suppose that the Vita Pamphili was written after the first edition of the History, but before the issue of the complete work in its revised form, we should place its composition later than the longer recension of the Martyrs, but earlier than the shorter recension, and thus explain quite simply the lack of any reference to the Vita in the former. Against the theory stated in this note might be urged the serious objection that the reference to the Martyrs of Palestine in VIII. 13 is allowed to remain in the future tense even in the revised edition of the History, a fact which of course argues against the change of anagr?psomen to anegr?psamen in the reference to the Vita in the same chapter. Indeed, I do not which to be understood as maintaining this theory, or as considering it more probable than the one stated in the text. I suggest it simply as an alternative possibility.

6. 6

   The following Testimonies of the Ancients were collected by Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, at the close of his Vita Eusebii. The order of Valesius has been preserved in the following pages, but occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater clearness, has been given more fully than by him. A few extracts have been omitted (as noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have been added. The extracts have all been translated from the original for this edition, with the exception of the quotations from the Life of Constantine, and from the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians,—Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius,—which have been copied, with a few necessary corrections, from the version found in Bagster's edition of the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians. The translation has been made at my request by Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of the senior class (1890) of Lane Theological Seminary.

7. 7

   Valesius adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church, which it is not necessary to quote here.

8. 8

   This extract is not given by Valesius.

9. 9

   Valesius inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant quotation from Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so obscure,—severed as it is from its context, which is not accessible to me,—that no translation of it has been attempted.

10. 10

    This extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of the Second Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe and Cossartius in their Concilia, Tom. VII. p. 495 sq.). Valesius gives only a Latin translation, and that in a fragmentary form.

11. 11

    The remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation of the chapter of Jerome's de viris illustribus, which is quoted above, on p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point. Valesius adds some extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as they are to be classed with modern rather than with ancient writers, it has seemed best to omit the quotations from their works.

12. 12

    Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

13. 13

    Greek oikonomia. Suicer (Thesaurus Eccles.) points out four uses of this word among ecclesiastical writers: (1) Ministerium Evangelii. (2) Providentia et numen (i.e. of God). (3) Naturæ humanæ assumtio. (4) Totius redemptionis mysterium et passionis Christi sacramentum. Valesius says, "The ancient Greeks use the word to denote whatever Christ did in the world to proclaim salvation for the human race, and thus the first oikonomia tou christou is the incarnation, as the last oikonomia is the passion." The word in the present case is used in its wide sense to denote not simply the act of incarnation, but the whole economy or dispensation of Christ upon earth. See the notes of Heinichen upon this passage, Vol. III. p. 4 sq., and of Valesius, Vol. I. p. 2.

14. 14

    Five mss., followed by nearly all the editors of the Greek text and by the translators Stigloher and Crusè, read tou theou after christon. The words, however, are omitted by the majority of the best mss. and by Rufinus, followed by Heinichen and Closs. (See the note of Heinichen, Vol. I. p. 4).

15. 15

    All the mss. followed by the majority of the editors read eugnomonon, which must agree with logos. Heinichen, however, followed by Burton, Schwegler, Closs, and Stigloher, read eugnomonon, which I have also accepted. Closs translates die Nachsicht der Kenner; Stigloher, wohlwollende Nachsicht. Crusè avoids the difficulty by omitting the word; an omission which is quite unwarranted.

16. 16

    Eusebius is rightly called the "Father of Church History." He had no predecessors who wrote, as he did, with a comprehensive historical plan in view; and yet, as he tells us, much had been written of which he made good use in his History. The one who approached nearest to the idea of a Church historian was Hegesippus (see Bk. IV. chap. 22, note 1), but his writings were little more than fragmentary memoirs, or collections of disconnected reminiscences. For instance, Eusebius, in Bk. II. chap 23, quotes from his fifth and last book the account of the martyrdom of James the Just, which shows that his work lacked at least all chronological arrangement. Julius Africanus (see Bk. VI. chap. 31, note 1) also furnished Eusebius with much material in the line of chronology, and in his Chronicle Eusebius made free use of him. These are the only two who can in any sense be said to have preceded Eusebius in his province, and neither one can rob him of his right to be called the "Father of Church History."

17. 17

    One of the greatest values of Eusebius' History lies in the quotations which it contains from earlier ecclesiastical writers. The works of many of them are lost, and are known to us only through the extracts made by Eusebius. This fact alone is enough to make his History of inestimable worth.

18. 18

    On Eusebius' Chronicle, see the Prolegomena, p. 31, above.

19. 19

    oikonomia. See above, note 2.

20. 20

    theologia. Suicer gives four meanings for this word: (1) Doctrina de Deo. (2) Doctrina de SS. Trinitate. (3) Divina Christi natura, seu doctrina de ea. (4) Scriptura sacra utriusque Testamenti. The word is used here in its third signification (cf. also chap. 2, §3, and Bk. V. chap. 28, §5). It occurs very frequently in the works of the Fathers with this meaning, especially in connection with oikonomia, which is then quite commonly used to denote the "human nature" of Christ. In the present chapter oikonomia keeps throughout its more general signification of "the Dispensation of Christ," and is not confined to the mere act of incarnation, nor to his "human nature."

21. 21

    nean auten kai ektetopismenen

22. 22

    This was one of the principal objections raised against Christianity. Antiquity was considered a prime requisite in a religion which claimed to be true, and no reproach was greater than the reproach of novelty. Hence the apologists laid great stress upon the antiquity of Christianity, and this was one reason why they appropriated the Old Testament as a Christian book. Compare, for instance, the apologies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian and Minucius Felix, and the works of Clement of Alexandria. See Engelhardt's article on Eusebius, in the Zeitschrift für die hist. Theologie, 1852, p. 652 sq.; Schaff's Church History, Vol. II. p. 110; and Tzschirner's Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 99 sq.

23. 23

    Isa. liii. 8.

24. 24

    Cf. Matt. xi. 27

25. 25

    John i. 1.

26. 26

    John i. 3.

27. 27

    Gen. i. 26.

28. 28

    Ps. xxxiii. 9. There is really nothing in this passage to imply that the Psalmist thinks, as Eusebius supposes, of the Son as the Father's agent in creation, who is here addressed by the Father. As Stroth remarks, "According to Eusebius, He spake' is equivalent to He said to the Son, Create'; and They were created' means, according to him, not They arose immediately upon this command of God,' but The Son was immediately obedient to the command of the Father and produced them.' For Eusebius connects this verse with the sixth, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made,' where he understands Christ to be referred to. Perhaps this verse has been omitted in the Greek through an oversight, for it is found in Rufinus."

29. 29

    See Gen. xviii. 1 sq.

30. 30

    Gen. xviii. 25.

31. 31

    Eusebius accepts the common view of the early Church, that the theophanies of the Old Testament were Christophanies; that is, appearances of the second person of the Trinity. Augustine seems to have been the first of the Fathers to take a different view, maintaining that such Christophanies were not consistent with the identity of essence between Father and Son, and that the Scriptures themselves teach that it was not the Logos, but an angel, that appeared to the Old Testament worthies on various occasions (cf. De Trin. III. 11). Augustine's opinion was widely adopted, but in modern times the earlier view, which Eusebius represents, has been the prevailing one (see Hodge, Systematic Theology, I. p. 490, and Lange's article Theophany in Herzog).

32. 32

    Ps. cvii. 20.

33. 33

    Gen. xix. 24.

34. 34

    Gen. xxxii. 28.

35. 35

    eidos theou.

36. 36

    Gen. xxxii. 30.

37. 37

    The mss. differ greatly at this point. A number of them followed by Valesius, Closs, and Crusè, read, hosanei tou patros hup?rchonta dunamin kai sophian. Schwegler, Laemmer, Burton, and Heinichen adopt another reading which has some ms. support, and which we have followed in our translation: hosanei tou patros huparchon. See Heinichen's edition, Vol. 1. p. 10, note 41.

38. 38

    en Iericho.

39. 39

    Josh. v. 13-15

40. 40

    Eusebius agrees with other earlier Fathers (e.g. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Cyprian) in identifying the one that appeared to Joshua with him that had appeared to Moses, on the ground that the same words were used in both cases (cf. especially Justin's Dial. c. Trypho, chap. 62). Many later Fathers (e.g. Theodoret) regard the person that appeared to Joshua as the archangel Michael, who is described by Daniel (x. 21 and xii. 1) as fighting for the people of God. See Keil's Commentary on Joshua, chap. 5, vv. 13-15.

41. 41

    Ex. iii. 4-6. Cf. Justin's Dial., chap. 63.

42. 42

    ousia tis prokosmios zosa kai huphestosa.

43. 43

    Prov. viii. 12, 15, 16.

44. 44

    tes hup' ouranon, with all the mss. and the LXX., followed by Schwegler, Burton, Heinichen, and others. Some editors, in agreement with the version of Rufinus (fontes sub coelo), read tas hup' ouranon. Closs, Stigloher, and Crusè translate in the same way.

45. 45

    Prov. viii. 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31

46. 46

    Eusebius pursues much the same line of argument in his Dem. Evang., Proem. Bk. VIII.; and compare also Gregory of Nyssa's Third Oration on the birth of the Lord (at the beginning). The objection which Eusebius undertakes to answer here was an old one, and had been considered by Justin Martyr, by Origen in his work against Celsus, and by others (see Tzschirner's Geschichte der Apologetik, p. 25 ff.).

47. 47

    The reference here seems to be to the building of the tower of Babel (Gen. xi. 1-9), although Valesius thinks otherwise. The fact that Eusebius refers to the battles of the giants, which were celebrated in heathen song, does not militate against a reference in this passage to the narrative recounted in Genesis. He illustrates the presumption of the human race by instances familiar to his readers whether drawn from Christian or from Pagan sources. Compare the Præp. Evang. ix. 14.

48. 48

    It was the opinion of Eusebius, in common with most of the Fathers, that the Greek philosophers, lawgivers, and poets had obtained their wisdom from the ancient Hebrews, and this point was pressed very strongly by many of the apologists in their effort to prove the antiquity of Christianity. The assertion was made especially in the case of Plato and Pythagoras, who were said to have become acquainted with the books of the Hebrews upon their journey to Egypt. Compare among other passages Justin's Apol. I. 59 ff.; Clement of Alexandria's Cohort. ad Gentes, chap. 6; and Tertullian's Apol. chap. 47. Compare also Eusebius' Præp. Evang., Bks. IX. and X.

49. 49

    The Greek has only epi telei, which can refer, however, only to the end of time or to the end of the world.

50. 50

    Dan. vii. 9, 10.

51. 51

    Dan. vii. 13, 14.

52. 52

    Eusebius refers here probably to his Eclogæ propheticæ, or Prophetical Extracts, possibly to his Dem. Evang.; upon these works see the Prolegomena, p. 34 and. 37, above.

53. 53

    Compare the Dem. Evang. iv. 17.

54. 54

    Ex. xxv. 40.

55. 55

    "Eusebius here has in mind the passages Lev. iv. 5, 16, and Lev. vi. 22, where the LXX. reads ho hiereus ho christos: The priest, the anointed one" (Closs). The Authorized Version reads, The priest that was anointed; the Revised Version, The anointed priest.

56. 56

    A few mss., followed by Laemmer and Heinichen, read here Naue, but the best mss. followed by the majority of editors read 'Ause, which is a corruption of the name Oshea, which means "Salvation," and which Joshua bore before his name was changed, by the addition of a syllable, to Jehoshua=Joshua=Jesus, meaning "God's salvation" (Num. xiii. 16). Jerome (de vir. ill. c. I.) speaks of this corruption as existing in Greek and Latin mss. of the Scriptures, and as having no sense, and contends that Osee is the proper form, Osee meaning "Salvator." The same corruption (Auses) occurs also in Tertullian, Adv. Marc. iii. 16, and Adv. Jud. 9 (where the English translator, as Crusè also does in the present passage, in both cases departs from the original, and renders Oshea,' Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. III. p. 334, 335, and 163), and in Lactantius, Institutes, iv. 17.

57. 57

    Lam. iv. 20.

58. 58

    Ps. ii. 1, 2.

59. 59

    Ps. ii. 7, 8.

60. 60

    Isa. lxi. 1. Eusebius as usual follows the LXX., which in this case differs somewhat from the Hebrew, and hence the translation differs from the English version. The LXX., however, contains an extra clause which Eusebius omits. See Heinichen's edition, Vol. I. p. 21, note 49.

61. 61

    Ps. xlv. 6, 7.

62. 62

    Ps. cx. 1.

63. 63

    Ps. cx. 4.

64. 64

    See Gen. xiv. 18; Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; viii.

65. 65

    Eusebius, in this chapter and in the Dem. Evang. IV. 15, is the first of the Fathers to mention the three offices of Christ.

66. 66

    Cf. Tertullian, Apol. XXXVII. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. Ed. Vol. III. p. 45).

67. 67

    Isa. lxvi. 8.

68. 68

    Isa. lxv. 15, 16.

69. 69

    Compare Justin Martyr's Apol. I. 46.

70. 70

    1 Chron. xvi. 22, and Ps. cv. 15.

71. 71

    Gen. xv. 6.

72. 72

    Gen. xii. 3.

73. 73

    Gen. xviii. 18.

74. 74

    Eusebius here makes the reign of Augustus begin with the death of Julius Cæsar (as Josephus does in chap. 9, §1, below), and he puts the birth of Christ therefore into the year 752 U.C. (2 b.c.), which agrees with Clement of Alexandria's Strom. I. (who gives the twenty-eighth year after the conquest of Egypt as the birth-year of Christ), with Epiphanius, Hær. LI. 22, and Orosius, Hist. I. 1. Eusebius gives the same date also in his Chron. (ed. Schoene, II. p. 144). Irenæus, III. 25, and Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 8, on the other hand, give the forty-first year of Augustus, 751 U.C. (3 b.c.). But all these dates are certainly too late. The true year of Christ's birth has always been a matter of dispute. But it must have occurred before the death of Herod, which took place in the spring of 750 U.C. (4 b.c.). The most widely accepted opinion is that Christ was born late in the year 5, or early in the year 4 b.c., though some scholars put the date back as far as 7 b.c. The time of the year is also uncertain, the date commonly accepted in the occident (Dec. 25th) having nothing older than a fourth century tradition in its favor. The date accepted by the Greek Church (Jan. 6th) rests upon a somewhat older tradition, but neither day has any claim to reliability. For a full and excellent discussion of this subject, see the essay of Andrews in his Life of our Lord, pp. 1-22. See, also, Schaff's Church Hist. I. p. 98 sq.

75. 75

    Micah v. 2.

76. 76

    Cf. Luke ii. 2 Quirinius is the original Latin form of the name of which Luke gives the Greek form kurenios or Cyrenius (which is the form given also by Eusebius). The statement of Luke presents a chronological difficulty which has not yet been completely solved. Quirinius we know to have been made governor of Syria in a.d. 6; and under him occurred a census or enrollment mentioned by Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 5, and XVIII. 1. 1. This is undoubtedly the same as that referred to in Acts v. 37. But this took place some ten years after the birth of Christ, and cannot therefore be connected with that event. Many explanations have been offered to account for the difficulty, but since the discovery of Zumpt, the problem has been much simplified. He, as also Mommsen, has proved that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria, the first time from b.c. 4 (autumn) to b.c. 1. But as Christ must have been born before the spring of b.c. 4, the governorship of Quirinius is still a little too late. A solution of the question is thus approached, however, though not all the difficulties are yet removed. Upon this question, see especially A. M. Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869), and compare Schaff's Church Hist., I. 121-125, for a condensed but excellent account of the whole matter, and for the literature of the subject.

77. 77

    Eusebius here identifies the census mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 1. 1) and referred to in Acts v. 37, with the one mentioned in Luke ii. 2; but this is an obvious error, as an interval of ten years separated the two. Valesius considers it all one census, and hence regards Eusebius as correct in his statement; but this is very improbable. Jachmann (in Illgen's Zeitschrift f. hist. Theologie, 1839, II. p. 35 sq.), according to his custom, charges Eusebius with willful deception and perversion of the facts. But such a charge is utterly without warrant. Eusebius, in cases where we can control his statements, can be shown to have been always conscientious. Moreover, in his Chron. (ed. Schoene II. p. 144) he identifies the two censuses in the same way. But his Chronicles were written some years before his History, and he cannot have had any object to deceive in them such as Jachmann assumes that he had in his History. It is plain that Eusebius has simply made a blunder, a thing not at all surprising when we remember how frequent his chronological errors are. He is guilty of an inexcusable piece of carelessness, but nothing worse. It was natural to connect the two censuses mentioned as taking place under the same governor, though a little closer attention to the facts would have shown him the discrepancy in date, which he simply overlooked.

78. 78

    The New Testament (Textus Rec.) reads laon hikanon, with which Laemmer agrees in his edition of Eusebius. Two mss., followed by Stephanus and Valesius, and by the English and German translators, read laon polun. All the other mss., and editors, as well as Rufinus, read laon alone.

79. 79

    Acts v. 37.

80. 80

    Josephus, Ant. XVIII. 1. 1. Upon Josephus and his works, see below, Bk. III. c. 9.

81. 81

    Ibid.

82. 82

    Judas the Gaulonite. In Acts v. 37, and in Josephus, B. J. II. 8. 1 (quoted just below), and 17.8, and in Ant. XVIII. 1. 6 and XX. 5. 2, he is called Judas of Galilee. But in the present section Josephus gives the fullest and most accurate account of him. Gaulonitis lay east of the Jordan, opposite Galilee. Judas of Galilee was probably his common designation, given to him either because his revolt took rise in Galilee, or because Galilee was used as a general term for the north country. He was evidently a man of position and great personal influence, and drew vast numbers to his standard, denouncing, in the name of religion, the payment of tribute to Rome and all submission to a foreign yoke. The revolt spread very rapidly, and the whole country was thrown into excitement and disorder; but the Romans proved too strong for him, and he soon perished, and his followers were dispersed, though many of them continued active until the final destruction of the city. The influence of Judas was so great and lasted so long that Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 1. 1 and 6) calls the tendency represented by him the "fourth philosophy of the Jews," ranking it with Pharisaism, Sadduceeism, and Essenism. The distinguishing characteristic of this "fourth philosophy" or sect was its love of freedom. For an excellent account of Judas and his revolt, see Ewald's Geshichte des Volkes Israel, V. p. 16 sq.

83. 83

    Greek, S?ddochon; Rufinus, Sadduchum. He, too, must have been a man of influence and position. Later in the same paragraph he is made by Josephus a joint founder with Judas of the "fourth philosophy," but in §6 of the same chapter, where the author of it is referred to, Judas alone is mentioned.

84. 84

    Josephus, B. J. II. 8. 1.

85. 85

    Herod the Great, son of Antipater, an Idumean, who had been appointed procurator of Judea by Cæsar in b.c. 47. Herod was made governor of Galilee at the same time, and king of Judea by the Roman Senate in b.c. 40.

86. 86

    Gen. xlix. 10. The LXX., which Eusebius quotes here, according to his custom, is in the present instance somewhat different from the Hebrew.

87. 87

    Ibid.

88. 88

    Eusebius refers here to Ant. XIV. 1. 3 and 7. 3. According to Josephus, Herod's father was Antipater, and his mother Cypros, an Arabian woman of noble birth.

89. 89

    The Idumeans or Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and inhabited the Sinaitic peninsula south of the Dead Sea. Their principal city and stronghold was the famous rock city, Petra. They were constant enemies of the Jews, refused them free passage through their land (Num. xx. 20); were conquered by Saul and David, but again regained their independence, until they were finally completely subjugated by John Hyrcanus, who left them in possession of their land, but compelled them to undergo circumcision, and adopt the Jewish law. Compare Josephus, Ant. XIII. 9. 1; XV. 7. 9; B. J. IV. 5. 5.

90. 90

    On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. This account is given by Africanus in his epistle to Aristides, quoted by Eusebius in the next chapter. Africanus states there (§11) that the account, as he gives it, was handed down by the relatives of the Lord. But the tradition, whether much older than Africanus or not, is certainly incorrect. We learn from Josephus (Ant. XIV. 2), who is the best witness upon this subject, that Antipater, the father of Herod the Great, was the son of another Antipater, or Antipas, an Idumean who had been made governor of Idumea by the Jewish king Alexander Jannæus (of the Maccabæan family). In Ant. XVI. 11 Josephus informs us that a report had been invented by friends and flatterers of Herod that he was descended from Jewish ancestors. The report originated with Nicolai Damasceni, a writer of the time of the Herods. The tradition preserved here by Africanus had its origin, evidently, in a desire to degrade Herod by representing him as descended from a slave.

91. 91

    Ascalon, one of the five cities of the Philistines (mentioned frequently in the Old Testament), lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, between Gaza and Joppa. It was beautified by Herod (although not belonging to his dominions), and after his death became the residence of his sister Salome. It was a prominent place in the Middle Ages, but is now in ruins. Of this Herod of Ascalon nothing is known. Possibly no such man existed.

92. 92

    hierodoulos, "a temple-slave."

93. 93

    Hyrcanus II., eldest son of the King Alexander Jannæus of the Maccabæan family, became high priest upon the death of his father, in 78 b.c.; and upon the death of his mother, in 69 b.c., ascended the throne. He gave up his kingdom afterward (66 b.c.) to his younger brother, Aristobulus; but under the influence of Antipater the Idumean endeavored to regain it, and after a long war with his brother, was re-established in power by Pompey, in 63 b.c., but merely as high priest and governor, not with the title of king. He retained his position until 40 b.c., when he was driven out by his nephew Antigonus. He was murdered in 30 b.c., by command of Herod the Great, who had married his grand-daughter Mariamne. He was throughout a weak man, and while in power was completely under the influence of his minister, Antipater.

94. 94

    Herod the Great.

95. 95

    In 63 b.c., when Pompey's curiosity led him to penetrate into the Holy of Holies. He was much impressed, however, by its simplicity, and went away without disturbing its treasures, wondering at a religion which had no visible God.

96. 96

    Aristobulus II., younger brother of Hyrcanus, a much abler and more energetic man, assumed the kingdom by an arrangement with his brother in 66 b.c. (see note 9, above). In 63 b.c. he was deposed, and carried to Rome by Pompey. He died about 48 b.c. Eusebius is hardly correct in saying that Aristobulus was king and high priest by regular succession, as his elder brother Hyrcanus was the true heir, and he had assumed the power only because of his superior ability.

97. 97

    The real independence of the Jews practically ceased at this time. For three years only, from 40 to 37 b.c., while Antigonus, son of Aristobulus and nephew of Hyrcanus, was in power, Jerusalem was independent of Rome, but was soon retaken by Herod the Great and remained from that time on in more or less complete subjection, either as a dependent kingdom or as a province.

98. 98

    40 b.c., when Antigonus, by the aid of the Parthians took Jerusalem and established himself as king there, until conquered by Herod in 37 b.c. Hyrcanus returned to Jerusalem in 36 b.c., but was no longer high priest.

99. 99

    Compare Isa. ix. 2; xlii. 6; xlix. 6, etc.

100. 100

     Eusebius' statement is perfectly correct. The high priestly lineage had been kept with great scrupulousness until Hyrcanus II., the last of the regular succession. (His grandson Aristobulus, however, was high priest for a year under Herod, but was then slain by him.) Afterward the high priest was appointed and changed at pleasure by the secular ruler. Herod the Great first established the practice of removing a high priest during his lifetime; and under him there were no less than six different ones.

101. 101

     Josephus, Ant. XX. 8.

102. 102

     Archelaus, a son of Herod the Great by Malthace, a Samaritan woman, and younger brother of Herod Antipas. Upon the death of his father, b.c. 4, he succeeded to the government of Idumea, Samaria, and Judea, with the title of Ethnarch.

103. 103

     After the death of Archelaus (a.d. 7), Judea was made a Roman province, and ruled by procurators until Herod Agrippa I. came into power in 37 a.d. (see below, Bk. II. chap. 4, note 3). The changes in the high priesthood during the most of this time were very rapid, one after another being appointed and removed according to the fancy of the procurator, or of the governor of Syria, who held the power of appointment most of the time. There were no fewer than nineteen high priests between the death of Archelaus and the fall of Jerusalem.

104. 104

     Josephus, Ant. XV. 11. 4.

105. 105

     Dan. ix. 26.

106. 106

     It is commonly assumed that Eusebius refers here to the Dem. Evang. VIII. 2 sq., where the prophecies of Daniel are discussed at length. But, as Lightfoot remarks, the reference is just as well satisfied by the Eclogæ Proph. III. 45. We cannot, in fact, decide which work is meant.

107. 107

     "Over against the various opinions of uninstructed apologists for the Gospel history, Eusebius introduces this account of Africanus with the words, ten peri touton katelthousan eis hemas historian." (Spitta.)

108. 108

     On Africanus, see Bk. VI. chap. 31. Of this Aristides to whom the epistle is addressed we know nothing. He must not be confounded with the apologist Aristides, who lived in the reign of Trajan (see below, Bk. IV. c. 3). Photius (Bibl. 34) mentions this epistle, but tells us nothing about Aristides himself. The epistle exists in numerous fragments, from which Spitta (Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides kritisch untersucht und hergestellt, Halle, 1877) attempts to reconstruct the original epistle. His work is the best and most complete upon the subject. Compare Routh, Rel. Sacræ, II. pp. 228-237 and pp. 329-356, where two fragments are given and discussed at length. The epistle (as given by Mai) is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VI. p. 125 ff. The attempt of Africanus is, so far as we know, the first critical attempt to harmonize the two genealogies of Christ. The question had been the subject merely of guesses and suppositions until his time. He approaches the matter in a free critical spirit (such as seems always to have characterized him), and his investigations therefore deserve attention. He holds that both genealogies are those of Joseph, and this was the unanimous opinion of antiquity, though, as he says, the discrepancies were reconciled in various ways. Africanus himself, as will be seen, explains by the law of Levirate marriages, and his view is advocated by Mill (On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospel, p. 201 sq.); but of this interpretation Rev. John Lightfoot justly says, "There is neither reason for it, nor, indeed, any foundation at all." Upon the supposition that both genealogies relate to Joseph the best explanation is that Matthew's table represents the royal line of legal successors to the throne of David, while Luke's gives the line of actual descent. This view is ably advocated by Hervey in Smith's Bible Dictionary (article Genealogy of Jesus). Another opinion which has prevailed widely since the Reformation is that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary. The view is defended very ingeniously by Weiss (Leben Jesu, I. 205, 2d edition). For further particulars see, besides the works already mentioned, the various commentaries upon Matthew and Luke and the various lives of Christ, especially Andrews', p. 55 sq.

109. 109

     Eusebius makes a mistake in saying that Africanus had received the explanation which follows from tradition. For Africanus himself says expressly (§15, below) that his interpretation is not supported by testimony. Eusebius' error has been repeated by most writers upon the subject, but is exposed by Spitta, ibid. p. 63.

110. 110

     The law is stated in Deut. xxv. 5 sq.

111. 111

     Nathan was a son of David and Bathsheba, and therefore own brother of Solomon.

112. 112

     Melchi, who is here given as the third from the end, is in our present texts of Luke the fifth (Luke iii. 24), Matthat and Levi standing between Melchi and Eli. It is highly probable that the text which Africanus followed omitted the two names Matthat and Levi (see Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Appendix, p. 57). It is impossible to suppose that Africanus in such an investigation as this could have overlooked two names by mistake if they had stood in his text of the Gospels.

113. 113

     We know nothing more of Estha. Africanus probably refers to the tradition handed down by the relatives of Christ, who had, as he says, preserved genealogies which agreed with those of the Gospels. He distinguishes here what he gives on tradition from his own interpretation of the Gospel discrepancy upon which he is engaged.

114. 114

     phule.

115. 115

     genos. "In this place genos is used to denote family. Matthan and Melchi were of different families, but both belonged to the same Davidic race which was divided into two families, that of Solomon and that of Nathan" (Valesius).

116. 116

     All the mss., and editions of Eusebius read triton instead of huion here. But it is very difficult to make any sense out of the word triton in this connection. We therefore prefer to follow Spitta (see ibid. pp. 87 sqq.) in reading huion instead of triton, an emendation which he has ventured to make upon the authority of Rufinus, who translates "genuit Joseph filium suum," showing no trace of a triton. The word triton is wanting also in three late Catenæ which contain the fragments of Africanus' Epistle (compare Spitta, ibid. p. 117, note 12).

117. 117

     kata logon. These words have caused translators and commentators great difficulty, and most of them seem to have missed their significance entirely. Spitta proposes to alter by reading kat?logon, but the emendation is unnecessary. The remarks which he makes (p. 89 sqq.) upon the relation between this sentence and the next are, however, excellent. It was necessary to Africanus' theory that Joseph should be allowed to trace his lineage through Jacob, his father "by nature," as well as through Eli, his father "by law," and hence the words kata logon are added and emphasized. He was his son by nature and therefore "rightfully to be reckoned as his son." This explains the Biblical quotation which follows: "Wherefore"—because he was Jacob's son by nature and could rightfully be reckoned in his line, and not only in the line of Eli—"it is written," &c.

118. 118

     Matt. i. 6.

119. 119

     See Rev. John Lightfoot's remarks on Luke iii. 23, in his Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations on St. Luke.

120. 120

     This passage has caused much trouble. Valesius remarks, "Africanus wishes to refer the words hos enomizeto (as was supposed') not only to the words huios 'Ioseph, but also to the words tou Eli, which follow, which although it is acute is nevertheless improper and foolish; for if Luke indicates that legal generation or adoption by the words hos enomizeto, as Africanus claims, it would follow that Christ was the son of Joseph by legal adoption in the same way that Joseph was the son of Eli. And thus it would be said that Mary, after the death of Joseph, married his brother, and that Christ was begotten by him, which is impious and absurd. And besides, if these words, hos enomizeto, are extended to the words tou Eli, in the same way they can be extended to all which follow. For there is no reason why they should be supplied in the second grade and not in the others." But against Valesius, Stroth says that Africanus seeks nothing in the words hos enomizeto, but in the fact that Luke says "he was the son of," while Matthew says "he begat." Stroth's interpretation is followed by Closs, Heinichen, and others, but Routh follows Valesius. Spitta discusses the matter carefully (p. 91 sq.), agreeing with Valesius that Africanus lays the emphasis upon the words hos enomizeto, but by an emendation (introducing a second hos enomizeto, and reading "who was the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, the son of Jacob, who was himself also the son, as was supposed,—for this he also adds,—of Eli, the son of Melchi") he applies the hos enomizeto only to the first and second members, and takes it in a more general sense to cover both cases, thus escaping Valesius' conclusions expressed above. The conjecture is ingenious, but is unwarranted and unnecessary. The words which occur in the next sentence, "and the expression, he begat' he has omitted," show that Africanus, as Stroth contends, lays the emphasis upon the difference of form in the two genealogies, "Son of" and "he begat." The best explanation seems to me to be that Africanus supposes Luke to have implied the legal generation in the words "the Son of," used in distinction from the definite expression "he begat," and that the words hos enomizeto, which "he also adds," simply emphasize this difference of expression by introducing a still greater ambiguity into Luke's mode of statement. He not only uses the words, the "Son of," which have a wide latitude, admitting any kind of sonship, but "he also adds," "as was supposed," showing, in Africanus' opinion, still more clearly that the list which follows is far from being a closely defined table of descent by "natural generation."

121. 121

     This seems the best possible rendering of the Greek, which reads ten anaphoran poies?menos he& 240;s tou 'Adam, tou theou kat' an?lusin. oude men anapodeikton k.t.l., which is very dark, punctuated thus, and it is difficult to understand what is meant by kat' an?lusin in connection with the preceding words. (Crusè translates, "having traced it back as far as Adam, who was the son of God,' he resolves the whole series by referring back to God. Neither is this incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture.") The objections which Spitta brings against the sentence in this form are well founded. He contends (p. 63 sqq.), and that rightly, that Africanus could not have written the sentence thus. In restoring the original epistle of Africanus, therefore, he throws the words kat' an?lusin into the next sentence, which disposes of the difficulty, and makes good sense. We should then read, "having traced it back as far as Adam, the Son of God. This interpretation (more literally, as an interpretation,' or by way of interpretation') is neither incapable of proof, nor is it an idle conjecture." That Africanus wrote thus I am convinced. But as Spitta shows, Eusebius must have divided the sentences as they now stand, for, according to his idea, that Africanus' account was one which he had received by tradition, the other mode of reading would be incomprehensible, though he probably did not understand much better the meaning of kat' an?lusin as he placed it. In translating Africanus' epistle here, I have felt justified in rendering it as Africanus probably wrote it, instead of following Eusebius' incorrect reproduction of it.

122. 122

     The Greek reads: paredosan kai touto, "have handed down also." The kai occurs in all the mss. and versions of Eusebius, and was undoubtedly written by him, but Spitta supposes it an addition of Eusebius, caused, like the change in the previous sentence, by his erroneous conception of the nature of Africanus' interpretation. The kai is certainly troublesome if we suppose that all that precedes is Africanus' own interpretation of the Biblical lists, and not a traditional account handed down by the "relatives of our Lord"; and this, in spite of Eusebius' belief, we must certainly insist upon. We may therefore assume with Spitta that the kai did not stand in the original epistle as Africanus wrote it. The question arises, if what precedes is not given upon the authority of the "relatives of our Lord," why then is this account introduced upon their testimony, as if confirming the preceding? We may simply refer again to Africanus' words at the end of the extract (§15 below) to prove that his interpretation did not rest upon testimony, and then we may answer with Spitta that their testimony, which is appealed to in §14 below, was to the genealogies themselves, and in this Africanus wishes it to be known that they confirmed the Gospel lists.

123. 123

     See above, chap. VI. notes 5 and 6.

124. 124

     We should expect the word "temple-servant" again instead of "priest"; but, as Valesius remarks, "It was possible for the same person to be both priest and servant, if for instance it was a condition of priesthood that only captives should be made priests." And this was really the case in many places.

125. 125

     Appointed by Julius Cæsar in 47 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

126. 126

     He was poisoned by Malichus in 42 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XIV. 11. 4).

127. 127

     Appointed king in 40 b.c. (see chap. VI. note 1, above).

128. 128

     The ethnarch Archelaus (see chap. VI. note 18) and the tetrarchs Herod Antipas and Herod Philip II.

129. 129

     Cf. Dion Cassius, XXXVII. 15 sqq. and Strabo, XVI. 2. 46.

130. 130

     It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family descent meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical records of the people in the public archives. Cf. e.g. Josephus, De Vita, §1, where he draws his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra Apion. I. 7.

131. 131

     achri proseluton. Heinichen and Burton read archiproseluton, "ancient proselytes." The two readings are about equally supported by ms. authority, but the same persons are meant here as at the end of the paragraph, where proselutous, not archiproselutous, occurs (cf. Spitta, pp. 97 sq., and Routh's Reliquiæ Sacræ II. p. 347 sq., 2d ed.).

132. 132

     Achior was a general of the Ammonites in the army of Holofernes, who, according to the Book of Judith, was a general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians, and was slain by the Jewish heroine, Judith. Achior is reported to have become afterward a Jewish proselyte.

133. 133

     The Greek reads enepresen auton tas anagraphas ton genon, but, with Spitta, I venture, against all the Greek mss. to insert p?sas before tas anagraphas upon the authority of Rufinus and the author of the Syriac version, both of whom reproduce the word (cf. Spitta, p. 99 sq.). Africanus certainly supposed that Herod destroyed all the genealogical records, and not simply those of the true Jews. This account of the burning of the records given by Africanus is contradicted by history, for we learn from Josephus, De Vita, §1, that he drew his own lineage from the public records, which were therefore still in existence more than half a century after the time at which Herod is said to have utterly destroyed them. It is significant that Rufinus translates omnes Hebræorum generationes descriptæ in Archivis templi secretioribus habebantur. How old this tradition was we do not know; Africanus is the sole extant witness of it.

134. 134

     tous te kaloumenous geioras. The word geioras occurs in the LXX. of Ex. xii. 19, where it translates the Hebrew gr The A.V. reads stranger, the R.V., sojourner, and Liddell and Scott give the latter meaning for the Greek word. See Valesius' note in loco, and Routh (II. p. 349 sq.), who makes some strictures upon Valesius' note. Africanus refers here to all those that came out from Egypt with the Israelites, whether native Egyptians, or foreigners resident in Egypt. Ex. xii. 38 tells us that a "mixed multitude" went out with the children of Israel (epimiktos polus), and Africanus just above speaks of them in the same way (epimikton).

135. 135

     desposunoi: the persons called above (§11) the relatives of the Saviour according to the flesh (hoi kata s?rka sungeneis). The Greek word signifies "belonging to a master."

136. 136

     Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Hær. XXX. 2 and 16), was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that this region was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be significance in the care with which these Desposyni preserved the genealogy of Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of Joseph, and therefore Joseph's lineage was his.

137. 137

     "Judea" is here used in the wider sense of Palestine as a whole, including the country both east and west of the Jordan. The word is occasionally used in this sense in Josephus; and so in Matt. xix. 1, and Mark x. 1, we read of "the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan." Ptolemy, Dion Cassius, and Strabo habitually employ the word in the wide sense.

138. 138

     ek mnemes. These words are not found in any extant mss., but I have followed Stroth and others in supplying them for the following reasons. The Greek, as we have it, runs: kai ten prokeimenen genealogian ?k te tes biblou ton hemeron k.t.l. The particle te indicates plainly that some phrase has fallen out. Rufinus translates ordinem supra dictæ generationis partim memoriter partim etiam ex dierum libris in quantum erat perdocebant. The words partim memoriter find no equivalent in the Greek as we have it, but the particle te, which still remains, shows that words which Rufinus translated thus must have stood originally in the Greek. The Syriac version also confirms the conclusion that something stood in the original which has since disappeared, though the rendering which it gives rests evidently upon a corrupt text (cf. Spitta, p. 101). Valesius suggests the insertion of apo mnemes, though he does not place the phrase in his text. Heinichen supplies mnemoneusantes, and is followed by Closs in his translation. Stroth, Migne, Routh, and Spitta read ek mnemes. The sense is essentially the same in each case.

139. 139

     It has been the custom since Valesius, to consider this "Book of daily records" (biblos ton hemeron) the same as the "private records" (idiotikas apograph?s) mentioned just above. But this opinion has been combated by Spitta, and that with perfect right. The sentence is, in fact, an exact parallel to the sentence just above, where it is said that a few of the careful, either by means of their memory or by means of copies, were able to have "private records of their own." In the present sentence it is said that "they drew the aforesaid genealogy (viz., the private records of their own') from memory, or from the Book of daily records" (which corresponds to the copies referred to above). This book of daily records is clearly, therefore, something other than the idiotikas apographas, but exactly what we are to understand by it is not so easy to say. It cannot denote the regular public records (called the archives above), for these were completed, and would not need to be supplemented by memory; and apparently, according to Africanus' opinion, these private records were made after the destruction of the regular public ones. The "Book of daily records" referred to must have been at any rate an incomplete genealogical source needing to be supplemented by the memory. Private family record books, if such existed previous to the supposed destruction of the public records, of which we have no evidence, would in all probability have been complete for each family. Spitta maintains (p. 101 sq.) that the Book of Chronicles is meant: the Hebrew dvry hymym , words or records of the days. This is a very attractive suggestion, as the book exactly corresponds to the book described: the genealogies which it gives are incomplete and require supplementing, and it is a book which was accessible to all; public, therefore, and yet not involved in the supposed destruction. The difficulty lies in the name given. It is true that Jerome calls the Books of Chronicles Verba Dierum and Hilary Sermones Dierum, &c.; but we should expect Africanus to use here the technical LXX. designation, Paraleipomenon. But whatever this "Book of daily records" was, it cannot have been the "private records" which were formed "from memory and from copies," but was one of the sources from which those "private records" were drawn.

140. 140

     Compare note 3, above. Africanus' direct statement shows clearly enough that he does not rest his interpretation of the genealogies (an interpretation which is purely a result of Biblical study) upon the testimony of the relatives of the Saviour. Their testimony is invoked with quite a different purpose, namely, in confirmation of the genealogies themselves, and the long story (upon the supposition that their testimony is invoked in support of Africanus' interpretation, introduced absolutely without sense and reason) thus has its proper place, in showing how the "relatives of the Saviour" were in a position to be competent witnesses upon this question of fact (not interpretation), in spite of the burning of the public records by Herod.

141. 141

     The law to which Eusebius refers is recorded in Num. xxxvi. 6, 7. But the prohibition given there was not an absolute and universal one, but a prohibition which concerned only heiresses, who were not to marry out of their own tribe upon penalty of forfeiting their inheritance (cf. Josephus, Ant. IV. 7. 5). It is an instance of the limited nature of the law that Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, although Joseph and Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah, and Zacharias, at least, was a Levite. This example lay so near at hand that Eusebius should not have overlooked it in making his assertion. His argument, therefore in proof of the fact that Mary belonged to the tribe of Judah has no force, but the fact itself is abundantly established both by the unanimous tradition of antiquity (independent of Luke's genealogy, which was universally supposed to be that of Joseph), and by such passages as Ps. cxxxii. 11, Acts ii. 30, xiii. 23, Rom. i. 3.

142. 142

     demou.

143. 143

     patrias

144. 144

     hoia theo proskunesai. Eusebius adds the words hoia theo, which are not found in Matt. ii. 2 and 11, where proskunesai is used.

145. 145

     Mic. v. 2.

146. 146

     Matt. ii.

147. 147

     Herod's reign was very successful and prosperous, and for most of the time entirely undisturbed by external troubles; but his domestic life was embittered by a constant succession of tragedies resulting from the mutual jealousies of his wives (of whom he had ten) and of their children. Early in his reign he slew Hyrcanus, the grandfather of his best-loved wife Mariamne, upon suspicion of treason; a little later, Mariamne herself was put to death; in 6 b.c. her sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, were condemned and executed; and in 4 b.c., but a few days before his death, Antipater, his eldest son, who had been instrumental in the condemnation of Alexander and Aristobulus, was also slain by his orders. These murders were accompanied by many others of friends and kindred, who were constantly falling under suspicion of treason.

148. 148

     In the later books of the Antiquities and in the first book of the Jewish war.

149. 149

     Josephus, Ant. XVII. 6. 5.

150. 150

     B. J. I. 33. 5 and 6.

151. 151

     poinen einai ta nosemata legein. Josephus, according to the text of Hudson, reads poinen einai ton sophiston ta nosemata legein, which is translated by Traill, "pronounced his maladies a judgment for his treatment of the Sophists." Nicephorus (H. E. I. 15) agrees with Eusebius in omitting the words ton sophiston, but he is not an independent witness. Whether Hudson's text is supported at this point by strong ms. authority I do not know. If the words stood in the original of Josephus, we may suppose that they were accidentally omitted by Eusebius himself or by one of his copyists, or that they were thrown out in order to make Josephus' statement better correspond with his own words in Ant. XVII. 6, quoted just above, where his disease is said to have been a result of his impiety in general, not of any particular exhibition of it. On the other hand, the omission of the words in Ant. XVII. 6 casts at least a suspicion on their genuineness, and if we were to assume that the words did not occur in the original text of Josephus, it would be very easy to understand their insertion by some copyist, for in the previous paragraph the historian has been speaking of the Sophists, and of Herod's cruel treatment of them.

152. 152

     Callirhoë was a town just east of the Dead Sea.

153. 153

     ten 'Asphaltitin limnen. This is the name by which Josephus commonly designates the Dead Sea. The same name occurs also in Diodorus Siculus (II. 48, XIX. 98).

154. 154

     Salome was own sister of Herod the Great, and wife in succession of Joseph, Costabarus, and Alexas. She possessed all the cruelty of Herod himself and was the cause, through her jealousy and envy, of most of the terrible tragedies in his family.

155. 155

     Alexander, the third husband of Salome, is always called Alexas by Josephus.

156. 156

     B. J.I. 13. 6 (cf. Ant. XVII. 6. 5). This terrible story rests upon the authority of Josephus alone, but is so in keeping with Herod's character that we have no reason to doubt its truth. The commands of Herod, however, were not carried out, the condemned men being released after his death by Salome (see ibid. §8).

157. 157

     B. J.I. 33. 7 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7). Herod's suicide was prevented by his cousin Achiabus, as Josephus informs us in the same connection.

158. 158

     B. J.I. 33. 7 and 8 (cf. Ant. XVII. 7). Antipater, son of Herod and his first wife Doris, was intended by his father to be his successor in the kingdom. He was beheaded five days before the death of Herod, for plotting against his father. He richly deserved his fate.

159. 159

     Eusebius gives here the traditional Christian interpretation of the cause of Herod's sufferings. Josephus nowhere mentions the slaughter of the innocents; whether through ignorance, or because of the insignificance of the tragedy when compared with the other bloody acts of Herod's reign, we do not know.

160. 160

     See Matt. ii. 19, 20.

161. 161

     Matt. ii. 22.

162. 162

     Archelaus was a son of Herod the Great, and own brother of the Tetrarch Herod Antipas, with whom he was educated at Rome. Immediately after the death of Antipater he was designated by his father as his successor in the kingdom, and Augustus ratified the will, but gave him only the title of ethnarch. The title of King he never really received, although he is spoken of as king in Matt. ii. 22, the word being used in a loose sense. His dominion consisted of Idumea, Judea, Samaria, and the cities on the coast, comprising a half of his father's kingdom. The other half was divided between Herod Antipas and Philip. He was very cruel, and was warmly hated by most of his subjects. In the tenth year of his reign (according to Josephus, Ant. XVII. 13. 2), or in the ninth (according to B. J. II. 7. 3), he was complained against by his brothers and subjects on the ground of cruelty, and was banished to Vienne in Gaul, where he probably died, although Jerome says that he was shown his tomb near Bethlehem. Jerome's report, however, is too late to be of any value. The exact length of his reign it is impossible to say, as Josephus is not consistent in his reports. The difference may be due to the fact that Josephus reckoned from different starting-points in the two cases. He probably ruled a little more than nine years. His condemnation took place in the consulship of M. Æmilius Lepidus and L. Arruntius (i.e. in 6 a.d.) according to Dion Cassius, LV. 27. After the deposition of Archelaus Judea was made a Roman province and attached to Syria, and Coponius was sent as the first procurator. On Archelaus, see Josephus, Ant. XVII. 8, 9, 11 sq., and B. J. I. 33. 8 sq.; II. 6 sq.