Eusebius

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION CONCERNING THE TIME WHEN THE APOCALYPSE WAS WRITTEN erineus introduced an opinion that the apocalypse was written in the time of domitian but then he also postponed the writing of some of the sacred books and was to place the apocalypse after them he might perhaps have heard from his master polycarp that he had received this book from john about the time of domitian's death or indeed john might himself at that time have made a new publication of it from whence irenaeus might imagine it was then but newly written eusebius in his chronicle and ecclesiastical history follows irenaeus but afterwards in his evangelical demonstrations he conjoins the banishment of john into patmos with the deaths of peter and paul and so do tertullian and pseudo procurus as well as the first author whoever he was of that very ancient fable that john was put by nero into a vessel of hot oil and coming out unhurt was banished by him into patmos though this story be no more than a fiction yet was it founded on a tradition of the first churches that john was banished into patmos in the days of nero Epiphanios represents the Gospel of John as written in the time of Domitian, and the Apocalypse even before that of Nero.

Aretas, in the beginning of his commentary, quotes the opinion of Irenaeus from Eusebius, but follows it not, for he, afterwards, affirms the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that former commentators had expounded the sixth seal of that destruction.

with the opinion of the first commentators agrees the tradition of the churches of syria preserved to this day in the title of the syriac version of the apocalypse which title is this the revelation which was made to john the evangelist by god in the island of patmos into which he was banished by nero the csar the fame is confirmed by a story told by eusebius out of clemens alexandrinus and other ancient authors concerning a youth whom john some time after his return from patmos committed to the care of the bishop of a certain city the bishop educated instructed and at length baptized him and then remitting of his care the young man thereupon got into ill company and began by degrees first to revel and grow vicious then to abuse and spoil those he met in the night and at last grew so desperate that his companions turning a band of highwaymen made him their captain and saith chrysostom he continued their captain a long time at length john returned to that city and hearing what was done rode to the thief and when he out of reverence to his old master fled john rode after him recalled him and restored him to the church This is a story of many years, and requires that John should have returned from Patmos rather at the death of Nero than that of Domitian, because between the death of Domitian and that of John there were but two years and a half, and John in his old age was so infirm as to be carried to church, dying above ninety years old, and therefore could not be then supposable to ride after the thief.

this opinion is further supported by the allusions in the apocalypse to the temple and altar and holy city as then standing and to gentiles who were soon after to tread under foot the holy city and outward court tis confirmed also by the style of the apocalypse itself which is fuller of hebraisms than his gospel for thence it may be gathered that it was written when john was newly come out of judea where he had been used to the syriac tongue and that he did not write his gospel till by long converse with the asiatic greeks he had left off most of the hebraisms it is confirmed also by many false apocalypses as those of peter paul thomas stephen elias and cerinthus written in imitation of the true one for as the many false gospels false acts and false epistles were occasioned by true ones and the writing many false apocalypses and ascribing them to apostles and prophets argues that there was a true apostolic one in great request with the first christians so this true one may be well supposed to have been written early that there may be room in the apostolic age for the writing of so many false ones afterwards and fathering them upon peter paul thomas and others who were dead before john caius who was contemporary with tertullian tells us that cerinthus wrote his revelations as a great apostle and pretended the visions were shewn him by angels asserting a millennium of carnal pleasures at jerusalem after the resurrection so that his apocalypse was plainly written in imitation of john's and yet he lived so early that he resisted the apostles at jerusalem in or before the first year of claudius that is twenty-six years before the death of nero and died before john these reasons may suffice for determining the time and yet there is one more which to considering men may seem a good reason to others not all propound it and leave it to every man's judgment the apocalypse seems to be alluded to in the epistles of peter and that to the hebrews and therefore to have been written before them such allusions in the epistle to the hebrews i take to be the discourses concerning the high priest in the heavenly tabernacle who is both priest and king as was and those concerning the word of god with the sharp two-edged sword the sabbatismos or millennial rest the earth whose end is to be burned suppose by the lake of fire the judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries the heavenly city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is god the cloud of witnesses mount zion heavenly jerusalem general assembly spirits of just men made perfect the deluset by the resurrection and the shaking of heaven and earth and removing them that the new heaven new earth and new kingdom which cannot be shaken may remain in the first of peter occur these the revelation of jesus christ

Insomuch that Basil teaches how some good use may be made of Margita's, a sportful poem, not now extant, writ by Homer, and why not, then, of Morgante, an Italian romance much to the same purpose? But if it be agreed we shall be tried by visions.

There is a vision recorded by Eusebius, far ancienter than this tale of Jerome, to the nun Eustochium, and besides has nothing of a fever in it.

Dionysius Alexandrinus was about the year 240 a person of great name in the church for piety and learning, who had wont to avail himself much against heretics by being conversant in their books, until a certain presbyter, laid it scrupulously to his conscience, how he durst venture himself among those defiling volumes.

The worthy man, loath to give offence, fell into a new debate with himself.

And perhaps it was the same politic drift that the devil whipped St. Jerome in a Lenten dream for reading Cicero, or else it was a phantasm bred by the fever which had then seized him.

For had an angel been his discipliner, unless it were for dwelling too much upon Ciceronianisms, and had chastised the reading, not the vanity— it had been plainly partial first to correct him for grave cicero and not for scurril plotus whom he confesses to have been reading not long before next to correct him only and let so many more ancient fathers wax old in those pleasant and florid studies without the lash of such a tutoring apparition insomuch that basil teaches how some good use may be made of margites a sportful poem not now extant writ by homer And why not then of Morgante, an Italian romance, much to the same purpose? But if it be agreed we shall be tried by visions, there is a vision recorded by Eusebius far ancienter than this tale of Jerome to the non-Eustochian, and besides has nothing of a fever in it.

Dionysius Alexandrinus was about the year 240 a person of great name in the church for piety and learning, who had won to avail himself much against heretics by being conversant in their books, until a certain presbyter laid it scrupulously to his conscience how he durst venture himself among those defiling volumes.

The worthy man, loath to give offence, fell into a new debate with himself what was to be thought, when suddenly a vision sent from God, it is his own epistle that so affers it, confirmed him in these words, Read any books, whatever come to thy hands, for thou art sufficient both to judge right and to examine each matter.

and perhaps it was the same politic drift that the devil whipped St. Jerome in a Lenten dream for reading Cicero, or else it was a phantasm bred by the fever which had then seized him.

For had an angel been his discipliner, unless it were for dwelling too much upon Ciceronianisms, and had chastised the reading, not the vanity, it had been plainly partial first to correct him for grave cicero and not for scurril plotus whom he confesses to have been reading not long before next to correct him only and let so many more ancient fathers wax old in those pleasant and florid studies without the lash of such a tutoring apparition insomuch that basil teaches how some good use may be made of margites a sportful poem not now extant writ by homer And why not then of Morgante, an Italian romance, much to the same purpose? But if it be agreed we shall be tried by visions, there is a vision recorded by Eusebius far ancienter than this tale of Jerome to the non-Eustochian, and besides has nothing of a fever in it.

Dionysius Alexandrinus was about the year 240 a person of great name in the church for piety and learning, who had won to avail himself much against heretics by being conversant in their books, until a certain presbyter laid it scrupulously to his conscience how he durst venture himself among those defiling volumes.

The worthy man, loath to give offence, fell into a new debate with himself what was to be thought.

And apparently they were debating over this book, some sort of book associated with Peter.

We don't know exactly what it is, but they ask him, what should we do? He's like, well, that's the only thing that you're mad—this is all documented by Eusebius, by the way.

And so Serapion, who was by no means like a prominent—he's not like the— He's not like a super important – he wasn't speaking as the pope or anything like that.

He says, fine.

So too the learned Origen affirms in his interpretation of St. Matthew's gospel that John was martyred, declaring that he had learnt the fact from the successors of the apostles.

And indeed, the well-informed Eusebius also in his ecclesiastical history says, "Thomas received by Lot Parthia, John Asia, for also he made his residence and died at Ephesus." That was the full fragment of Georgius Hamartolus, Chronicon.

Now I'm going to read a partial fragment here from St. Jerome.

I used to inquire what had been said by Andrew or by Peter or by Philip or by Thomas or James or by John or Matthew or any of the Lord's disciples, and what Eristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying.

Uh, it's the elder John is the Apostle John, and that's who Papias heard about the compilation of Mark and Matthew.

It's as simple as that.

It's like a division logic, and for some reason Eusebius did a very terrible job, and that particular fragment was used by later people in the church to basically undermine a very beautiful and, and concrete connection of Papias to the actual founders of the church.

Not just John, but also Aristion and some of the other disciples of the Lord, whom he heard people speak of.

Unfortunately, however, his work has been lost, and the fragments of it preserved exist only in the distorted form which Josephus has given them for his own purposes, and in a chronicle written by a learned Christian convert of the 3rd century, Julius Africanus.

But this latter also has been lost, and we know it only from a similar work written a century later by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in which the researchers of Africanus are embodied.

Footnote, even this exists only in its Armenian translation, not in the original.

End footnote.

Such are the difficulties before the student.

On the other hand, both Africanus and Eusebius gathered their materials in Egypt itself and were competent for their task.

Africanus, at least, had the work of Manetho before him, and lastly, by universal consent, the monuments of Egypt remarkably confirm what were the undoubted statements of Manetho.

Like most heathen chronologies, Manetho's catalogue of kings begins with gods, after which he enumerates 30 dynasties, bringing the history down to the year 343 BC.