Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book IV/Chapter 22

Hegesippus and the Events which he mentions.

1. in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

2. His words are as follows: &#8220;And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, The interpretation of this sentence is greatly disputed. The Greek reads in all the &#947;&#949;&#957;&#8057;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; &#948;&#8050; &#7952;&#957; &#8190;&#929;&#8061;&#956;&#8131; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957; &#7952;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#8364;&#956;&#957; &#956;&#8051;&#967;&#961;&#953;&#962; &#8125;&#913;&#957;&#953;&#954;&#8053;&#964;&#959;&#965;, and this reading is confirmed by the Syriac version (according to Lightfoot). If these words be accepted as authentic, the only possible rendering seems to be the one which has been adopted by many scholars: &#8220;Being in Rome, I composed a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus.&#8221; This rendering is adopted also by Lightfoot, who holds that the list of Hegesippus is reproduced by Epiphanius in his Panarium XXVII. 6 (see his essay in The Academy, May 27, 1887, where this theory is broached, and compare the writer&#8217;s notice of it in Harnack&#8217;s Theol. Lit. Zeitung 1887, No. 18). But against this rendering it must be said, first, that it is very difficult to translate the words &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957; &#7952;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#8364;&#956;&#951;&#957;, &#8220;I composed a catalogue of bishops,&#8221; for &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8053; nowhere else, so far as I am aware, means &#8220;catalogue,&#8221; and nowhere else does the expression &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957; &#960;&#959;&#953;&#949;&#8150;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; occur. Just below, the same word signifies &#8220;succession,&#8221; and this is its common meaning. Certainly, if Hegesippus wished to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, he could not have expressed himself more obscurely. In the second place, if Hegesippus had really composed a catalogue of bishops and referred to it here, how does it happen that Eusebius, who is so concerned to ascertain the succession of bishops in all the leading sees nowhere gives that catalogue, and nowhere even refers to it. He does give Iren&#230;us&#8217; catalogue of the Roman bishops in Bk. V. chap. 6, but gives no hint there that he knows anything of a similar list composed by Hegesippus. In fact, it is very difficult to think that Hegesippus, in this passage, can have meant to say that he had composed a catalogue of bishops, and it is practically impossible to believe that Eusebius can have understood him to mean that. But the words &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8053;&#957; &#7952;&#960;&#959;&#953;&#951;&#963;&#8364;&#956;&#951;&#957;, if they can be made to mean anything at all, can certainly be made to mean nothing else than the composition of a catalogue, and hence it seems necessary to make some correction in the text. It is significant that Rufinus at this point reads permansi ibi, which shows that he at least did not understand Hegesippus to be speaking of a list of bishops. Rufinus&#8217; rendering gives us a hint of what must have stood in the original from which he drew, and so Savilius, upon the margin of his , substituted for &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957; the word &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#953;&#946;&#8053;&#957;, probably simply as a conjecture, but possibly upon the authority of some other now lost. He has been followed by some editors, including Heinichen, who prints the word &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#953;&#946;&#8053;&#957; in the text. Val. retains &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957; in his text, but accepts &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#953;&#946;&#8053;&#957; as the true reading, and so translates. This reading is now very widely adopted; and it, or some other word with the same meaning, in all probability stood in the original text. In my notice of Lightfoot&#8217;s article, I suggested the word &#948;&#953;&#945;&#947;&#969;&#947;&#8053;&#957;, which, while not so common as &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#961;&#953;&#946;&#8053;&#957;, is yet used with &#960;&#959;&#953;&#949;&#8150;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; in the same sense, and its very uncommonness would account more easily for the change to the much commoner &#948;&#953;&#945;&#948;&#959;&#967;&#8052;&#957;, which is epigraphically so like it.

The word &#956;&#8051;&#967;&#961;&#953; is incorrectly translated apud by Valesius, who reads, mansi apud Anicetum. He is followed by Crus&#232;, who translates &#8220;I made my stay with Anicetus&#8221;; but &#956;&#8051;&#967;&#961;&#953; can mean only &#8220;until.&#8221; Hegesippus therefore, according to his own statement, came to Rome before the accession of Anicetus and remained there until the latter became bishop. See chap. 11, note 19, for the relation of this statement to that of Eusebius.

For particulars in regard to Anicetus, see chap. 11, note 18; on Soter, see chap. 19, note 2, and on Eleutherus, Bk. V. Preface, note 2. whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.&#8221;

4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: &#8220;And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord&#8217;s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

&#8220;Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

5. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorth&#230;us, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masboth&#230;ans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.&#8221;

6. The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: &#8220;There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masboth&#230;ans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.&#8221;

7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, The exact meaning of this sentence is very difficult to determine. The Greek reads: &#382;&#954; &#964;&#949; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#954;&#945;&#952;&#8125; &#8125;&#917;&#946;&#961;&#945;&#8055;&#959;&#965;&#962; &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;&#947;&#949;&#955;&#8055;&#959;&#965; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#931;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#8166; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#7984;&#948;&#8055;&#969;&#962; &#7952;&#954; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#8190;&#917;&#946;&#961;&#945;&#8147;&#948;&#959;&#962; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#955;&#8051;&#954;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#964;&#953;&#957;&#8048; &#964;&#8055;&#952;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#957;. It is grammatically necessary to supply &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;&#947;&#949;&#955;&#8055;&#959;&#965; after &#931;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#8166;, and this gives us a Syriac gospel in addition to the Hebrew. Some have concluded that Tatian&#8217;s Diatessaron is meant by it, but this will not do; for, as Handmann remarks, the fact that Hegesippus quotes from the work or works referred to is cited as evidence that he was a Hebrew. Hilgenfeld supposes that the Chald&#230;o syroque scriptum evangelium secundum Hebr&#230;os, which Jerome mentions, is referred to, and that the first-named &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;&#947;&#8051;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#952;&#8125; &#8190;&#917;&#946;&#961;&#945;&#8055;&#959;&#965;&#962; is a Greek translation, while the &#964;&#8056; &#931;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#954;&#8057;&#957; represents the original; so that Hegesippus is said to have used both the original and the translation. Eusebius, however, could not have made the discovery that he used both, unless the original and the translation differed in their contents, of which we have no hint, and which in itself is quite improbable. As the Greek reads, however, there is no other explanation possible, unless the &#964;&#8056; &#931;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#954;&#8056;&#957; &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;&#947;&#8051;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#957; be taken to represent some other unknown Hebrew gospel, in which case the following clause refers to the citations from both of the gospels. That such a gospel existed, however, and was referred to by Eusebius so casually, as if it were a well-known work, is not conceivable. The only resource left, so far as the writer can discover, is to amend the text, with Eichhorn, Nicholson, and Handmann, by striking out the first &#954;&#945;&#8055;. The &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#931;&#965;&#961;&#953;&#945;&#954;&#959;&#8166; then becomes a description of the &#949;&#8016;&#945;&#947;&#947;&#8051;&#955;&#953;&#959;&#957; &#954;&#945;&#952;&#8125; &#8190;&#917;&#946;&#961;&#945;&#8055;&#959;&#965;&#962;, &#8220;The Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews.&#8221; By the Syriac we are to understand, of course, the vulgar dialect, which had before the time of Christ taken the place of the Hebrew, and which is ordinarily called Aramaic. Eusebius then, on this interpretation, first qualifies the Gospel of the Hebrews more exactly, and then adds that Hegesippus quotes from the Hebrew original of it (&#7952;&#954; &#964;&#8134;&#962; &#8190;&#917;&#946;&#961;&#945;&#8147;&#948;&#959;&#962; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#955;&#8051;&#954;&#964;&#959;&#965;), and not from a translation; e.g. from the Greek translation, which we know existed early. There is, to be sure, no authority for the alteration of the text, and yet the sense of the passage seems to demand it, and I have consequently omitted the &#954;&#945;&#8055; in my translation. Upon the interpretation of the passage, see Handmann&#8217;s Hebr&#228;er-Evangelium, p. 32 ff., and upon the Gospel according to the Hebrews, see above, Bk. III. chap. 25, note 24, and chap. 27, note 8. showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.

8. And not only he, but also Iren&#230;us and the whole company of the ancients, called the Proverbs of Solomon All-virtuous Wisdom. And when speaking of the books called Apocrypha, he records that some of them were composed in his day by certain heretics. But let us now pass on to another.