Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 01: 21.02.45 Book VII Part 4
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 01 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 21.02.45 Book VII Part 4
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter XXV. The Apocalypse of John.hyperlink
1 Afterward he speaks in this manner of the Apocalypse of John.
"Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent.
2 For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a vail of obscurity. And they affirm that none of the apostles, rend none of the saints, nor any one in the Church is its author, but that Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian, desiring reputable authority for his fiction, prefixed the name.
3 For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.hyperlink
4 "But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words
5 I do not measure and judge them by my own reason, but leaving the more to faith I regard them as too high for me to grasp. And I do not reject what I cannot comprehend, but rather wonder because I do not understand it."
6 After this he examines the entire Book of Revelation, and having proved that it is impossible to understand it according to the literal sense, proceeds as follows:
"Having finished all the prophecy, so to speak, the prophet pronounces those blessed who shall observe it, and also himself. For he says, `Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.'hyperlink
7 Therefore that he was called John, and that this book is the work of one John, I do not deny. And I agree also that it is the work of a holy and inspired man. But I cannot readily admit that he was the apostle, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, by whom the Gospel of John and the Catholic Epistlehyperlink were written.
8 For I judge from the character of both, and the forms of expression, and the entire execution of the book,hyperlink that it is not his. For the evangelist nowhere gives his name, or proclaims himself, either in the Gospel or Epistle."
9 Farther on he adds:
"But John never speaks as if referring to himself, or as if referring to another person.hyperlink But the author of the Apocalypse introduces himself at the very beginning: `The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which he gave him to show unto his servants quickly; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John, who bare witness of the word of God and of his testimony, even of all things that he saw.'hyperlink
10 Then he writes also an epistle: `John to the seven churches which are in Asia, grace be with you, and peace.'hyperlink But the evangelist did not prefix his name even to the Catholic Epistle; but without introduction he begins with the mystery of the divine revelation itself: `That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes.'hyperlink For because of such a revelation the Lord also blessed Peter, saying, `Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my heavenly Father.'hyperlink
11 But neither in the reputed second or third epistle of John, though they are very short, does the name John appear; but there is written the anonymous phrase, `the elder.'hyperlink But this author did not consider it sufficient to give his name once and to proceed with his work; but he takes it up again: `I, John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and in the patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos for the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus.'hyperlink And toward the close he speaks thus: `Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book, and I, John, who saw and heard these things.'hyperlink
12 "But that he who wrote these things was called John must be believed, as he says it; but who he was does not appear. For he did not say, as often in the Gospel, that he was the beloved disciple of the Lord,hyperlink or the one who lay on his breast,hyperlink or the brother of James, or the eyewitness and hearer of the Lord.
13 For he would have spoken of these things if he had wished to show himself plainly. But he says none of them; but speaks of himself as our brother and companion, and a witness of Jesus, and blessed because he had seen and heard the revelations.
14 But I am of the opinion that there were many with the same name as the apostle John, who, on account of their love for him, and because they admired and emulated him, and desired to be loved by the Lord as he was, took to themselves the same surname, as many of the children of the faithful are called Paul or Peter.
15 For example, there is also another John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,hyperlink whom Barnabas and Paul took with them; of whom also it is said, `And they had also John as their attendant.'hyperlink But that it is he who wrote this, I would not say. For it not written that he went with them into Asia, but, `Now when Paul and his company set sail from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.'hyperlink
16 But I think that he was some other one of those in Asia; as they say that there are two monuments in Ephesus, each bearing the name of John.hyperlink
17 "And from the ideas, and from the words and their arrangement, it may be reasonably conjectured that this one is different from that one.hyperlink
18 For the Gospel and Epistle agree with each other and begin in the same manner. The one says, `In the beginning was the Word';hyperlink the other, `That which was from the beginning.'hyperlink The one: `And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father';hyperlink the other says the same things slightly altered: `Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes; which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life,-and the life was manifested.'hyperlink
19 For he introduces these things at the beginning, maintaining them, as is evident from what follows, in opposition to those who said that the Lord had not come in the flesh. Wherefore also he carefully adds, `And we have seen and bear witness, and declare unto you the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also.'hyperlink
20 He holds to this and does not digress from his subject, but discusses everything under the same heads and names 21 some of which we will briefly mention. Any one who examines carefully will find the phrases, `the life,' `the light,' `turning from darkness,' frequently occurring in both; also continually, `truth,' `grace,' `joy,' `the flesh and blood of the Lord,' `the judgment,' `the forgiveness of sins,' `the love of God toward us,' the `commandment that we love one another,' that we should `keep all the commandments'; the `conviction of the world, of the Devil, of Anti-Christ,' the `promise of the Holy Spirit,' the `adoption of God,' the `faith continually required of us,` `the Father and the Son,' occur everywhere. In fact, it is plainly to be seen that one and the same character marks the Gospel and the Epistle throughout.
22 But the Apocalypse is different from these writings and foreign to them; not touching, nor in the least bordering upon them; almost, so to speak, without even a syllable in common with them.
23 Nay more, the Epistle-for I pass by the Gospel - does not mention nor does it contain any intimation of the Apocalypse, nor does the Apocalypse of the Epistle. But Paul, in his epistles, gives some indication of his revelations,hyperlink though he has not written them out by themselves.
24 "Moreover, it can also be shown that the, diction of the Gospel and Epistle differs from that of the Apocalypse.
25 For they were written not only without error as regards the Greek language, but also with elegance in their expression, in their reasonings, and in their entire structure. They are far indeed from betraying any barbarism or solecism, or any vulgarism whatever. For the writer had, as it seems, both the requisites of discourse,-that is, the gift of knowledge and the gift of expression,-as the Lord had bestowed them both upon him.
26 I do not deny that the other writer saw a revelation and received knowledge and prophecy. I perceive, however, that his dialect and language are not accurate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and, in some places, solecisms.
27 It is unnecessary to point these out here, for I would not have any one think that I have said these things in a spirit of ridicule, for I have said what I have only with the purpose of showing dearly the difference between the writings."
Chapter XXVI. The Epistles of Dionysius.
1 Besides these, many other epistles of Dionysius are extant, as those against Sabellius,hyperlink addressed to Ammon,hyperlink bishop of the church of Bernice, and one to Telesphorus,hyperlink and one to Euphranor, and again another to Ammon and Euporus. He wrote also four other books on the same subject, which he addressed to his namesake Dionysius, in Rome.hyperlink
2 Besides these many of his epistles are with us, and large books written in epistolary form, as those on Nature,hyperlink addressed to the young man Timothy, and one on Temptations,hyperlink which he also dedicated to Euphranor.
3 Moreover, in a letter to Basilides,hyperlink bishop of the parishes in Pentapolis, he says that he had written an exposition of the beginning of Ecclesiastes.hyperlink And he has left us also various letters addressed to this same person. Thus much Dionysius.
But our account of these matters being now completed, permit us to show to posterity the character of our own age.hyperlink
Chapter XXVII. Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy Introduced by Hint at Antioch.
1 After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for eleven years,hyperlink Dionysius,hyperlink namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About the same time Demetrianushyperlink died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosatahyperlink received that episcopate.
2 As he held, contrary to the teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that in his nature he was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod.hyperlink But being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave his opinion on the subject under consideration by letter.hyperlink But all the other pastors of the churches from all directions, made haste to assemble at Antioch, as against a despoiler of the flock of Christ.
Chapter XXVIII. The Illustrious Bishops of that Time.
1 Of these, the most eminent were Firmilianus,hyperlink bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; the brothers Gregoryhyperlink and Athenodorus, pastors of the churches in Pontus; Helenushyperlink of the parish of Tarsus, and Nicomashyperlink of Iconium moreover, Hymenaeus,hyperlink of the church of Jerusalem, and Theotecnushyperlink of the neighboring church of Caesarea; and besides these Maximus,hyperlink who presided in a distinguished manner over the brethren in Bostra. If any should count them up he could not fail to note a great many others, besides presbyters and deacons, who were at that time assembled for the same cause in the above-mentioned city.hyperlink But these were the most illustrious.
2 When all of these assembled at different times and frequently to consider these matters, the arguments and questions were discussed at every meeting; the adherents of the Samosatian endeavoring to cover and conceal his heterodoxy, and the others striving zealously to lay bare and make manifest his heresy and blasphemy against Christ.
3 Meanwhile, Dionysius died in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus,hyperlink having held the episcopate of Alexandria for seventeen years, and Maximushyperlink succeeded him.
4 Gallienus after a reign of fifteen yearshyperlink was succeeded by Claudius,hyperlink who in two years delivered the government to Aurelian.
Chapter XXIX. Paul, Having Been Refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from the Sophists, Was Excommunicated.
1 During his reign a final synodhyperlink composed of a great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresyhyperlink in Antioch was detected, and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven.hyperlink
2 Malchion especially drew him out of his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned in other respects, and principal of the sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior nobility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish. This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by stenographers and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived the others.
Footnotes
181 Upon the Apocalypse in the early Church, and especially upon Dionysius' treatment of it, see above, Bk. III. chap. 24, note 20.
182 A portion of this extract (§§2 and 3) has been already quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 28.
183 Rev. xxii. 7, Rev. xxii. 8. Dionysius punctuates this passage peculiarly, and thus interprets it quite differently from all our versions of the Book of Revelation. The Greek text as given by him agrees with our received text of the Apocalypse; but the words kagw 'Iwannhj o akouwn kai blepwn tauta, which Dionysius connects with the preceding, should form an independent sentence: "And I, John, am he that heard and saw these things."
184 On the Gospel and Epistle, see Bk. III. chap. 24, notes 1 and 18.
185 thj tou bibliou diecagwghj legomenhj. Valesius considers diecagwgh equivalent to dispositionem or oikonomian, "for diecagwgein is the same as dioikein, as Suidas says." He translates ex libelli totius ductu ac dispositione, remarking that the words may be interpreted also as formam et rationem scribendi, seu characterem. The phrase evidently means the "general disposition" or "form" of the work. Closs translates "aus ihrer ganzen Ausführung"; Salmond, "the whole disposition and execution of the book"; Crusè, "the execution of the whole book."
186 i.e. never speaks of himself in the first person, as "I, John"; nor in the third person, as e.g. "his servant, John."
187 Rev. i. 1, Rev. i. 2.
188 Rev. i. 4.
189 1 John i. 1.
190 Matt. xvi. 17.
191 See 2 John, ver. 1, and 3 John, ver. 1.
192 Rev. i. 9.
193 Rev. xxii. 7, Rev. xxii. 8. See above, note 3.
194 See John xiii. 23, John xix. 26, John xx. 2, John xxi. 7, John xxi. 20.
195 See John xiii. 23, John xiii. 25. These words, oude ton anapesonta epi to sthqoj autou, are wanting in Heinichen's edition; but as they are found in all the other editions and versions and Heinichen gives no reason for their omission, it is clear that they have been omitted inadvertently.
196 In Acts xii. 12, Acts xii. 25, Acts xiii. 5, Acts xiii. 13, Acts xv. 37. On Mark and the second Gospel, see above, Bk. II. chap. 15, note 4.
197 Acts xiii. 5.
198 Acts xiii. 13.
199 See above, Bk. III. chap. 39, note 13; and on the "presbyter John," mentioned by Papias, see also note 4 on the same chapter, and on his relation to the Apocalypse, the same chapter, note 14.
200 i.e. the writer of the Apocalypse is different from the writer of the Gospel and Epistles.
201 John i. 1.
202 1 John i. 1.
203 John i. 14.
204 1 John i. 1, 1 John i. 2.
205 1 John i. 2, 1 John i. 3.
206 See 2 Cor. xii. 1 sq., Gal. ii. 2.
207 On Sabellius, and on Dionysius' attitude toward Sabellianism, see above, chap. 6, note 1.
208 The works addressed to Ammon, Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, are no longer extant, nor do we know anything about them (but see chap. 6, note 2, above). It is possible that it was in these epistles that Dionysius laid himself open in his zeal against the Sabellians to the charge of tritheism, which aroused complaints against him, and resulted in his being obliged to defend himself in his work addressed to Dionysius of Rome. If so, these letters must have been written before that work, though perhaps not long before. Of Ammon himself we know nothing. There were a number of cities in North Africa, called Berenice (the form Bernice is exceptional), but, according to Wiltsch, Berenice, a city of Libya Pentapolis, or Cyrenaica, is meant in the present case. This city (whose original name was Hesperides) lay on the Mediterranean some six hundred miles west of Alexandria.
209 Of Telesphorus, Euphranor, and Euporus, we know nothing.
210 On these books addressed to Dionysius of Rome, see below, p. 397.
211 oi peri fusewj. The date and immediate occasion of this work cannot be determined. The supposition of Dittrich, that it was written before Dionysius became bishop, while he had more leisure than afterward for philosophical study, has much in its favor. The young man, Timothy, to whom it was addressed, is perhaps to be identified with the one mentioned in Bk. VI. chap. 40, §4. That it was a work of considerable extent, embracing more than one book, is indicated by Eusebius in this passage. A long extract from it is given by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang. XIV. 23-27 (printed with commentary by Routh, Rel. Sac. IV. p. 393 sq.; translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84-91), and a few fragments are still preserved in a Vatican codex, and have been published by Simon de Magistris, in his edition of Dionysius' works (Rome, 1796), p. 44 sq. (cf. also Routh, IV. p. 418, 419). In the extract quoted by Eusebius, Dionysius deals solely with the atomic theory of Democritus and Epicurus. This subject may have occupied the greater part of the work, but evidently, as Dittrich remarks (Dionysius der Grosse, p. 12), the doctrines of other physicists were also dealt with (cf. the words with which Eusebius introduces his extracts; Praaep. Evang. XIV. 22. 10: "I will subjoin from the books [of Dionysius] On Nature a few of the things urged against Epicurus." The translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VI. p. 84, note 7, which implies that the work was written "against the Epicureans" is not correct). fusij seems to have been taken by Dionysius in the sense of the "Universe" (compare, for instance, the words of Cicero, De nat. deorum, II., to which Dittrich refers: Suni autem, qui naturae nomine rerum universitatem intelligunt), and to have been devoted to a refutation of the doctrines of various heathen philosophers in regard to the origin of the universe. For a fuller discussion of the work, see Dittrich, ibid. p. 12 sq.
212 This work on Temptations (peri peirasmwn) is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about the time or occasion of its composition. Dittrich strangely omits all reference to it. Of Euphranor, as remarked in note 3, we know nothing.
213 Of this Basilides we know only what Eusebius tells us here, that he was bishop of the "parishes in Pentapolis" (or Cyrenaica, a district, and under the Romans a province, lying west of Egypt, along the Mediterranean Sea), which would seem to imply that he was metropolitan of that district (cf. Routh, Rel. Sac. III. p. 235). A canonical epistle addressed to him by Dionysius is still extant (see above, Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Eusebius tells us that Dionysius addressed "various epistles" to him, but no others are known to us.
214 It is possible that this work also, like that On Nature, was written, as Dittrich thinks, before Dionysius became bishop. Eusebius evidently had not seen the commentary himself, for he speaks only of Dionysius' reference to it. A few fragments, supposed to be parts of this commentary, were published in the appendix to the fourteenth volume of Galland's Bibliotheca Patrum Veterum, after the latter's death, and were afterward reprinted in De Magistris' edition of Dionysius' works, p. 1 sq. (English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VI. p. 111-114). The fragments, or at least a part of them, are ascribed to Dionysius in the codex in which they are found, and are very likely genuine, though we cannot speak with certainty. For fuller particulars, see Dittrich, p. 22 sq.
215 thn kaq hmaj genean. This seems to indicate that the events recorded by Eusebius from this point on took place during his own lifetime. See above, p. 4.
216 Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years. See chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius' chronology of the Roman bishops of this time is in inextricable confusion.
217 After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome remained vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution of Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, according to the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the correct date. Jerome's version of the Chron. gives the twelfth year of "Valerian and Gallienus" (i.e. 265-266) which is wide of the mark. The Armenian Chron. gives the eighth year of the same reign. As to the duration of his episcopate, authorities vary considerably. Eusebius (chap. 30, §23, below) and Jerome's version of the Chron. say nine years; the Armenian Chron., twelve; the Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows that nine is the correct figure, and that five months and two days are to be read instead of the two months and four days of the Liberian catalogue. According to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27, 268. Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the latter was still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see above, chap. 7, §6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a "learned and capable man"). Another epistle of the same writer addressed to him is mentioned in chap. 9, §6. Dionysius of Alexandria's four books against the Sabellians were likewise addressed to him (see chap. 26, above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1). Gallienus' edict of toleration was promulgated while Dionysius was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3).
218 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
219 Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the early Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time viceroy of Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius' Chron. put the date of his accession to the see of Antioch in the seventh year of Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277 (2278), i.e. in a.d. 259 (260); and Jerome's version puts his deposition in the year of Abr. 2283, i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however, are not to be relied upon. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51) shows that he became bishop between 257 and 260. Our chief knowledge of his character and career is derived from the encyclical letter written by the members of the council which condemned him, and quoted in part by Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This, as will be seen, paints his character in very black colors. It may be somewhat overdrawn, for it was written by his enemies; at the same time, such an official communication can hardly have falsified the facts to any great extent. We may rely then upon its general truthfulness. Paul reproduced the heresy of Artemon (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28), teaching that Christ was a mere man, though he was filled with divine power, and that from his birth, not merely from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He admitted, too, the generation by the Holy Spirit. "He denied the personality of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them merely powers of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual elevation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to divine dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin, conquered the sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour of the race" (Schaff). At various Antiochian synods (the exact number of them we do not know), efforts were made to procure his condemnation, but they were not successful. Finally one of the synods condemned and excommunicated him, and Domnus was appointed bishop in his place. The date of this synod is ordinarily fixed at 268 or 269, but it cannot have occurred in 269, and probably occurred earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note 1). Since Paul was in favor with Zenobia, his deposition could not be effected until 272, when Aurelian conquered her. Being appealed to by the Church, Aurelian left the decision between the claims of Paul and Domnus to the bishops of Rome and Italy, who decided at once for Domnus, and Paul was therefore deposed and driven out in disgrace.
Our sources for a knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a number of fragments from the acts of the council, given by Routh, Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.; and scattered notices in the Fathers of the fourth century, especially Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, &c. Cf. also Jerome's de vir. ill. 71, and Epiphanius' Haer. 65. See Harnack's article Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in Schaff-Herzog); also Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata.
220 This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last one, at which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at which his case was considered. It is not probable that the synod was called especially to consider his case, but that at two or more of the regular annual synods of Antioch the subject was discussed without result, until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Harnack, ibid. p. 52, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions the fact that he was invited to attend this synod in an epistle addressed to Cornelius, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46.
221 Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a few days before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from Eusebius' statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer extant, although a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical of the Antiochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, §4), and hence must have been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An epistle purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of Samosata is given by Labbe, Concil. I. 850-893, but it is not authentic.
222 On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
223 Gregory Thaumaturgus. On him and his brother, Athenodorus, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, notes 1 and 2.
224 On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. He presided at the final council which deposed Paul of Samosata, according to the Libellus Synodicus (see Labbe, Concilia, I. 893, 901), and this is confirmed by the fact that in the encyclical epistle written by this synod his name stands first (see chap. 30).
225 Of Nicomas, bishop of Iconium in Lycaonia, we know nothing. An earlier bishop of the same city, named Celsus, is mentioned in Book VI. chap. 19, above.
226 On Hymenaeus, see chap. 14, note 11.
227 On Theotecnus, see chap. 14, note 9.
228 Of Maximus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, we know nothing. On Beryllus, an earlier and more celebrated bishop of the same city, see above, Bk. VI. chap. 33.
229 i.e. Antioch.
230 In both versions of the Chron. the death of Dionysius is put in the eleventh year of Gallienus, i.e. August, 263, to August, 264, and this, or the date given here by Eusebius (the twelfth year, August, 264, to August, 265) is undoubtedly correct. Upon the dates of his accession and death, see Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1.
231 Maximus had been a presbyter while Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria, and had shared with him the hardships of the Decian and Valerian persecutions (see above, chap. 11). In chap. 32, he is said to have held office eighteen years, and with this both versions of the Chron. agree, and there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report.
232 Eusebius here, as in his Chron., reckons the reign of Gallienus as beginning with the date of his association with his father in the supreme power; i.e. August, 253.
233 Claudius became emperor in March, 268, and died of an epidemic in Sirmium some time in the year 270, when he was succeeded by Aurelian, whom he had himself appointed his successor just before his death. It is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses the somewhat peculiar phrase, metadidwsi thn hgemonian.
234 Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian (270-275), and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of the Brucheium which, according to his Chron., took place in 272. The epistle written at this council (and given in the next chapter) is addressed to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of Rome, so that the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council was held as late as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned to the year 269, and Dionysius' death to December of the same year; but Lipsius has shown (ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod which Eusebius mentions here was held in all probability as early as 265 (but not earlier than 264, because Dionysius of Alexandria was not succeeded by Maximus until that year), certainly not later than 268, and hence it is not necessary to extend the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome beyond 268, the date which he has shown to be most probable (see chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then is entirely mistaken in putting the council into the reign of Aurelian.
235 i.e. Paul of Samosata.
236 Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul that an account of him is given by Jerome in his de vir. ill. 71. He tells us, however, nothing new about him, except that he was the author of an epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring probably to the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do not know upon what authority he bases this statement; in fact knowing the character of his work, we shall probably be safe in assuming that the statement is no more than a guess on his part. There is nothing improbable in the report, but we must remember that Jerome is our only authority for it, and he is in such a case very poor authority (nevertheless, in Fremantle's articles, Malchion, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., the report is repeated as a fact). Both Eusebius and Jerome tell us that the report of his discussion with Paul was extant in their day, and a few fragments of it have been preserved, and are given by Leontius (de Sectis, III. p. 504, according to Fremantle).