ὑπατικοῦ Ἀττικοῦ : ce gouverneur de Judée était consulaire, comme un de ses successeurs immédiats, Q. Pompeius Falco. On identifie cet Atticus avec le père d'Hérode Atticus. L'événement est placé en 107, par Eusèbe, dans sa chronique ; en 105, par le Chronicon paschale, qui d'ailleurs dérive d'Eusèbe. Voy. SCHUERER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, t. I, p. 645.  ↩

σκύτει ABDM, σκοτίως Ε, σκοτίω R ; ὡς Β, om. mss. ; εἰ add. SCHWARTZ ; φωλευόντων 509 ABE, ἐμφωλευόντων R, ἐμφολευόντων DM; « wie in Finsternis verborgen waren » syr. ; in occultis et abditis hiatibus terrae delitescentibus, RUFIN.  ↩

ἐπεχείρουν ADMT1 syr. ; ἐπεχείρων; καὶ ταῦτα μὲν οὗτος περὶ τούτων διαλαβὼν ὧδέ πως ἔλεξεν· ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ ἑξῆς τῆς ἱστορίας ὁδῷ προβαίνοντες ἴωμεν BERT2; sed istud bellum intrinsecus gerebatur, RUFIN. ↩

Trajan, who reigned from 98 to 117 a.d. ↩

Upon the state of the Christians under Trajan, see the next chapter, with the notes. ↩

See chap. 11. ↩

Quoted in Bk. II. chap. 23, and in Bk. III. chap. 20, and mentioned in Bk. III. chap. 11. Upon his life and writings, see Bk. IV. chap. 8, note 1. ↩

In the passage quoted in Bk. IV. chap. 22, §4, Hegesippus speaks of various heretics, and it looks as if the passage quoted there directly preceded the present one in the work of Hegesippus. ↩

That is, by crucifixion, as stated in §6. ↩

It is noticeable that Symeon was not sought out by the imperial authorities, but was accused to them as a descendant of David and as a Christian. The former accusation shows with what suspicion all members of the Jewish royal family were still viewed, as possible instigators of a revolution (cf. chap. 20, note 2); the latter shows that in the eyes of the State Christianity was in itself a crime (see the next chapter, note 6). In the next paragraph it is stated that search was made by the officials for members of the Jewish royal family. This was quite natural, after the attention of the government had been officially drawn to the family by the arrest of Symeon. ↩

The date of the martyrdom of Symeon is quite uncertain. It has been commonly ascribed (together with the martyrdom of Ignatius) to the year 106 or 107, upon the authority of Eusebius' Chron., which is supposed to connect these events with the ninth or tenth year of Trajan's reign. But an examination of the passage in the Chron., where Eusebius groups together these two events and the persecutions in Bithynia, shows that he did not pretend to know the exact date of any of them, and simply put them together as three similar events known to have occurred during the reign of Trajan (cf. Lightfoot's Ignatius, II. p. 447 sqq.). The year of Atticus' proconsulship we unfortunately do not know, although Wieseler, in his Christen-Verfolgungen der Caesaren, p. 126, cites Waddington as his authority for the statement that Herodes Atticus was proconsul of Palestine from 105 to 107; but all that Waddington says (Fastes des prov. Asiat., p. 720) is, that since the proconsul for the years 105 to 107 is not known, and Eusebius puts the death of Symeon in the ninth or tenth year of Trajan, we may assume that this was the date of Atticus' proconsulship. This, of course, furnishes no support for the common opinion. Lightfoot, on account of the fact that Symeon was the son of Clopas, wishes to put the martyrdom earlier in Trajan's reign, and it is probable that it occurred earlier rather than later; more cannot be said. The great age of Symeon and his martyrdom under Trajan are too well authenticated to admit of doubt; at the same time, the figure 120 may well be an exaggeration, as Lightfoot thinks. Renan (Les Evangiles, p. 466) considers it very improbable that Symeon could have had so long a life and episcopate, and therefore invents a second Symeon, a great-grandson of Clopas, as fourth bishop of Jerusalem, and makes him the martyr mentioned here. But there is nothing improbable in the survival of a contemporary of Jesus to the time of Trajan, and there is no warrant for rejecting the tradition, which is unanimous in calling Symeon the son of Clopas, and also in emphasizing his great age. ↩

epi Traianou kaisaros kai hupatikou 'Attikou. The nouns being without the article, the phrase is to be translated, "while Trajan was emperor, and Atticus governor." In §6, below, where the article is used, we must translate, "before Atticus the governor" (see Lightfoot's Ignatius, I. p. 59). The word hupatikos is an adjective signifying "consular, pertaining to a consul." It "came to be used in the second century especially of provincial governors who had held the consulship, and at a later date of such governors even though they might not have been consuls" (Lightfoot, p. 59, who refers to Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, I. 409). ↩

This is a peculiar statement. Members of the house of David would hardly have ventured to accuse Symeon on the ground that he belonged to that house. The statement is, however, quite indefinite. We are not told what happened to these accusers, nor indeed that they really were of David's line, although the hos?n with which Eusebius introduces the charge does not imply any doubt in his own mind, as Lightfoot quite rightly remarks. It is possible that some who were of the line of David may have accused Symeon, not of being a member of that family, but only of being a Christian, and that the report of the occurrence may have become afterward confused. ↩

This is certainly a reasonable supposition, and the unanimous election of Symeon as successor of James at a time when there must have been many living who had seen the Lord, confirms the conclusion. ↩

Mary, the wife of Clopas, is mentioned in John xix. 25. ↩

See above, chap. 11. ↩

See above, chap. 20. ↩

See p. 389, note. ↩

m?rtures. The word is evidently used here in its earlier sense of "witnesses," referring to those who testified to Christ even if they did not seal their testimony with death. This was the original use of the word, and continued very common during the first two centuries, after which it became the technical term for persons actually martyred and was confined to them, while homologetes, "confessor," gradually came into use as the technical term for those who had borne testimony in the midst of persecution, but had not suffered death. As early as the first century (cf. Acts xxii. 20 and Rev. ii. 13) m?rtus was used of martyrs, but not as distinguishing them from other witnesses to the truth. See the remarks of Lightfoot, in his edition of Clement of Rome, p. 46. ↩

This part of the quotation has already been given in Eusebius' own words in chap. 20, §8. See note 5 on that chapter. ↩

epi to auto logo, that is, was accused for the same reason that the grandsons of Judas (whom Hegesippus had mentioned just before) were; namely, because he belonged to the line of David. See chap. 20; but compare also the remarks made in note 10, above. ↩

epi 'Attikou tou hupatikou. See above, note 9. ↩

On the heretics mentioned by Hegesippus, see Bk. IV. chap. 22. ↩

ten pseudonumon gnosin; 1 Tim. vi. 20. A few mss., followed by Stephanus, Valesius (in his text), Closs, and Crusè, add the words (in substance): "Such is the statement of Hegesippus. But let us proceed with the course of our history." The majority of the mss., however, endorsed by Valesius in his notes, and followed by Burton, Heinichen, and most of the editors, omit the words, which are clearly an interpolation. ↩