Скачать книгу
made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by Tertullian (
Apol. 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Martyr (
Apol. I. 35 and
Apol. I. 48) mentions certain
Acts of Pilate as well known in his day, but the so-called
Acts of Pilate which are still extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later period. They are very fanciful and curious. The most important of these
Acts is that which is commonly known under the title of the
Gospel of Nicodemus. There are also extant numerous spurious epistles of Pilate addressed to Herod, to Tiberius, to Claudius, &c. The extant Acts and Epistles are collected in Tischendorf’s
Evang. Apoc., and most of them are translated by Cowper in his
Apocryphal Gospels. See also the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., VIII. p. 416 sqq. Compare the excellent article of Lipsius upon the Apocryphal Gospels in the
Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 707 sqq., also the Prolegomena of Tischendorf, p. lxii sqq.
2 The existing
Report of Pilate (translated in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers
, ibid
. p. 460, 461) answers well to Eusebius’ description, containing as it does a detailed account of Christ’s miracles and of his resurrection. According to Tischendorf, however, it is in its present form of a much later date, but at the same time is very likely based upon the form which Eusebius saw, and has been changed by interpolations and additions. See the Prolegomena of Tischendorf referred to in the previous note.
3 See below, note 12.
4 That Tiberius did not persecute the Christians is a fact; but this was simply because they attracted no notice during his reign, and not because of his respect for them or of his belief in Christ.
5 Tertullian was born in Carthage about the middle of the second century. The common opinion is that he was born about 160, but Lipsius pushes the date back toward the beginning of the fifties, and some even into the forties. For a recent study of the subject, see Ernst Nöldechen in the
Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie,
1886, Heft 2. He concludes that he was born about 150 and lived until about 230. Tertullian’s father was a Roman centurion, and he himself became a lawyer and rhetorician in Rome. He was converted to Christianity probably between 180 and 190, and according to Jerome, became a presbyter and continued as such until middle life (whether in Rome or in Carthage we cannot tell; probably in the latter, for he certainly spent the later years of his life, while he was a Montanist, in Carthage, and also a considerable part of his earlier life, as his writings indicate), when he went over to Montanism (probably about 200 a.d.), and died at an advanced age (220+). That he was a presbyter rests only upon the authority of Jerome (
de vir. ill. 53), and is denied by some Roman Catholic historians in the interest of clerical celibacy, for Tertullian was a married man. He wrote a great number of works,—apologetic, polemic, and practical—a few in Greek, but most of them in Latin,—and many of the Latin ones are still extant. The best edition of them is by Oehler, Leipzig, 1853, in three volumes. Vol. III. contains valuable dissertations upon the life and works of Tertullian by various writers. An English translation of his works is given in the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vols. III. and IV. 1–125. Our main sources for a knowledge of his life are his own writings, and Jerome’s
de vir. ill. chap. 53. For a fuller account of Tertullian, see any of the larger Church histories, and especially a good monograph by A. Hauck,
Tertullian’s Leben und Schriften,
Erlangen, 1877. For the literature, see Schaff’s
Church Hist. II. p. 818.
6 His accurate acquaintance with the laws of the Romans is not very conspicuous in his writings. His books lead us to think that as a lawyer he must have been noted rather for brilliancy and fertility of resource than for erudition. And this conclusion is borne out by his own description of his life before his conversion, which seems to have been largely devoted to pleasure, and thus to have hardly admitted the acquirement of extensive and accurate learning.
7 Καὶ τῶν μ€λιστα ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης λαμπρῶν. Rufinus translates
inter nostros Scriptores celeberrimus, and Valesius
inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, taking ἐπὶ ῾Ρώμης to mean the
Latin language. But this is not the literal translation of the words of Eusebius. He says expressly,
one of the especially distinguished men in Rome.
From his work de cultu Feminarum,
Lib. I. chap. 7, we know that he had spent some time in Rome, and his acquaintance with the Roman records would imply a residence of some duration there. He very likely practiced law and rhetoric in Rome until his conversion.
8 Tertullian’s
Apology ranks first among his extant works, and is “one of the most beautiful monuments of the heroic age of the Church” (Schaff). The date of its composition is greatly disputed, though it must have been written during the reign of Septimius Severus, and almost all scholars are agreed in assigning it to the years 197–204. Since the investigations of Bonwetsch (
Die Schriften Tertullian’s, Bonn, 1878), of Harnack (in the
Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 1878, p. 572 sqq.), and of Nöldechen (in Gebhardt and Harnack’s
Texte und Untersuchungen,
Band V. Heft 2), all of whom agree in assigning its composition to the latter part (summer or fall) of the year 197, its date may be accepted as practically established.
9 Some have contended that Eusebius himself translated this passage from Tertullian, but his words show clearly enough that he quotes from an already existing translation. His knowledge of the Latin language appears to have been very limited. He must have had some acquaintance with it, for he translates Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus from Latin into Greek, as he informs us in Bk. IV. chap. 8; but the translation of so brief and simple a piece of writing would not require a profound knowledge of the language, and there are good reasons for concluding that he was not a fluent Latin scholar. For instance, the only work of Tertullian’s which he quotes is his
Apology, and he uses only a Greek translation of that. It is not unnatural to conclude that the rest of Tertullian’s works, or at least the most of them, were not translated, and that Eusebius was not enough of a Latin scholar to be able to read them in the original with any degree of ease. Moreover, this conclusion in regard to his knowledge of Latin is confirmed by the small acquaintance which he shows with the works of Latin writers in general. In fact, he does not once betray a personal acquaintance with any of the important Latin works which had been produced before his time, except such as existed in Greek translations. Compare Heinichen’s note in his edition of Eusebius’
History, Vol. III. p. 128 sqq. The translation of Tertullian’s
Apology used by Eusebius was very poor, as may be seen from the passage quoted here, and also from the one quoted in Bk. II. chap. 25, §4. For the mistakes, however, of course not Eusebius himself, but the unknown translator, is to be held responsible.
10 Tertullian’s
Apology, chap. 5.
11 Havercamp remarks (in his edition of Tertullian’s
Apology, p. 56) that this law is stated in the second book of Cicero’s
De Legibus in the words:
Separatim nemo habessit deos, neve novos; sed ne advenas nisi publice adscitos privatim colunto.
12 Μ€ρκος ᾽Αιμίλιος οὕτως περί τινος εἰδώλου πεποίηκεν ᾽Αλβούρνου. Latin:
Scit M. Æmilius de deo suo Alburno. In
Adv. Marcionem, I. 18, Tertullian says,
Alioquin si sic homo Deum commentabitur, quomodo Romulus Consum, et Tatius Cloacinam, et Hostilius Pavorem, et Metellus Alburnum, et quidam ante hoc tempus Antinoum; hoc aliis licebit; nos Marcionem nauclerum novimus, non regem, nec imperatorem. I cannot discover that this εἰδωλος or
Deus Alburnus is mentioned by any other writer than Tertullian, nor do I find a reference to him in any dictionary accessible to me.
13 Literally, “This has been done in behalf of (or for the sake of) our doctrine” (καὶ τοῦτο ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἡμῶν λόγου πεποίηται); but the freer translation given in the text better expresses the actual sense.
Скачать книгу
