Search
Orthodoxy 6:26OrthodoxySt. Francis, in praising all good, could be a more shouting optimist than Walt Whitman. St. Jerome, in denouncing all evil, could paint the world blacker than Schopenhauer. Both passions were free because both were kept in their place. The optimist could pour out all the praise he liked on the gay music of the march, the golden trumpets, and the purple banners going into battle. But he must not call the fight needless. The pessimist might draw as darkly as he chose the sickening marches or the sanguine wounds. But he must not call the fight hopeless. So it was with all the other moral problems, with pride, with protest, and with compassion. By defining its main doctrine, the Church not only kept seemingly inconsistent things side by side, but, what was more, allowed them to break out in a sort of artistic violence otherwise possible only to anarchists. Meekness grew more dramatic than madness. Historic Christianity rose into a high and strange COUP DE THEATRE of morality--things that are to virtue what the crimes of Nero are to vice. The spirits of indignation and of charity took terrible and attractive forms, ranging from that monkish fierceness that scourged like a dog the first and greatest of the Plantagenets, to the sublime pity of St. Catherine, who, in the official shambles, kissed the bloody head of the criminal. Poetry could be acted as well as composed. This heroic and monumental manner in ethics has entirely vanished with supernatural religion. They, being humble, could parade themselves: but we are too proud to be prominent. Our ethical teachers write reasonably for prison reform; but we are not likely to see Mr. Cadbury, or any eminent philanthropist, go into Reading Gaol and embrace the strangled corpse before it is cast into the quicklime. Our ethical teachers write mildly against the power of millionaires; but we are not likely to see Mr. Rockefeller, or any modern tyrant, publicly whipped in Westminster Abbey.Fragments of Papias - PIE 4:5Papias of Hierapolis(Preserved in Jerome's Illustrious Men 18)Fragments of Papias - PIE 4:10Papias of Hierapolis(Preserved in Jerome's Epistle 71:5, To Lucinius )Fragments of Papias - PIE 4:13Papias of Hierapolis(Preserved in Jerome's Epistle 75:3, To Thoedora )Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 1:15Papias of Hierapolis[ Note from Dr. TC Schmidt : My translation. Eusebius wrote his Chronicon in the year 303AD. I am fairly certain that the Greek for this passage comes from an unattributed quotation from George Syncellus’ Chronology 424. When it is matched with Jerome’s translation of Eusebius, it seems certain that this is what Eusebius said.]Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 2:21Papias of Hierapolis[AD 420] JeromeFragments of Papias - Schmidt 6:21Papias of HierapolisThis fragment included in that list is of extreme importance - if legitimate, it gives the only historical support to the "Cousin" theory articulated by Jerome around AD 400 to support the doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity. Alas, the often truncated footnote for this fragment says the following:Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 6:24Papias of HierapolisThe testimony of Papias is frequently quoted at the head of the patristic authorities, as favouring the view of Jerome. The passage in question is an extract, to which the name of this very ancient writer is prefixed, in a Bodleian MS, no. 2397, of the date 1302 or 1303. It is given in Grabe’s Spicil. II p. 34, Routh’s Rel. Sacr. I, p. 16, and runs as follows: ‘Maria mater Domini: Maria Cleophae, sive Alphei uxor, quae fuit mater Jacobi episcopi et apostolic et Symonis et Thadei et cujusdam Joseph: Maria Salome uxor Zebedei mater Joannis evangelistae et Jacobi: Maria Magdalene: istae quatuor in Evangelio reperiuntur. Jacobus et Judas et Joseph filii errant materterae Domini; Jacobus quoque et Joannes alterius materterae Domini fuerunt filii. Maria Jacobi minoris et Joseph mater, uxor Alphei, soror fuit Mariae matris Domini, quam Cleophae Joannes nominat vel a patre vel a gentilitatis familia vel alia causa. Maria Salome a viro vel a vico dicitur: hanc eandem Cleophae quidam dicunt quod duos viros habuerit. Maria dicitur illuminatrix sive stella maris, genuit enim lumen mundi; sermone autem Syro Domina nuncupatur, quia genuit Dominum.’ Grabe’s description ‘ad marginem expresse adscriptum lego Papia’ is incorrect; the name is not in the margin but over the passage as a title to it. The authenticity of this fragment is accepted by Mill, p. 238, and by Dean Alford on Matthew 13:55. Two writers also in Smith’s Biblical Dictionary (s.vv. ‘Brother’ and ‘James’), respectively impugning and maintaining the Hieronymian view, refer to it without suspicion. It is strange that able and intelligent critics should not have seen through a fabrication which is so manifestly spurious. Not to mention the difficulties in which we are involved by some of the statements, the following reasons seem conclusive: (1) The last sentence ‘Maria dicitur etc.’ is evidently very late, and is, as Dr. Mill says, ‘justly rejected by Grabe.’ Grabe says, ‘addidit is qui descripsit ex suo’; but the passage is continuous in the MS, and there is neither more nor less authority for assigning this to Papias than the remainder of the extract. (2) The statement about ‘Maria uxor Alphei’ is taken from Jerome (adv. Helvid.) almost word for word, as Dr. Mill has seen; and it is purely arbitrary to reject this as spurious and accept the rest as genuine. (3) The writings of Papias were in Jerome’s hands, and eager as he was to claim the support of authority, he could not have failed to refer to testimony which was so important and which so entirely confirms his view in the most minute points. Nor is it conceivable that a passage like this, coming from so early a writer, should not have impressed itself very strongly on the ecclesiastical tradition of the early centuries, whereas in fact we discover no traces of it.On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem · Preface to the online edition 1:5HegesippusThe work is usually dated to between 370-c.375 AD. It contains in book 2 chapter 9 what seems to be an allusion to the recent reconquest of Britain by Count Theodosius, ca. 370 AD, so cannot be earlier than this. It also refers to Constantinople by name. There is a reference to a Latin translation of Josephus in letter 71 of St. Jerome, written between 386 and 400 AD. The author refers to the triumphant position of the Roman empire, which suggests that it must precede the imperial crisis brought on by the disastrous defeat and death of the emperor Valens in battle with the Goths at Adrianople in 378, and still more so the sack of Rome in 410.The Apology · Introduction 1:6Aristides the PhilosopherAbout a century later Jerome (died A.D. 420) tells us that Aristides was a philosopher of Athena, that he retained his philosopher's garb after his conversion to Christianity, and that he presented a defence of the faith to Hadrian at the same time as Quadratus. This Apology, he says, was extant in his day, and was largely composed of the opinions of philosophers ("contextum philosophorum sententiis "), and was afterwards imitated by Justin Martyr. After this date Aristides passes out of view. In the mediaeval martyrologies there is a faint reflection of the earlier testimony, as, e.g., the 31st of August is given as the saint's day "of the blessed Aristides, most renowned for faith and wisdom, who presented books on the Christian religion to the prince Hadrian, and most brilliantly proclaimed in the presence of the Emperor himself how that Christ Jesus is the only God."The Apology · Introduction 1:16Aristides the PhilosopherIn regard to the date of Aristides, Eusebius says expressly that the Apology was presented to Hadrian while he was in Athens about the year A.D. 125. The only ground for questioning this statement is the second superscription given in the Syriac version, which implies that the Apology was presented to Antoninus Pius, A.D. 138-161. This heading is accepted by Professor Harris as the true one; and he assigns the Apology to "the early years of the reign of Antoninus Pius; and it is at least conceivable," he adds, "that it may have been presented to the Emperor along with other Christian writings during an unrecorded visit of his to his ancient seat of government at Smyrna." But this requires us to suppose that Eusebius was wrong; that Jerome copied his error; that the Armenian version curiously fell into the same mistake; and that the Syriac translator is at this point exceptionally faithful. So perhaps it is better with Billius, "not to trust more in one's own suspicions, than in Christian charity which believeth all things," and to rest in the comfortable hypothesis that Eusebius spoke the truth.The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 1:3Aristides the PhilosopherTHE present volume contains one of the earliest of the Apologies made to the Roman Emperors on behalf of the Christians, that, namely, which was said to have been presented to the Emperor Hadrian by an Athenian philosopher of the name of Aristides. Our information concerning this Apology has hitherto been of the scantiest kind, depending chiefly upon certain allusions of Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History and in his Chronicon; as Eusebius did not, however, preserve any extracts from the book and presents only a most obscure figure in a philosopher's garb as its author, while subsequent writers have added little or nothing to what they found in Eusebius, it must be admitted that our ideas as to the character and scope of one of the earliest apologetic treatises on Christianity were about as vague as it was possible for them to be. It is true that there was a suspicion abroad which came from Jerome that the lost work. of Aristides had been imitated by Justin in his Apology, and Jerome had also ventured the opinion that the Apology was woven out of materials derived from the philosophers: but it was almost impossible to put any faith in Jerome's statements, which are usually mere editorial expansions and colourings of what he found in the pages of Eusebius. Not that there was any à priori improbability in the opinion that one Christian Apologist had imitated another, for almost all the Apologies that are known to us are painfully alike, and it would not be difficult to maintain of any two of them selected at random that one of them had borrowed from or imitated the other. The difficulty lay in the want of literary faith in statements made by Jerome; but even if |2 this confidence had not been wanting, we should not have been very much the wiser.The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 2:20Aristides the PhilosopherOne of the Armenian MSS. (Cod. N) transfers this notice about the Apologists to the following year, and it is believed that this represents more exactly the time of Hadrian's first visit to Athens (125-126 A.D.). With this agrees the dating of the Latin version of Jerome. We may say then that it is the intention of Eusebius to refer the presentation of both these |7 Apologies to the time when Hadrian was spending his first winter in Athens; and to make them the reason for the Imperial rescript to Minucius Fundanus which we find attached to the first Apology of Justin Martyr. And since Minucius Fundanus and his predecessor Granianus were consuls suffect in the years 106 and 107, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they held the Asian pro-consulate in the years A.D. 123 and 124, or 124 and 125. If then Aristides and Quadratus presented apologies to Hadrian, it is reasonable to connect these Apologies with his first Athenian winter and not with the second (A.D. 129-130).The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 2:21Aristides the PhilosopherBut here we begin to meet with difficulties; for, in the first place, much doubt has been thrown on the genuineness of the rescript of the emperor to Minucius Fundanus; in the second place there is a suspicious resemblance between Quadratus the Apologist and another Quadratus who was bishop of Athens in the reign of Antoninus Pius, succeeding to Publius whom Jerome affirms to have been martyred; and in the third place our newly-recovered document cannot by any possibility be referred to the period suggested by Eusebius, and there is only the barest possibility of its having been presented to the Emperor Hadrian at all. Let us examine this last point carefully, in order to answer, as far as our means will permit, the question as to the time of presentation of the Apology of Aristides and the person or persons to whom it was addressed.The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 3:20Aristides the PhilosopherFrom this it would naturally be inferred that the Quadratus mentioned in the letter was a contemporary of Dionysius of Corinth; for the latter writes to the Athenians at once convicting them of slackness in the faith, and congratulating them on their happy revival under the ministration of Quadratus. And since Dionysius writes letters also to Soter, the bishop of Rome, who belongs to the early years of Marcus Aurelius, we should probably say that Quadratus was not very much earlier than this, which would place him in the reign of Antoninus Pius. And the persecution at Athens which ended in the martyrdom of Publius must therefore fall in the same reign. Now Jerome ( de Virr. ill. § 19) identifies this Quadratus, the bishop of Athens, with the Apologist , and consequently pushes back the persecution into the |12 reign of Hadrian. We do not indeed attach any especial weight to Jerome's statement as to the time of the persecution, which is simply a combination made up out of passages from Eusebius concerning Quadratus and Dionysius with slight amplifications. He can hardly be right in placing the persecution under the reign of Hadrian, for, as Lightfoot points out , Eusebius, from whom he draws his facts, knows nothing about it: moreover we have information from Melito that Antoninus Pius did actually write to Athens to suppress a persecution of the Christians. But, on the other hand, may he not be right after all in his identification of the bishop Quadratus with the Apologist, and do not the circumstances of the persecution suggested by Melito and testified to by Dionysius exactly suit the presentation of the Apology to the emperor?The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 3:21Aristides the PhilosopherWhile then we would readily admit that, as long as the Apology of Aristides was held to belong to the time of an Athenian visit of Hadrian, the Apology of Quadratus naturally remained with it, yet on the other hand when the Hadrian hypothesis is untenable for Aristides, will not the Quadratus-bishop and Quadratus-apologist naturally run together, and be one and the same person? Or is there anything to prevent the identification? The words 'apostolorum discipulus,' used by Jerome, and the corresponding words of Eusebius, a0posto&lwn a0kousth&j , can hardly be held to militate seriously against this hypothesis, for they are evident deductions from the passage which Eusebius quotes from the Apology of Quadratus about the sick people healed by the Lord, 'some of whom continued down to our times.' Jerome says boldly that Quadratus had seen very many of the subjects of our Lord's miracles; which is in any case a gross exaggeration. But if such persons, either many or few, had really lived into the age of Quadratus, it would be very difficult to place |13 the Apologist in the reign of Antoninus Pius. Unless, therefore, it can be maintained that the language quoted by Eusebius from Quadratus is an exaggeration or a misunderstanding we can hardly identify the bishop with the apologist. This is the furthest point to which the evidence carries the argument.The Apology · Introduction to the 1891 translation 5:5Aristides the Philosopher(1) A passage in a letter of Jerome to Magnus, "Aristides philosophus, vir eloquentissimus, eidem principi (Hadriano) Apologeticum pro Christianis obtulit, contextum philosophorum sententiis, quem imitatus postea Justinus, et ipse philosophus." This is simply a réchauffé of the Eusebian data, with reflections thereupon. Justin being a philosopher, his Apology naturally imitates the philosophical treatise which has preceded his own.The Apology · Selected Notes on the Syriac Version_1891 1:18Aristides the Philosopherl. 30. We may compare the following passages from Justin and from the Epistle to Diognetus, in view of Jerome's statement that Justin imitated Aristides, and the modern theory of Doulcet as to the authorship of the anonymous epistle to Diognctus.The Apology · Selected Notes on the Syriac Version_1891 3:13Aristides the PhilosopherIt will be seen that we have given especial attention to the illustrations furnished to the text of our author by the undoubted writings of Justin and by the Epistle to Diognetus. We have not, however, been able to agree with the opinion of Doulcet in reference to the latter writing, nor with the tradition of Jerome in reference to Justin's imitation of Aristides. It may, however, be taken for granted, from the parallels adduced, that Justin and Aristides are nearly contemporary.Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 5:10Hippolytus of RomeOn the second verse Barsalibi begins by explaining the 'treading underfoot' by the Gentiles of the 'holy city ' during 'forty and two months' to mean that in the latter days of the world the Church shall suffer persecution for three years and a half, which period he identifies with the 'half-week' foretold by Daniel (ix. 27); and the 'sacrifice caused to cease in the midst of the week,' signifies accordingly the suppression of the public prayers of the Church by the tyranny of Antichrist, when she will refuse to worship him. And he is the 'little horn' of the fourth of the beasts of Daniel's vision, who is to 'prevail against the saints' (Dan. vii. 8, 21). For so far the Commentary appears to follow the teaching of Hippolytus in the treatise De Christo et Antichristo (Lagarde, pp. 1-36). In that treatise it is laid down, as in the Commentary, that the 'horn' is Antichrist (ss. 28, 47 ); that the half-week of Daniel is the same as the period defined in this eleventh chapter of the Revelation (ss. 43, 47, 61), and that its completion is to be the end of all things ( ib., & s. 64). But the discussion |142 which is subjoined, cited as from Hippolytus, of our Lord's eschatological prediction, recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, and of St. Paul's, in the second chapter of his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, is not (so far as I know) to be found in any of his extant writings----though in the De Christo et Antichristo (ss. 62, 63) he inserts several verses of both chapters (St. Matth. xxiv. 15-19, & 21 ; 2 Thess. 11. 1-12 ], similarly connected together. It is natural to suppose that the citation is from the lost Commentary on Matthew, which St. Jerome mentions in the Prologue to his own Commentary on that Gospel. Indeed, this appears to be directly attested by the MS. of Barsalibi in the marginal note ( quantum valeat ) attached to the name of Hippolytus, which says, 'In the Commentary on the Gospel.' The words with which Barsalibi introduces this discussion ('Hippolytus otherwise interprets . . .') imply that he regarded it as in some measure inconsistent with the preceding interpretation of Rev. xi. 2, which (as I have shown) is drawn from, or at least coincides with, that contained in the De Christo et Antichristo. But it is not easy to see any real inconsistency between them; and it may be that he only means to point out that of Daniel's two representations of Antichrist----the 'little horn' and the 'abomination of desolation '----Hippolytus has fixed on the former in the Treatise, and on the latter in the Commentary (or whatever work of his is here borrowed from). It is to be noted that though the texts of Daniel and St. Matthew, which speak of the 'abomination of desolation,' are cited in the De Christo et Antichristo (s. 62), and its appearance reckoned among |143 the signs of the end (64), it is nowhere in this Treatise identified with Antichrist.Commentary on Matthew · Introduction 1:2Origen of AlexandriaAccording to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew were written about the same time as the Contra Celsum, when Origen was over sixty years of age, and may therefore be probably assigned to the period 246-248. This statement is confirmed by internal evidence. In the portion here translated, books x.-xiv., he passes by the verses Matt. xviii. 12, 13, and refers for the exposition of them to his Homilies on Luke (book xiii. 29). Elsewhere, he refers his readers for a fuller discussion on certain points to his Commentaries on John (book xvi. 20), and on Romans (book xvii. 32). Of the twenty-five books into which the work was divided, the first nine, with the exception of two fragments, are lost; books x.-xvii., covering the portion from Matt. xiii. 36 to xxii. 33, are extant in the Greek, and the greater part of the remaining books survives in a Latin version, which is co-extensive with the Greek from book xii. 9 to book xvii. 36, and contains further the exposition from Matt. xxii. 34 to xxvii. 66. The passages in Cramer's Catena do not seem to be taken from the Commentaries. Of the numerous quotations from Matthew only one (Matt. xxi. 35) can be definitely traced to this section of the writings of Origen; and as this differs greatly from our present text, and is moreover purely narrative, it is probably taken like the others either from the Scholia (commaticum interpretationis genus), or from the Homilies to which reference is made by Jerome (Prol. in Matt. I. iv). The majority of them may be ascribed to the Scholia. In addition to the mss. already referred to (p. 294) the old Latin version is often useful for determining the text, though it contains some interpolations and has many omissions. The omissions (cf. book xiii. 28, book xiv. x, 3, book xiv. 19-22) are not due to any dogmatic bias, but have been made by the translator or some subsequent transcriber on the ground that the passages were uninteresting or unimportant. The version is otherwise for the most part literal, and has in some cases preserved the correct reading, though it often fails just when it would have been of most service. For an estimate of the work and method of Origen as an exegete, see pp. 291-294; and for a fuller statement on some of the points here touched upon, see Westcott's article on Origen in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography (vol. iv.).De Principiis · Book 1 9:9Origen of AlexandriaTranslated by Jerome in His Epistle to Avitus.Homilies on the Song of Songs · Homily 1 1:2Origen of AlexandriaLatin source: J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina 23, cols. 1117–1130 (Jerome's Latin version of Origen's Homiliae in Canticum canticorum ), via the Corpus Corporum digital text (University of Zurich). This English translation is in the public domain.Homilies on the Song of Songs · Homily 1 1:4Origen of AlexandriaPREFACE OF JEROME (to the most blessed Pope Damasus)Homilies on the Song of Songs · Homily 2 1:2Origen of AlexandriaLatin source: J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina 23, cols. 1130–1144 (Jerome's Latin version of Origen's Homiliae in Canticum canticorum ), via the Corpus Corporum digital text (University of Zurich). This English translation is in the public domain.Philocalia · Introductory material 1:23Origen of AlexandriaS. Jerome's "Dogmatic Treatises," etc.Philocalia · Introductory material 2:8Origen of AlexandriaBishop Westcott's account of "the great teacher of Alexandria----of him whose proper name is said to mean the Son of light, and whose labours earned for him the title of Adamantine " may perhaps be of service to the reader. "The fortunes of Origen during his lifetime aptly prefigured the fate of his writings. His zeal was accounted |vi infatuation, and his learning turned to a reproach. Though he was known to have reclaimed the wandering, and to have refuted the malicious, yet he was driven from the service of the Church in the very city where he had preached Christ on the steps of the temple of Serapis, and strengthened his father to endure the terrors of martyrdom. Though countless doctors, priests, and confessors proceeded from his school, he was himself arraigned as a heretic and convicted; though he was the friend and teacher of Saints, his salvation was questioned and denied. For many centuries he was condemned almost universally by the Western Church, in consequence of the adverse judgment of Jerome. In later times Picus of Mirandola ventured to maintain the cause of the great Father: the thesis was suppressed, but the author remained uncensured: indeed, a pious lady was said to have received a revelation not long before, which seemed to assure her of the forgiveness of Samson, Solomon, and Origen. This hope, however, in the case of the last was admitted apparently by few; and Baronius expresses his surprise that any doubt of his condemnation could be raised after the sentence of Anastasius. If we find in Origen's own words about Holy Scripture a deep and solid foundation of truth constructed with earnestness and wisdom,----unaptly crowned, it may be, with the fantastic structures of a warm and hasty imagination,----it is possible that we may be led to regard his other labours with charity, if not with gratitude, and to remember that his errors refer to questions which had not in his time been decided by the authority of the Church."Philocalia · The Philocalia of Origen 11:157Origen of Alexandria137. This total was made by taking Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 56 ff., 111 ff., on "the Symbolism of. Numbers." "Origen was the first who pointed out this number was also that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet (Euseb. H.E. vi. 25, and the coincidence is emphatically repeated by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, and Epiphanius, as well as by Jerome. The coincidence, it was thought, could hardly be accidental. The 'twenty-two' books of the Greek Bible must, it was supposed, represent 'twenty-two' books of the Hebrew Bible; hence, it was concluded, the number of the books in the Hebrew Canon was providentially ordained to agree with the number of the Hebrew letters."----Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, p. 221. ↩Philocalia · The Philocalia of Origen 11:200Origen of Alexandria180. A Homily was a popular exposition. Origen's writings were of three kinds----tomes, properly sections ( volumina, Jerome), commentaries, homilies. ↩Philocalia · The Philocalia of Origen 11:352Origen of Alexandria332. Jerome----"Dominus dabit verbum Evangelizantibus virtute multa, Rex virtutum Dilecti." ↩Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 6:10Eusebius of CaesareaLatin Preface By Jerome. 76Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:44Eusebius of CaesareaDr. Wolf's books include a three-volume series, Nineteenth Century Lutherans in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan ; Biography of Rev. George Wolf , H.P.; Biography of Nathaniel Carter: First Joint Synod Negro Pastor ; Biography of Marmaduke Carter , the son of Nathaniel Carter who was also a Lutheran Pastor; Freddie , a children's book; and The Onomasticon of Eusebius Pamphili: Compared with the Version of Jerome and Annotated . |xviConcerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:50Eusebius of CaesareaNeither Josephus nor Eusebius was a fanatic defender of the faith. They can hardly be claimed by one sect or party, yet their influence on their respective rulers and on their co-religionists can not be ignored or minimized. Josephus was considered a traitor or "Quisling," while Eusebius was called "heretic." He was involved in the Arian struggle. He was sympathetic to Arius and some of his best friends were Arians even if he himself were not theologically an Arian. In an attempt to mediate the difficulties and to hold to a middle of the road theology himself, he lost his opportunity for sainthood. His contemporaries could not agree on his orthodoxy. The controversy over his theological position continued after his death among other church historians and theologians, even though he signed the Nicene Creed and the anathema decreed upon Arius. At the Council of Tyre in 335 he was accused not merely of heresy but of apostasy since he apparently had escaped the persecutions of the first decade of the fourth century unscathed. His later writings seem to be orthodox, but the Arians still used him. He suffered even a greater loss of reputation when the Iconoclasts quoted him at the second Council of Nicea and forced the more orthodox to attack him severely. His reputation in the East never recovered after the Photius schism, but St. Jerome in the West admired him and is greatly responsible for the survival of his writings. Details of the controversy as well as summaries of his many writings are not pertinent in this Introduction, but the classic Smith's Dictionary of Christian a Biography is still a good survey.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:51Eusebius of CaesareaThe name Eusebius is a common one. At least forty contemporaries are called by this name. Another famous church father is Eusebius of Nicomedia. St. Jerome also occasionally used the name Eusebii. Therefore, the author of the Onomasticon is distinguished from the others by three epithets.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:67Eusebius of CaesareaThe first was a translation or transliteration of Hebrew proper names into Greek. This does not seem to have been much more than a skeletal outline of proper names based on the Hexapla. Whether it included an etymology of the place-names (and perhaps some personal names) as in the more technical sense of an onomastical list cannot now be determined. Such a list is Jerome's Interpretation of Hebrew Names which is based on Philo and Origen. Undoubtedly Eusebius had their lists and those of others, both Jewish and Christian.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:68Eusebius of CaesareaThe second was a list or description of ancient Judea arranged by tribes. This was of course based on the tribal lists of Numbers and Joshua. It is reasonable to suspect that almost all of this has been incorporated bodily into the final work since one of the things the Onomasticon treats most thoroughly is the tribal designation of each place based on the Greek text of the tribal divisions. There is some inconclusive discussion as to whether this description accompanied a map or was only a map. There is a map attached to the 12th century Latin manuscript of Jerome's Onomasticon in the British Museum which could be derived from Eusebius' map, if such a map existed.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:70Eusebius of CaesareaThe fourth part is the Onomasticon itself, which was completed about 330 A.D. or shortly before. Several facts pertain to the problem of settling the date. It is dedicated, as is the Church History , to Paulinus, who retired as bishop of Tyre before the Council of Nicea (325), and died in 330. That gives the latest possible date. On the other hand, the Greek text notes none of the Constantinian churches, of which Eusebius knew and about which he wrote in other works (so that architects and archaeologists use his works as primary sources for the Constantinian foundation). Jerome, however, places the Onomasticon late in Eusebius' career. Taken together, these facts suggest that Eusebius dedicated it to Paulinus after his retirement as bishop of Tyre.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:72Eusebius of CaesareaThe arrangement of the book is according to the Greek alphabet from Alpha to Omega. Since the Greek letters do not follow the Semitic alphabet there are some doublets as well as some transcriptional errors, some of which were from the Septuagint LXX (hereafter LXX). Jerome in the Latin had to indicate some of the places where the three alphabets diverge. In the present text - A - takes up almost one quarter of the entire length of the book. Judah is the primary area detailed, especially in sections -A- and -B-.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:87Eusebius of CaesareaIf Eusebius knew Hebrew he did not utilize the Masoretic text, and unlike Jerome, was dependent upon the Hexapla. Some think there is use of simple Hebrew by Eusebius in the Demonstratio Evangelica but this Hebrew could also be derived from Philo and Origen. The few references in the Greek version of the Onomasticon to "in Hebrew" could all be references to Col. 1 or 2 of the Hexapla and require no great knowledge of either Hebrew language or texts. As noted above they could be glosses or a later editorial addition. The occasional etymological notations and the frequent quotations of the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion could also be accounted for in the same ways. Some of the etymologies found in the Masoretic text in Hebrew are not utilized by the Onomasticon .Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:89Eusebius of CaesareaOften the generalized location of the place is solely the biblical location. The tribal allotments are fairly completely recorded. Of course, Eusebius is confused as much as modern scholars about the real status of border towns or other towns listed in different tribal territories according to diverse texts. For much of this localization Eusebius must have had first hand and personal knowledge of the country, although certainly not as thorough as that of Jerome. The Greek text is more detailed and accurate in the location of sites in the central hill country than elsewhere. Perhaps this was because Eusebius, as bishop of Caesarea, frequently traveled to Jerusalem and also because his earlier sources were produced there in Jewish circles.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:91Eusebius of CaesareaThe famous library at Caesarea and the library of Bishop Alexander in Jerusalem were treasure houses of source materials for Eusebius, especially in his Church History and Demonstratio Evangelica . Anonymous sources seem to be referred to with "it is said" or "they affirm" but whether these were written records or local oral traditions cannot be determined. Josephus is quoted twelve times. The commentaries of Origen and the writings of Paulinus were also referred to. Roman administrative lists, maps, charts and military documents have also influenced the final recension of the text, but at what date is unclear. The two early fourth century itineraries, the Antoninus and the Bordeaux, are very close to Onomasticon and all three may depend on a common source. Paula and Jerome, of course, used the Onomasticon as one of several sources for their travels.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:92Eusebius of CaesareaThe Roman road system was well organized and charted. Many of the milestones of the first three centuries must have survived into the fourth even though it was the custom of each emperor to install new markers as a kind of memorial to his reign. For the most part distances seem to be according to mileposts. The slight divergence between Jerome and Eusebius, which is often only one mile, can be largely accounted for by the fact that a site is seldom so small as to be only at one milestone and also that in seventy-five (or more) years the roads and starting points normally would change slightly.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:98Eusebius of CaesareaAmong the incidental facts given is the religious constituency of a town. Anaia (26:9, 14), a double village, is a Jewish village which has a companion Christian settlement. There are eleven wholly Jewish villages; three Christian, one Samaritan and one Ebionite recorded in the text (see Appendix II). Heathen shrines are reported in at least three places. Idols are mentioned at least ten times. A special interest is shown in tombs and memorials without any critical analysis of contradictory items such as the various traditions for the location of the tomb of Habakkuk |xxv (70:22, 88:26, and 114:15). Tombs of the Maccabees, Mary, Abraham, Haran, Rachel, Joseph, Joshua, Jesse, and David are mentioned. Again these traditions may be from several editors' hands. Jerome remarks on five churches built in the 4th century (see Appendix I).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:99Eusebius of CaesareaUsually the last item to be noted is the presence of a fort or Roman garrison. There is a very close parallel to much of the material gathered in the Notitia Dignitatum which dates from slightly later than Jerome's translation of the Onomasticon . The Notitia Dignitatum or a similar work must have been used for the final recension.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:103Eusebius of CaesareaThe translation of Jerome was made about 390 A.D. He recognized errors in Eusebius and used his knowledge of Hebrew to correct the transliterations and some of the etymology. He also corrected some of the place descriptions and locations. Already in 389 Jerome has used some of this material in his Hebrew Questions , which we have utilized from time to time in the notes. The reference to this volume in the Latin was probably not original with Jerome but cross reference by a scribe in the 5th century or later. Jerome has more etymologies than Eusebius' Greek text, but this information was ready at hand from his Interpretation of Hebrew Names , which is incorporated in the notes of this present volume. As noted above Jerome was familiar with the Constantinian and post-Constantinian church foundations. By various counts between forty-five and fifty-five additional names appear in Latin even when allowing for obvious scribal lacunae of Vaticanus 1456. |xxviConcerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:104Eusebius of CaesareaIt was through Jerome's Latin version that European scholars and pilgrims became acquainted with the Onomasticon . According to the Latin preface there had already been at least one earlier translation into Latin. Several 8th and 9th century Latin manuscripts have survived which were used rather freely by Klostermann to emend Vaticanus. These are the Monacensis Lat. 6228, Codex Sangallensis 133 and 130, and Bambergensis B iv 19. The Latin is really not an exact translation and Klostermann was a bit overly optimistic with his emendations of the Greek. Latin editions of the Onomasticon have been prepared by Martinainay in 1699 and by Vallarsi in 1735 and 1767.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:111Eusebius of CaesareaPaula (ca. 382) and Silvia (ca. 385) came in the time of Jerome and could easily have known and used the Greek Onomasticon . From their time on there is no reasonable doubt that the pilgrims were dependent upon the Onomasticon . There is real evidence of such dependence by Aetheria, who may be the same as Silvia, on the Onomasticon for places as well as forms of names. Even allowing for the Bible as a common source, the Greek text was primary also. The earlier Latin translation noted in Jerome's preface and that of Jerome could also have been in the hands of this pilgrim.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:112Eusebius of CaesareaAfter the turn of the 5th century, the rise of monasticism, the end of the Christological controversies, together with the peace and security of the realm, brought many pilgrims to the Holy Land. Some followed the example of Jerome and remained, while others returned to their homelands. But a high percentage of them valued highly the Onomasticon in one of its several versions. Next to the Bible, it was their basic guide and companion. It "remained the vade-mecum of the pilgrims to the time of the crusaders."Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:113Eusebius of CaesareaThe Madaba Map has been adequately studied by Avi-Yonah and by O'Callaghan. Their general conclusions do not disagree with those of the first students of this mosaic map of sixth century biblical lands found east of the Jordan. There is a very close relationship of the Map legends to the Onomasticon . The map also parallels the so-called Jerome map of medieval times which may have been derived from an earlier Eusebius map or plan.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:119Eusebius of CaesareaTextual criticism of the Onomasticon began with Jerome. In his Hebrew Questions he corrected not only the text but the facts of Eusebius. In the Latin version, Jerome not only improved on the earlier anonymous Latin translation, but also reviewed Eusebius and his own former conclusions. In correspondence and commentaries over a twenty-year period Jerome corrected Eusebius as well as checked the Greek text. Modern students must use these works of Jerome: Latin versions of the Onomasticon , Hebrew Questions , Epistles 46 and 108 and miscellaneous commentaries. The notes in this present volume include most of the relevant materials from these texts. The Interpretation of Hebrew Names is sometimes useful for checking transcriptions and/or transliterations and the occasional etymology of the Greek text. The texts of many items from this are also included in the notes to follow.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:121Eusebius of CaesareaOn the other hand, literary or source criticism has seldom appeared regarding the Onomasticon . In antiquity the authorship even of such a prosaic agglomeration of materials was taken for granted. The witness of Procopius and Jerome, as well as that of others less directly concerned, and the notations on ancient manuscripts were considered sufficient proof of authorship. Not until Thomsen and Kubitschek in 1905 and 1906 began their argument over the streets and road network behind the Onomasticon was any higher criticism applied, suggesting additions, glosses etc. Kubitschek made much of the inconsistencies in distance, the apparent placing of two different sites at the same milestone, assuming a roadway. He is agnostic about Eusebius' use of itineraries, pilgrim reports (oral or written) and suggests, although not directly, that these inconsistencies may reflect an unscholarly card file system of recording all available information, contradictory, reduplicative or not. In the reply Thomsen for the first time admits possible glosses. He suggests that some of the Greek Onomasticon may have been personal marginal notes on Eusebius' own manuscript (of onomastical lists, his Onomasticon , Greek Bible manuscript and/or Hexapla) and never intended any separate publication of the final redaction. According to this theory, as they became unwieldy he arranged them in an alphabetic order (if an onomastical list, this order may have been already established) and according to the books of the Bible (or this arrangement could have been primary as in the Hexapla or some onomastical lists and the alphabetic order thus secondary). After Eusebius' death all such notes would be treasured by his students and although revered as from his hand, nevertheless recognize as incomplete. One or more of his admirers would try to complete it, correct it and make it worthy of the bishop of Caesarea. The preface could be added in those days with no thought of intellectual dishonesty.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:129Eusebius of CaesareaIn his conclusion, Melamed sees the Onomasticon as basically a Jewish work from several Jewish hands. In all he notes four stages of editorial work. In Tarbiz he was agnostic as to which was Eusebius' own contribution, suggesting perhaps he was merely the final redactor who |xxxi Christianized an originally Jewish book by adding Gospel details. A generation later in the Encyclopaedia he allows more to Eusebius as author and editor, at least giving him credit for more topographical details, which of course were derived from itineraries, maps and administrative lists, and all re-edited by his pupils and Jerome.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:134Eusebius of CaesareaOne must agree with Melamed that items out of their proper biblical order are secondary. But at this point Thomsen may be more nearly correct than Melamed. These could be marginal glosses, even from the hand of Eusebius, which pupils or disciples incorporated, perhaps a bit carelessly into their copies in such a manner as marginal glosses were included in New Testament manuscripts by medieval scribed. Eusebius' study notes, questionings, etc. could thus have gained validation which he would not have given them. Obviously by the time the Greek copy and the early Latin version reached Jerome, the Onomasticon had been to all intents and purposes complete as found in the Greek Vatican Manuscript 1456. Jerome corrected it on the basis of new sources and his personal knowledge of Hebrew and of the land, and brought it up to date regarding fourth century Christian churches.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:135Eusebius of CaesareaThe Onomasticon as we now have it has a history of development covering several centuries. It began as an onomastical list (perhaps first only Levitical cities, cities of refuge and tribal allotments) as early as Philo of Alexandria. In still Jewish hands it was expanded to include major sites of the Torah and then of the Major Prophets. It is further enlarged by the school of Origen with major additions of text, interpretations and variant transliterations from what is now called the Hexapla. This is made into a pilgrim's guide book to the Holy Land in the early fourth century by the friend of Constantine and bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius' pupils incorporate minor additions and are responsible for some of the doublets, perhaps from Eusebius' own marginal notes. Jerome brought it up to date for the last quarter of the fourth century A.D. Medieval copyists and scribes occasionally incorporated other marginal notes, more Hexaplaric date and fleshed out the Josephus quotations.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:141Eusebius of Caesarea4. The site as Jerome found it in the Jewish tradition is usually cited under "The Hebrews affirm." This would be a fourth stream which might have been utilized by Eusebius and still other early Christian topographers. This is not always the same as the fifth.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:142Eusebius of Caesarea5. This is the site as Jerome interpreted the text of the Scripture and the text and traditions of the Onomasticon .Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:143Eusebius of Caesarea6. Both 4 and 5 may be quite distinct from the site as Jerome determined it by his own personal experience and study. But even this sixth stream is complicated since Jerome does not always agree with himself (or at least various Latin editors did not agree). As even a good scholar in the 20th century should, Jerome reserved the right to change his mind. His commentaries, Epistles 48 and 108, as well as Hebrew Questions do not always agree with the Latin Onomasticon 's text.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:144Eusebius of Caesarea7. Because of our problems with the third through sixth possibilities there is then a seventh to be accounted for. This is the site as Jewish (later Israeli) and German (rarely French, English and American) scholars in the last two centuries interpreted the data in Eusebius and Jerome. The ZDPV is full of debates on this subject.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:155Eusebius of CaesareaThe area encompassed by the Onomasticon (even as outlined in the Greek preface) is basically the Old Testament idealized boundary "from Don to Beersheba." When Eusebius uses the term "Palestine" it is frequently non-historical. It may even be anachronistic, as it has been since 1948 with the establishment of the new state of Israel. The terms Samaria, Perea (called by Jerome Transjordan after the biblical phrase), Galilee and Idumea all have indefinable limits. Palestine Prima, Secunda, Tertia may at times be referred to and if so will be noted in the separate entry's notes to follow. Part of the confusion is the conglomeration of sources from various dates.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Introduction 12:159Eusebius of CaesareaText and archaeology will soon be able to check one another. Most of Eusebius' fixed points of reference were important cities in the 4th century according to other written sources and archaeology. But it is still not possible to check his terminology or classification of towns and villages archaeologically. The use of nouns and adjectives in Greek or Latin may reflect just as much an editor's style or propensity as a change in fortune. After all, size is relative without area and population measurements. Jerome is not at all consistent in the translation of the Greek (any more than he is or should be in the Vulgate - see Appendix IX). If Jerome were trying to indicate a change in significance by a change in terminology, we may soon be able to check the facts archaeologically. The corpus of Palestinian pottery is gradually being extended into the 4th century through Caesarea, Araq al Emir and other pottery now that the Byzantine levels are not considered dump to be bulldozed away to get down to Israelite levels. But as far as possible the existence of fourth century settlements has been checked in the present study. Details of the results will be in the notes on individual entries to follow. |xxxviiConcerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:3Eusebius of CaesareaLatin Preface By JeromeConcerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:5Eusebius of CaesareaArarat is suspect as an entry in the original manuscript since it is a mountain and is out of the region of Palestine as well. The inclusion of the long quotation from Josephus' Antiquities , (I, iii, p. 5ff.) is repeated in the text of Procopius 285A & B. Eusebius refers to Ararat also in his Preparatio Evangelica , (viii, p. 10f.) and Jerome, in his Commentary on Isaiah 37:36ff.). In Interpretation of Hebrew Names (60) Jerome translates "mountain of taunting."Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:8Eusebius of CaesareaThe text of Eusebius and Jerome vary only slightly in the quotation of Josephus. The translation of the quotation is that of Thackeray from the Loeb Classic Library (used with permission). The textual variants are all minor.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:11Eusebius of CaesareaAchad as the above Ararat also is not in the region of Palestine. Its size is recognized by the use of polis (Greek) and both urbs and civitas (Latin). Jerome in Hebrew Questions notes "it is now called Nisibis." In another entry he notes it is in Edessa. The date referred to by Latin was 363 A.D.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:14Eusebius of CaesareaJerome also notes a church had been built at Bethel ( Commentary on Genesis 28:19) probably by Constantine ( Epistle 108:12). For other churches added in Jerome's account see Mambre (K. 7:20), Bethany (K. 59:18), Gethsemane (K. 75:19), and Sychar (K. 165:3-4).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:16Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names (61) Jerome translates "inquiry or gaiety."Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 1:22Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome has four entries on Astaroth with several interpretation repeats: sheepfold, manger, blackened hall, or make an investigation (61, 85, 90, and 98).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:1Eusebius of CaesareaThe location in general is present day Hebron, el kalil , and this is the spot Eusebius locates clearly. It was never a strong Christian city. Ancient site is probably at Jebel er-Rumeide where Roman and Byzantine remains are also found. Jerome notes a church has been built there (cf. K. 7:3 and note for other churches). It is difficult to tell if Jerome refers to the Church of Mamrē ( Ramet el Khalil ) or the church of the graves of the patriarchs.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:2Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Hebrew Questions writes "For Arbee the LXX has 'field' with Chebron located on the mountain. The city is also called Mambra is named after the friends of Abraham" (44), cf. Genesis 18:1, I Chronicles 2:42, Joshua 14:13f, 20:7, 21:11, II Samuel 2:1 etc.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:3Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome translated "Arbee, four or fourth" (61) after the four great men: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Adam (cf. Hebrews Questions , p. 28, Epistle 108:11, 46:3, Commentary on Jeremiah 31:15, Zacharia 11:4, Matthew 27:33, and Ephesians 5:14.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:7Eusebius of CaesareaIt was the end of the road going north to Damascus and the terminus of the overland road west to the Mediterranean. In Jerome's time it was a very busy port ( Vita Hilariaris , 18, and cf. Commentary on Ezekiel 47:18). Eusebius does not indicate its size but it may be inferred that it was a polis . A bishop was present at Nicea.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:9Eusebius of CaesareaThe city in II Samuel 10:16 is in northeast Transjordan. The Syriac text notes it is a city of the Philistines. The Greek allophulos usually means Philistines but once or twice we cannot be positive, so in this present translation the general term "foreigners" has been preferred, especially when Jerome does not have Filistine . He has Filistine in K. 7:15, K. 21:2, K. 3:25, K. 119:3 but more often uses transliteration allofylorum (see Appendix I).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:12Eusebius of CaesareaIn Hebrew Questions Jerome translates "dirt, ground or earthen"(61).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:16Eusebius of CaesareaThe Madaba Map using Jerome's spelling has located properly Mampsis. Many Nabatean, Roman-Byzantine levels excavated at Kuroub . It shows a revival in the fourth century A.D. as also does Oboda (Avdat, 'Abda, and K. 176:9).This may be indicated by "village" in Greek and "oppidum" in Latin (cf. K. 10:25).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:17Eusebius of CaesareaII Chronicles 20:2 identified Thamar with En Gedi or at least locates it in the district of En Gedi (86:16). Jerome in Hebrew Questions says, "his city which we now call Engaddi, is rich in balsam and palms since Asason Thamar translated into our language is city of the palms'" (18) (cf. Judges 1: 16, Ezekiel 47: 29).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 2:21Eusebius of CaesareaThe relation of Idumaea and Edōm to Gebalēnē is uncertain. They are connected here as well as in K. 62:8 and K. 102:23, etc. In his Commentary on Obadiah 1 Jerome has Gebalēnē on the border of Eleutheropolis and apparently includes part of the Daroma (K. 26:10) but generally it is lying east of the Dead Sea (K. 100:4).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:2Eusebius of CaesareaHere we have evidence of the flourishing of the pagan cults in the 4th century in spite of Constantine's efforts. Avi-Yonah suggests a temple and spring at the source of Wadi Ri'a may be the Aena of Jerome.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:5Eusebius of CaesareaThis entry is not in the Greek Vatican Manuscript and so Lagarde does not print it. Klostermann here and elsewhere emends the Greek on basis of Procopius and Jerome.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:7Eusebius of CaesareaEusebius and Jerome only have a "place" not a village. The Madaba Map uses both Alōn Atad and Bethegla with the mosaic of a church there near the Wadi Qilt . Procopius 512B accurately reproduces the text. Apparently a secondary Christian tradition transferred the site from across the Jordan to the location southeast of Jericho. It probably is the present 'ain and deir hajla (cf. K. 48:19, K. 52:8).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:8Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Interpretation of Hebrew Names translates "Atad, evidence or twig" (62) and Bethagla as "his house of jollity" (91).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:14Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Interpretation of Hebrew Names has "fermented or mixed, as the Greeks say phurason , mixed" (79).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:17Eusebius of CaesareaJerome has two entries on Aseroth in Interpretation of Hebrew Names : "majestic or beautiful house" (78) and "Aseroth is house or entrance court, if it is written with a heth and tzade. But if correctly written with alef and sin it means beautiful" (86).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:21Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome translates "his bone, from bone, not from mouth" (79).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 3:24Eusebius of CaesareaIn Hebrew Names , Jerome translates Atharim "spies" (78).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:5Eusebius of CaesareaThis entry is not an original. It is a river or wadi, not a city. It is called a topos , and locus , "place." It has been considered the southern border of Transjordan. Jerome's Commentary on Isaiah 16:2 notes, "it is the border between Amorites and Moabites." Procopius 857A paraphrases the Onomasticon : "formerly the land of the Amorites. The Arnon is said to be the border separating it from the Moabites" (cf. Numbers 21:23ff).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:7Eusebius of CaesareaThe name Arnon has obviously survived to the fourth century. In Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome translates "heap of gloom or praise"(78).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:10Eusebius of CaesareaThis place is related to the previous two entries. If it, as well as "deserted place" could mean "ruin," then perhaps there was a rebuilding by the time of Jerome. The word oppidum usually is not an indication of size of city or village but, if Pliny is to be believed it is a Roman settlement around a shrine or sanctuary, or it is a heavily fortified town (see Appendix I).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:11Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Hebrew Names translated, "he stirred up or wakefulness" (78).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:17Eusebius of CaesareaEusebius does not locate this "place" very well. Many feel it is the Byzantine Abile at Kh Kefraim but Eusebius does not make this identity. Jerome in his Commentary on Joel 3:18 suggests it is near Livias (K. 48:15) 6 miles from Dead Sea. In Hebrew Names he translates mourning of the bank or of the shore" (79).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:18Eusebius of CaesareaThe difference in direction may not be as great as it seems. Eusebius has west and Jerome south, but most directions refer to a quadrant, so southwest could fit into either quadrant. Possibly out of order or suspect.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 4:24Eusebius of CaesareaIn Hebrew Names , Jerome has 5 entries which could pertain, based on "hearing" or "helping" (82, 94, 125, 127, and 134).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 5:2Eusebius of CaesareaThere are three or four biblical places with this same name. Jerome has three entries in Hebrew Names : "lightening or emptying of the watch or shell" (79), "cover of the guard or spread out the watch"(88) or "covered"(125).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 5:20Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome has "west or evening" (86) and "fine" (89).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 5:24Eusebius of CaesareaThe Peraia is always translated by Jerome as Transjordan. In Byzantine times Peraia was continuous with the region of Philadelphia (K. 104:14).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 6:9Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Interpretation of Hebrew Names has "descending" (62 and 78).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 6:16Eusebius of CaesareaJerome in Interpretation of Hebrew Names has "of scorpions or fitting" (79) and "of scorpions" (89 and 98).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 7:8Eusebius of CaesareaArbela is a dependent village of Pella. It may be tell Abil or tabaqat fahl . Jerome has perhaps confused it with Ribla which may be at Irbid (cp. Betharbel, Hosea 10:14).Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 7:13Eusebius of CaesareaAulon in Roman times came to be identified with the Jordan valley as reflected here in both Eusebius and Jerome. The description here, together with that of Jordan (K. 104:20) is fairly complete.Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 7:20Eusebius of CaesareaIn Interpretation of Hebrew Names Jerome says, "Elan, oak or aulon of which we wrote more fully in the Book of Places" (83) and "Ailon which we spoke of under Aulon above (88)."Concerning the Place Names in Sacred Scripture · Notes 8:5Eusebius of CaesareaNo doubt of this continuing identity (Deuteronomy 2:20). Jerome in Commentary on Nahum 3:8 writes, "Ammona which is now called Philadelphia." It also is one of the cities of the Decapolis (K. 80:16) and a bishop was present at the Council of Nicea. It is in the province of Arabia located by the Tabula Peutinger as 62 miles from Aeropolis (Rabbath Moab cf. K. 10:17). It is used as a referent in the Onomasticon . It is probably the same as Rabba Ammon.