98 Acts xii.1. Acts xii.2.
99 Herod Agrippa I.; see above, chap. 4, note 3.
100 On Clement's Hypotyposes, see below, Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 3. This fragment is preserved by Eusebius alone. The account was probably received by Clement from oral tradition. He had a great store of such traditions of the apostles and their immediate followers,-in how far true or false it is impossible to say; compare the story which he tells of John, quoted by Eusebius, Bk. III. chap. 23, below. This story of James is not intrinsically improbable. It may have been true, though external testimony for it is, of course, weak. The Latin legends concerning James' later labors in Spain and his burial in Compostella are entirely worthless. Epiphanius reports that he was unmarried, and lived the life of a Nazarite; but he gives no authority for his statement and it is not improbable that the report originated through a confusion of this James with James the Just.
101 Acts xii. 3 sqq.
102 See Acts xii. 19 sqq.
103 Acts xii. 23.
104 Josephus, Ant. XIX. 8. 2.
105 44 a.d. Agrippa began to reign over the whole kingdom in 41 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.
106 Caesarea lay upon the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Jerusalem. In the time of Strabo there was simply a small town at this point, called "Strato's Tower"; but about 10 b.c. Herod the Great built the city of Caesarea, which soon became the principal Roman city of Palestine, and was noted for its magnificence. It became, later, the seat of an important Christian school, and played quite a part in Church history. Eusebius himself was Bishop of Caesarea. It was a city of importance, even in the time of the crusades, but is now a scene of utter desolation.
107 The occasion of this festival is uncertain. Some have considered it the festival in honor of the birth of Claudius; others, a festival in honor of the return of Claudius from Britain. But neither of these suggestions is likely. It is more probable that the festival mentioned was the Quinquennalia, instituted by Herod the Great in honor of Augustus in 12 b.c. (see Josephus, Ant. XV. 8. 1; B. J. I. 21. 8), and celebrated regularly every five years. See Wieseler's Chronologie des ap. Zeitalters, p. 131 sqq., where this question is carefully discussed in connection with the date of Agrippa's death which is fixed by Wieseler as Aug. 6, 44 a.d.
108 The passage in Josephus reads: "But as he presently afterward looked up he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of evil tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him." This conveys an entirely different sense, the owl being omitted in Eusebius. As a consequence most writers on Eusebius have made the gravest charges against him, accusing him of a willful perversion of the text of Josephus with the intention of producing a confirmation of the narrative of the Acts, in which the angel of God is spoken of, but in which no mention is made of an owl. The case certainly looks serious, but so severe an accusation-an accusation which impeaches. the honesty of Eusebius in the most direct manner-should not be made except upon unanswerable grounds. Eusebius elsewhere shows himself to be a writer who, though not always critical, is at least honest in the use he makes of his materials. In this case, therefore, his general conduct ought to be taken into consideration, and he ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. Lightfoot, who defends his honesty, gives an explanation which appears to me sufficiently satisfactory. He says: "Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death was already in some texts of Josephus. The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge." And in a note he adds: "It is not the substitution of an angel for an owl, as the case is not uncommonly stated. The result is produced mainly by the omission of some words in the text of Josephus, which runs thus: anakuyaj d oun met oligon [ton boubwna] thj eautou kefalhj uper kaqezomenon eiden [epi sxoiniou tinoj] aggelon [te] touton euquj enohse kakwn einai, ton kai pote twn agaqwn genomenon. The words bracketed are omitted, and aition is added after einai, so that the sentence runs, eiden aggelon touton euquj enohse kakwn einai aition k.t.l. This being so, I do not feel at all sure that the change (by whomsoever made) was dictated by any disingenuous motive. A scribe unacquainted with Latin would stumble over ton boubwna, which had a wholly different meaning and seems never to have been used of an owl in Greek; and he would alter the text in order to extract some sense out of it. In the previous mention of the bird (Ant. XVIII. 6, 7) Josephus, or his translator, gives it as a Latin name: boubwna de oi =Pwmaioi ton ornin touton kalousi. Möller (quoted by Bright, p. XLV.) calls this `the one case0' in which, so far as he recollects, `a sinceritatis via paululum deflexit noster0'; and even here the indictment cannot be made good. The severe strictures against Eusebius, made e.g. by Alford on Acts xii.21, are altogether unjustifiable" (Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christian Biog. II. p. 325). The Greek word boubwn means, according to Liddell and Scott, (1) the groin, (2) a swelling in the groin. The Latin word Bubo signifies "an owl," and the word is here directly transferred by Josephus from the Latin into Greek without any explanation. A scribe unacquainted with Latin might easily stumble at the word, as Lightfoot suggests. In Ant. XVIII. 6, 7 where the bird is mentioned, the name is, to be sure, explained; but the alteration at this point was made apparently by a copyist of Eusebius, not of Josephus, and therefore by one who had probably never seen that explanation.
Whiston in his translation of Josephus inserts a note to the following effect: "We have a mighty cry made here by some writers, as if the great Eusebius had on purpose falsified this account of Josephus, so as to make it agree with the parallel account in the Acts of the Apostles, because the present copies of his citation of it, Hist. Eccles. Bk. II. chap. 10, omit the words boubwna ...epi sxoiniou, tinoj, i.e. `an owl ...on a certain rope,0' which Josephus' present copies retain, and only have the explanatory word aggelon, or `angel,0' as if he meant that `angel of the Lord0' which St. Luke mentions as smiting Herod, Acts xii. 23, and not that owl, which Josephus called `an angel or messenger, formerly of good but now of bad news,0' to Agrippa. This accusation is a somewhat strange one in the case of the great Eusebius, who is known to have so accurately and faithfully produced a vast number of other ancient records and particularly not a few out of our Josephus also, without any suspicion of prevarication. Now, not to allege how uncertain we are, whether Josephus' and Eusebius' copies of the fourth century were just like the present in this clause, which we have no distinct evidence of, the following words preserved still in Eusebius will not admit of any such exposition. `This [bird] (says Eusebius) Agrippa presently perceived to be the cause of ill fortune, as it was once of good fortune0'; which can belong only to that bird the `owl,0' which, as it had formerly foreboded his happy deliverance from imprisonment, Ant. XVIII. 6. 7, so was it then foretold to prove afterward the unhappy forewarner of his death in five days' time. If the improper word aition, or `cause,0' be changed for Josephus' proper word aggelon, `angel,0' or `messenger,0' and the foregoing words, boubwa epi sxoiniou tinoj, be inserted, Eusebius' text will truly represent that in Josephus."
109 Josephus (Ant. XVIII. 6. 7) records that while Agrippa was in chains-having been condemned to imprisonment by Tiberius-an owl made its appearance and perched upon a tree near him. A fellow-prisoner interpreted the event as a good omen, prophesying that Agrippa would soon be released from his bonds and become king, but that the same bird would appear to him again five days before his death. Tiberius died in the following year, and the events prophesied came to pass. The story was apparently implicitly believed by Josephus, who relates it in good faith.
110 The text of Josephus, as well as the majority of the mss. of Eusebius, followed by Valesius, Stroth, Burton, and Schwegler, read epi thj makarizomenhj lamprothtoj, which I have adopted in preference to the reading of Heinichen, who follows a few good mss. in substituting makariothtoj for lamprothtoj.
111 This shows the success with which Agrippa had courted the favor of the Jews. A far different feeling was shown at his death from that exhibited at the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great.
112 He was born in 10 b.c., and began to reign as successor of Philip and Lysanias in 37 a.d. See above, chap. 4, note 3.
113 Herod Antipas.
114 Luke always calls the king, Herod, which was the family name, while Josephus calls him by his given name Agrippa. He is known to us under the name of Herod Agrippa I. It seems strange that Eusebius should not have known that he bore the two names, Herod Agrippa, instead of expressing doubt in the matter, as he does. In the heading of the chapter he gives the king both names, without intimating that he entertained any uncertainty in the matter.
115 kata ton dhloumenon xronon, i.e. about the time of Agrippa's death. But Luke writes pro gap toutwn twn hmerwn, "Before these days."
116 Acts v. 36.
117 Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 1.
118 About 44 a.d. See above, chap. 8, note 2.
119 There is a chronological difficulty in connection with this Theudas which has caused much dispute. The Theudas mentioned by Josephus arose in the time of Claudius; but the Theudas referred to by Gamaliel in the Acts must have lived many years before that. Various solutions of greater or less plausibility have been offered, almost any one of which is possible, and abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged discrepancy, though none can be proved to be true. Compare Wieseler's Chron. des ap. Zeitalters, p. 138, note 1; Ewald's Gesch. des Füdischen Volkes, Bd. VI. p. 532; Jost's Gesch. der Israeliten, Bd. II. Anhang, p. 86; and the various commentaries on the Acts in loco.
A question of more importance for us, in the present instance, is as to Eusebius' conduct in the case. He identifies the Theudas of Luke with the Theudas of Josephus,-an identification which is impossible, if both accounts are accepted as trustworthy. Eusebius has consequently been accused of an intentional perversion of facts for the sake of promoting the credibility of Luke's accounts. But a protest must again be entered against such grave imputations upon the honesty of Eusebius. A man with a very small allowance of common sense would certainly not have been so foolish as consciously to involve himself in such a glaring anachronism-an anachronism which every reader had the means of exposing-for the sake of making a point in confirmation of the narrative of Luke. Had he been conscious of the discrepancy, he would certainly have endeavored to reconcile the two accounts, and it would not have required a great amount of ingenuity or research to discover in the pages of Josephus himself a sufficiently plausible reconciliation. The only reasonable explanation of Eusebius' anachronism is his carelessness, which caused him to fall into many blunders as bad as the present, especially in questions of chronology. He read, in the Acts, of Theudas; he read, in Josephus, of a similar character of the same name; he identified the two hastily, and without a thought of any chronological difficulty in the case. He quotes the passage from the Acts very freely, and possibly without recollecting that it occurs several chapters before the account of the famine and of the other events which happened in the time of Claudius.
120 Josephus, Ant. XX. 5. 2.
121 In the times of these procurators, Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander
122 Josephus had already mentioned this famine in the same book of his Ant., chap. 2, §5.
123 Josephus gives an extensive account of this Helen and of her son Izates in the Ant. XX. 2. Helen was the wife of the king Monabazus of Adiabene, and the mother of Izates, his successor. Both Izates and Helen embraced the Jewish religion, and the latter happening to come to Jerusalem in the time of the famine, did a great deal to relieve the distress, and was seconded in her benefactions by her son. After their death the bones of both mother and son were brought to Jerusalem and buried just outside of the walls, where Helen had erected three pyramids (Jos. Ant. XX. 4. 3).
124 Acts xi. 29, Acts xi. 30. The passage in Acts has Saul instead of Paul. But the change made by Eusebius is a very natural one.
125 "Pausanias (in Arcadicis) speaks of these great monuments of Helen and compares them to the tomb of Mausolus. Jerome, too, testifies that they were standing in his time. Helen had besides a palace in Jerusalem" (Stroth).
126 Aelia was the heathen city built on the site of Jerusalem by Hadrian (see below, Bk. IV. chap. 6).
127 Adiabene was probably a small province lying between the Tigris, Lycus, and the Gordiaean Mountains (see Dion Cassius, LXVIII.), but before the time of Pliny, according to Vaux (in Smith's Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography), the word was used in a wider sense to indicate Assyria in general (see Pliny, H. N. VI. 12, and Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. 6). Izates was king of Adiabene in the narrower sense.
128 It is justly remarked by Reuterdahl that no chapters of Eusebius' History are so imperfect and unsatisfactory as those which relate to heresies, but that this is to be ascribed more to the age than to the author. A right understanding of heresies and an appreciation of any truth which they might contain was utterly impossible to men who looked upon heresy as the work of the devil, and all heretics as his chosen tools. Eusebius has been condemned by some, because he gives his information about heretics only from second hand, and quotes none of them directly; but it must be remembered that this method was by no means peculiar to Eusebius, and, moreover, it is highly probable that he did not have access to any of their works. The accounts of the heretics given by Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others would of course be preserved, but the writings of heretics themselves would be piously excluded as completely as possible from all Christian libraries, and the knowledge of them cannot have remained long in the Church. The sources upon which we have to rely at the present day for a knowledge of these heresies furnish an illustration of this. We know them almost solely through their enemies, and Eusebius knew them in the same way and very likely for the same reason.
129 See chap. 3, note 1.
130 Simon Magus, of whom mention is first made in Acts viii. 9 sqq. (quoted above, in chap. 1), played a very prominent role in early Church history. His life has been so greatly embellished with legends that it is very difficult to extract a trustworthy account of him. Indeed the Tübingen school, as well as some other modern critics, have denied altogether the existence of such a personage, and have resolved the account of him into a Jewish Christian fiction produced in hostility to the apostle Paul, who under the mask of Simon was attacked as the real heretic. But this identification of Paul and Simon rests upon a very slender foundation, as many passages can be adduced in which the two are expressly distinguished, and indeed the thought of identifying Paul and Simon seems never to have occurred to the writer of the Recognitions. The most that can be said is that the author of the Homilies gives, and without doubt purposely, some Pauline traits to his picture of Simon, but this does not imply that he makes Simon no more than a mask for Paul (cf. the words of Salmon in his article, Clementine Literature, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Vol. I. p. 576). The original of Simon then is not to be found in Paul. The third century fiction is based upon a real historic person whose actual existence must be assumed to account for the early notices of him in the Acts and in Justin Martyr, as well as the common tradition of him among all parties in the Church. Salmon considers Simon of Gitton-the basis of the account of Justin Martyr and of all the later Simon legends-a second century Gnostic distinct from the Simon mentioned in the Acts (see his excellent article Simon Magnus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. IV. p. 68r sqq.). In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is represented as traveling widely and spreading his errors in all directions, while Peter follows him for the purpose of exposing his impostures, and refutes him repeatedly in public disputations, until at length he conquers him completely in Rome, and Simon ends his life by suicide. His death, as well as his life, is recorded in various conflicting and fabulous traditions (see note 9, below). For ancient accounts of Simon, see Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 26 and 56 and Dial. c. Trypho. CXX.; the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions; Irenaeus, I. 23; Hippolytus, VI. 2 sq.; Tertullian's Apology, On Idolatry, On the Soul, etc.: Apost. Constitutions, VII. 7 sq.; Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, II. 12, &c.; Acts of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed. VIII. p. 477 sqq.); Epiphanius, Haer. XXI.: and Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1. See also Lipsius, article in Schinkel's Bibel-Lexicon, Vol. V.
131 In his Apology, I. 26, 56.
132 In Bk. IV. chaps. 8, 11, 16-18.
133 On Justin's Apology, see below, Bk. IV. chap. 18, note 2.
134 Justin's Apology, I. 26.
135 Gitton was a village of Samaria, near Flavia Neapoils (the modern Nâblus), and is identified by Robinson with the present village of Kuryet JÎt (see Robinson's Biblical Researches, III. p. 144, note). Some have doubted the accuracy of Justin's report, for the reason that Josephus (Ant. XXII. 7. 2) mentions a magician named Simon, of about the same date, who was born in Cyprus. There was a town called Kition in Cyprus, and it has been thought that Justin may have mistaken this place for the Samaritan Gitton. But even if we assume the identity of the two Simons as many critics do, it is less likely that Justin, a native of Samaria, was mistaken upon a question concerning his own country, than that Josephus was. Simon's activity may have extended to Cyprus, in which case Josephus might easily have mistaken his birthplace.
136 Justin here assigns Simon's visit to Rome to the reign of Claudius (41-54 a.d.), as Irenaeus also does. Other accounts assign it to the reign of Nero, but all differ as to the details of his death; suicide, death from injuries received while trying to fly, voluntary burial in expectation of rising again on the third day, &c., are reported in different traditions. All, however, agree that he visited Rome at some time or another.
137 That is, on the island which lies in the middle of the Tiber, a short distance below the Vatican, and which now bears the name Isola Tiberiana, or di S. Sebastiano.
138 In 1574 a statue, bearing the inscription Semoni Sanco deo fidio, &c., was found in the place described by Justin Martyr, but this statue was erected to the Sabine divinity Semo Sancus. It is therefore highly probable that Justin mistook this statue for a statue of Simon Magus. This is now the commonly accepted view, though the translator of Justin Martyr in the Ante-Nicene Fathers ventures to dispute it (see the Am. ed. Vol. I. p. 171, note). The report is given a second time by Justin in his Apol. 56, and also by Irenaeus, I. 23. 1 (who, however, simply says "It is said," and may have drawn his knowledge only from Justin Martyr) and by Tertullian, Apol. chap. 13. The last named is in general a poor authority even if he be independent of Justin at this point, which is not probable. Hippolytus, who lived at Rome, and who gives us an account of the death of Simon (Bk. VII. chap. 15), says nothing about the statue and his silence is a strong argument against it.
139 A similar story is told of this Helen by Irenaeus, I. 23; by Hippolytus, VI. 15 (who adds some important particulars); by Tertullian, De Anima, 34; by Epiphanius, Haer. 21; and by Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 1; compare also Origen, Contra Celsum, V. 62. Simon taught that this Helen was the first conception of his mind, the mother of all things, the impersonation of the divine intelligence, &c. The Simonians, according to Irenaeus (I. 23. 4), and Hippolytus (VI. 15; see chap. 14, note 8), had images of Simon and Helen whom they honored as Jupiter and Minerva. Simon's doctrines and practice, as recorded by these Fathers, show some of the general conceptions common to all the Gnostic systems, but exhibit a crude and undeveloped form of Gnosticism. Upon Helen, see Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 880 sq., and all the works upon Simon Magus.
140 This conception of the idea (ennoia) is thoroughly Gnostic, and plays an important part in all the Gnostic systems. Most of these systems had a dualistic element recognizing the dunamij and the ennoia as the original principles from whose union all beings emanated. These general conceptions appeared in all varieties of forms in the different systems.
141 Irenaeus adv. Haer. I. 23.
142 See note 3, above.
144 This was the general opinion of the early Fathers, all of whom picture Gnosticism as a wilderness of absurdities and nonsense; and Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and others undertake its refutation only for the purpose of exposing these absurdities. It is treated by none of them as an intelligent speculation with a foundation in reason or sense. This thorough misunderstanding of the nature and aim of Gnosticism has been perpetuated in our day by many writers upon the subject, Neander was the first to attempt a thoroughly philosophical treatment of it (in his Genetische Entwickelung d. gnost. Systeme, Berlin, 1818), and since that time the subject has been treated intelligently and discriminatingly by many writers, e.g. Baur, Lipsius, Lightfoot, Salmon and especially Harnack who has grasped the true principle of Gnosticism perhaps more fully than any one else. See his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 158 sqq.
145 This was true of the Simonians, who were very immoral and licentious, and of some other Gnostic sects, as e.g. the Ophites, the Carpocratians, &c. But many of the Gnostics, e.g. Marcion (but see below, IV. 11, note 24), Saturninus, Tatinn, &c., went to the opposite extreme, teaching a rigid and gloomy asceticism. Underlying both of these extremes we perceive the same principle-a dualism of matter and spirit, therefore of body and mind-the former considered as the work of the devil, and therefore to be despised and abused: the latter as divine, and therefore to be honored above all else. The abhorrence of the body, and of matter and nature in general, logically led to one of the two opposite results asceticism or antinomianism, according to the character and instincts of the person himself. See Schaff, Church Hist. II. p. 457 sqq. The Fathers, in their hatred of all forms of heresy, naturally saw no good in any of them, and heretics were therefore indiscriminately accused of immorality and licentiousness in their worst forms.
146 See the previous chapter, note 1.
147 See chap. 1, note 25.
148 2 Cor. x. 5.
149 The significance of the word "immediately" as employed her is somewhat dark. There is no event described in the preceding context with which it can be connected. I am tempted to think that Eusebius may have been using at this point some unknown source and that the word "immediately" refers to an encounter which Simon had had with Peter (perhaps his Caesarean discussion, mentioned in the Clementines), of which an account was given in the document employed by Eusebius. The figure employed here is most remarkable.
150 Acts viii. 9 sqq. This occurred in Samaria, not in Judea proper, but Eusebius evidently uses the word "Judea" in a wide sense, to indicate the Roman province of Judea, which included also Samaria. It is not impossible, especially if Eusebius is quoting here from a written source, that some other encounter of Simon and Peter is referred to. Such a one e.g. as is mentioned in the Apostolic Constitutions, VI. 8.
151 Rome was a great gathering place of heretics and schismatics. They were all attracted thither by the opportunities for propagandism which the city afforded, and therefore Eusebius, with his transcendental conception of heresy, naturally makes it the especial seat of the devil.
152 See above, chap. 13, note 11.
153 Upon the historic truth of Peter's visit to Rome, see below, chap. 25, note 7. Although we may accept it as certain that he did visit Rome, and that he met his death there, it is no less certain that he did not reach there until late in the reign of Nero. The tradition that he was for twenty-five years bishop of Rome is first recorded by Jerome (de vir. ill. c. 1), and since his time has been almost universally accepted in the Roman Catholic Church, though in recent years many more candid scholars of that communion acknowledge that so long an episcopate there is a fiction. The tradition undoubtedly took its rise from the statement of Justin Martyr (quoted in the previous chapter) that Simon Magus came to Rome during the reign of Claudius. Tradition, in the time of Eusebius, commonly connected the Roman visits of Simon and of Peter; and consequently Eusebius, accepting the earlier date for Simon's arrival in Rome, quite naturally assumed also the same date for Peter's arrival there, although Justin does not mention Peter in connection with Simon in the passage which Eusebius quotes. The assumption that Peter took up his residence in Rome during the reign of Claudius contradicts all that we know of Peter's later lif from the New Testament and from other early writers. In 44 a.d. he was in Jerusalem (according to Acts xii. 3); in 51 he was again there (according to Acts xv.); and a little later in Antioch (according to Gal. i. 11 sq.). Moreover, at some time during his life he labored in various provinces in Asia Minor, as we learn from his first epistle, and probably wrote that epistle from Babylon on the Euphrates (see chap. 15, note 7). At any rate, he cannot have been in Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans (57 or 58 a.d.), for no mention is made of him among the brethren to whom greetings are sent. Nor can he have been there when Paul wrote from Rome during his captivity (61 or 62 to 63 or 64 a.d.). We have, in fact, no trace of him in Rome, except the extra-Biblical but well-founded tradition (see chap. 25, note 7) that he met his death there. We may assume, then, that he did not reach Rome at any rate until shortly before his death; that is, shortly before the summer of 64 a.d. As most of the accounts put Simon Magus' visit to Rome in the reign of Nero (see above, chap. 13, note 9), so they make him follow Peter thither (as he had followed him everywhere, opposing and attacking him), instead of precede him, as Eusebius does. Eusebius follows Justin in giving the earlier date for Simon's visit to Rome; but he goes beyond Justin in recording his encounter there with Peter, which neither Justin nor Irenaeus mentions. The earlier date for Simon's visit is undoubtedly that given by the oldest tradition. Afterward, when Peter and Paul were so prominently connected with the reign of Nero, the visit of Simon was postponed to synchronize with the presence of the two apostles in Rome. A report of Simon's meeting with Peter in Rome is given first by Hippolytus (VI. 15); afterward by Arnobius (II. 12), who does not describe the meeting; by the Ap. Const., the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, and the Acts of the Apostles Peter and Paul. It is impossible to tell from what source Eusebius drew his information. Neither Justin, Irenaeus, nor Tertullian mentions it. Hippolytus and Arnobius and the App. Const. give too much, as they give accounts of his death, which Eusebius does not follow. As to this, it might, however, be said that these accounts are so conflicting that Eusebius may have omitted them entirely, while yet recording the meeting. Still, if he had read Hippolytus, he could hardly have omitted entirely his interesting account. Arnobius and Tertullian, who wrote in Latin, he did not read, and the Clementines were probably too late for him; at any rate, they cannot have been the source of his account, which differs entirely from theirs. It is highly probable, therefore, that he followed Justin and Irenaeus as far as they go, and that he recorded the meeting with Peter in Rome as a fact commonly accepted in his time, and one for which he needed no written authority; or it is possible that he had another source, unknown to us, as suggested above (note 4).