Patrobas and Philologus

ON SS. PATROBAS AND PHILOLOGUS, DISCIPLES OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE,

FIRST CENTURY.

Philologus, disciple of St. Paul. (S.)

Patrobas, disciple of St. Paul. (S.)

BY J. V. D. G.

[1] Of SS. Philologus and Patrobas, There recur once more, from the very well-known series of those whom the Apostle, in the last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, bids be greeted, two holy men who have obtained a cult on the present day in the Greek church, which has always honoured them, no differently from their other companions recited there by St. Paul, with the greatest veneration. But concerning them too it has gone off into various fables, which our predecessors have already more than once shown that it did for the other saints of the same company as well, and most recently once more in SS. Stachys, Ampliatus, Urban and Narcissus Acta SS. Octobr., vol. XIII, pp. 687 ff.. Therefore the way has been paved for us to judge critically the deeds of SS. Patrobas and Philologus, which we shall accordingly walk the more securely with the authority of our forebears lighting the way.

[2] whom the Fathers rather often commemorate, As has been said, the names of SS. Patrobas and Philologus are made known through St. Paul [Rom. XVI, 14, 15. As regards the name itself, it may be noted that the name PATROBVS occurs in Latin inscription 6306, n. 120 among the Latin Inscriptions of the kingdom of Naples edited by Mommsen, p. 354.], but only as bare names, since he is deeply silent about their condition, the course of their life and their deeds. Nor do the Fathers who commented on the epistle to the Romans show themselves more explicit, since neither in Origen P. G., vol. XIV, p. 1282., Ambrose P. L., vol. XVII, p. 180., Chrysostom P. G., vol. LX, p. 671., Theodoret P. G., vol. LXXXII, p. 222., Primasius P. L., vol. LXVIII, p. 505. nor Sedulius P. L., vol. CIII, pp. 124. is anything to be found besides the name alone. You would say that the compiler of the Roman martyrology had regarded this discreet silence of the Fathers, since, using a most prudent formula, he brings forward only this: On the same day, of SS. Philologus and Patrobas, disciples of St. Paul the apostle, carefully avoiding the appellations with which SS. Patrobas and Philologus were adorned by the Greeks.

[3] many fables are asserted. For the Commentary on the seventy disciples of the Lord which is circulated under the name of Dorotheus of Tyre hands down this about Patrobas: Πατροβᾶς, οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἀπόστολος μέμνηται, ὅς καὶ ἐπίσκοπος ἐν Πατιόλοις γέγονεν, Patrobas, whom the Apostle mentions in the same place, who also was made bishop of Puteoli; and about Philologus: Φιλόλογος, οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ Ἀπόστολος μέμνηται, ὅς καὶ ἐπίσκοπος γέγονεν ὑπὸ Ἀνδρέου ἀποστόλου ἐν Σινώπῃ. Philologus, whom the Apostle likewise mentions, who also was ordained bishop of Sinope by Andrew the apostle P. G., vol. XCII, p. 1063, 1064.. Pseudo-Hippolytus teaches the same in the little book On the LXX apostles of Jesus Christ, which is probably one with the preceding: Πατρόβουλος, ἐπίσκοπος Ποτεόλων; Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli; Φιλόλογος, ἐπίσκοπος Σινώπης; Philologus, bishop of Sinope P. G., vol. X, p. 955, 956.. These are taken from Du Cange's more correct edition of Pseudo-Dorotheus, which the recent editor Migne has published anew in the volumes cited. But when these first appeared in Latin in the seventh volume of the Bibliotheca veterum Patrum, edited by Marguerin de la Bigne, they were read thus: Patrobas, whom the same Apostle also mentions, was appointed bishop of Naples. In the Roman edition of this book of Dorotheus, which Pietro Galesini brought out together with other books of the holy Fathers at the press of Paolo Manuzio in the year 1564, Patrobas is designated bishop Neopotiolanus, while Antoine de Mouchy Démocharès, in book II On the divine Sacrifice of the Mass, chapter 13, relates that Patrobas was appointed bishop Nepotiolanus. These words Neopotiolanus, Nepotiolanum seem quite evidently to have had their origin from a faulty reading of the Greek words ἐν Ποτιόλοις But being unmindful of the Greek text, or perhaps not possessing it, since they were intent solely on the Latin interpretation, because a Nepotiolan or Neopotiolan city is found nowhere, all the learned men therefore read bishop of Naples.

[3] that Patrobas was either bishop of Naples, Hence it came about that very many in fact claimed St. Patrobas as bishop of Naples, among whom it will be enough to have mentioned Ughelli Italia sacra, vol. VI, pp. 25, 26., Antonio Caracciolo De sacris Neapol. eccles. monum., chapter VII, p. 117; chapter VIII, p. 120 ff., Bartolommeo Chioccarelli Antistitum… Neap. eccles. catal., p. 17., de Petris Hist. Neapolit., book I, chapter 3.,, Eugenio Napoli sacra, in the index of bishops., Francesco de Magistris Status rerum memorabilium … civit. Neapol., p. 35., Domenico Gravina In the Controversies, vol. III, part 2. Controv. 4, p. 317. and Cantelius Metropolitanarum urbium historia civilis et ecclesiastica, p. 370., who all place St. Patrobas in the see of Naples after St. Asprenas, whom however they do not deny to have been prelate of Puteoli before. They labour not a little to prove their opinion, yet they establish nothing. Let Ughelli be heard: But if anyone should ask why, if he was bishop of Naples, no mention of him exists in the church of Naples? it will be answered at once: … There was no other cause of so great an oblivion than either the negligence of men, or the loss of the ancient monuments while Diocletian raged, and, what is indeed the more common evil, envious antiquity itself gnawing at itself with its own tooth. No one will wonder if such arguments convince nobody; but that the authors cited were deceived by the corrupted text of Dorotheus is clear from the fact that Ughelli asserts that Dorotheus in the Synopsis, as is read in the emended codices, clearly relates that Patrobas was bishop of Naples of the Campanians. What is to be thought of this emendation of certain codices of Dorotheus we have already said. For the rest, writers of better mark knew nothing of the Neapolitan episcopate of St. Patrobas, such as John the Deacon in Muratori Rerum ital. script., vol. I, part 2, p. 292. and Mazzocchi [Dissertatio hist. de cath. eccl. Neap. vicibus, p. XXIV, and De sanctorum Neapolitanae ecclesiae episcoporum cultu, p. XXVI.]. Therefore let there have been enough and more than enough disputation about these fables.

[4] or bishop of Puteoli, But if attaching St. Patrobas to the chair of Naples is altogether repugnant, what is to be thought of the tradition which makes him the first prelate of Puteoli? As we reported above, this tradition does in fact flourish, brought forward especially by Pseudo-Dorotheus and the supposititious Hippolytus. Then it appears in the hagiological books of the Greeks in almost the same formula, for example in the menology of Basil In the edition of Cardinal Albani, p. 166., which has this: καὶ ὁ μὲν Πατροβᾶς, οὗ καὶ ὁ μέγας Παύλος ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιστολαῖς μέμνηται, ἐπίσκοπος Ποτιόλων ἐγένετο, and Patrobas indeed, whom the great Paul mentions in his epistles, was made bishop of Puteoli. And these things seemed enough to Ferdinando Ughelli for weaving from them the following history of St. Patrobas: An old and constant tradition relates that Patrobas, one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, and indeed a disciple of Paul, whom he mentions in the Epistle to the Romans, having been ordained bishop at Jerusalem through the efforts of Peter, prince of the apostles, after the Jewish persecution and the dispersion of the disciples of Christ through all parts of the world, landed at Puteoli by divine will, and in that city, then most flourishing, sowed the gospel, and was appointed its first prelate. Further, the monuments say little about him, which, as Baronius writes, were deeds done by the first faithful of Christ that have remained buried in silence through the lack of writers or the shipwreck of writings. Patrobas, therefore, the first bishop of the people of Puteoli, kindled with assiduous labour and with the fervour of preaching the faith, firmly established the faith and the episcopal see at Puteoli, and when for many years he had bravely borne many troubles and inconveniences for the name of Christ from the gentiles, and had brought almost countless people to the light of the gospel, he rested holily in the Lord on the 4th of November after the year of salvation 59, as we can suppose; for when Paul the apostle was being led a captive from Jerusalem to Rome, setting sail from Rhegium and brought to Puteoli, having found brethren there, as the Acts of the Apostles testify in chapter XXVIII, he stayed with them seven days at their request; at that time they say that Patrobas was bishop of those brethren (for Christians were called by this word). These things are certainly affirmed with great confidence, but arguments to prove them plainly are lacking.

[5] no arguments prove. But whoever has examined the foundations of this tradition would surely not have dared to grant it even the least credit. The foundations are Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus, and also the menologies of the Greeks: but it is known how slight the authority of the former is See Acta SS. Octobr., vol. XIII, pp. 689 – 691., and although the menaia of the Greeks can be used as testimony to cult, they are far from being held in the place of a historical document whose authority may be accepted without any restraint. Moreover the very tradition of the church of Puteoli is not such as to supply the silence of the monuments. Does not Ughelli himself confess that no commemoration of St. Patrobas is found at Puteoli before Bishop Vairo Italia Sacra, vol. VI, p. 25., that is, before about the 16th century? We meet once again, namely, the popular tales and little stories which strive to fetch the first pastor of the cities of Italy from the age of the apostles and the very cradle of the faith, as Maffei complained in his letter to Niccolò Coleti, in the fifth volume of the Italia Sacra of the latest Venetian edition, col. 676 [Cf. Acta SS., vol. II Aug., p. 416; Zaccaria, Cremonen. episcop. Series, chapter 6, p. 35, in the dissertation prefixed to the work; Mamachi, Origin. et antiq. christ., vol. II, p. 245 in the notes.]. Hence, until a greater light shines upon this matter, it is fitting to imitate the prudence of the Roman martyrology, and let it be enough to assert of St. Patrobas that he was one of the most beloved disciples of St. Paul the apostle, but what he did or where he exercised his sacred labours is so far plainly unknown. We do not, however, on that account at all deny that the Christian faith reached Puteoli not long after the ascension of Christ. Already the Acts of the Apostles, chapter XXVIII, 13, 14, testify

that St. Paul the apostle found brethren there; yet there is dispute about the very origin of those Christians, since Martorelli would have them be Phoenician merchants Cf. Rossi, Bulletino de Archaeol. crist. 1864, p. 69., against the opinion which Scherillo holds Della Venuta de S. Pietro Apostolo in Napoli, p. 156., while Mazzocchi Spicileg. bibl., vol. III, p. 279. and after him Renan Saint Paul, pp. 558, 559; L'Antechrist, p. 10. report that they were Jews, and Patrizi Comm. in Act. Apost., p. 205. declares them simply Christians.

[6] The same must be said of St. Philologus's What the documents just mentioned hand down about the episcopate of St. Patrobas at Puteoli, they likewise put forward about St. Philologus, to whom they assert that the chair of Sinope in Pontus was committed by St. Andrew. We have already heard Pseudo-Dorotheus openly declaring that St. Philologus was ordained bishop of Sinope by Andrew the apostle P. G., vol. XCII, p. 1063, 1064.. This Pseudo-Hippolytus also repeats: Φιλόλογος ἐπίσκοπος Σινώπης, Philologus, bishop of Sinope P. G., vol. X, pp. 955, 956.. Whence the menology of Basil: Ὁ δὲ Φιλόλογος, οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς Ἀπόστολος μέμνηται, ἐπίσκοπος Σινώπης ἐγένετο ὑπὸ Ἀνδρέου τοῦ πρωτοκλήτου τῶν ἀποστόλων. Philologus, whom the same Apostle mentions, was created bishop of Sinope Loc. cit.. These things which Pseudo-Dorotheus and Hippolytus put forward Le Quien thinks were drawn from certain Acts of the apostles, and he reports the following from a copy of the Acts of St. Andrew which he had in his possession, written out by Combefis Oriens christianus, vol. I.. St. Andrew preached to the people of Sinope with his own brother Peter, μετὰ τοῦ συγγόνου αὐτοῦ, and a stone monument of that preaching survived there. Many of the Jews who inhabited the city he brought to Christ by the miracles wrought among them, of whom he initiated into the priesthood some who were more approved in life and conduct, ὧν τοὺς δοκιμωτέρους ἱερέας κατέστησεν. Afterwards, having returned to Sinope, he appointed Philologus bishop, ἑδραιοτέρους πάλιν καταστήσας πρὸς θεοσέβειαν Φιλόλογον τε προχειρισάμενος αὐτοῖς ἐπίσκοπον ἀπέπλει πρὸς τὸ Βυζάντιον.

[7] episcopate of Sinope, Thus far Le Quien, in the place cited. A little earlier Saussay had written similar things; namely, having narrated the arrival of St. Andrew in the city of Sinope and the healing of Cratinus, he goes on: Many thereupon… he consecrated other citizens to the Lord. Philologus, formerly a disciple of Paul, who with his good leave had turned aside to Andrew, desirous of applying himself more closely to the salvation of his own people, he ordained bishop there De Gloria S. Andreae apostoli, p. 163.. But, as we have said, whatever Le Quien and Saussay have handed down about St. Philologus is taken from the Acts of St. Andrew fabricated, as it seems, in the tenth century by Epiphanius the monk P. G., vol. CXX, pp. 215 ff.. For in them one reads: ἐπέρασεν εἰς Σινώπην, καὶ ποιήσας ὀλίγας ἡμέρας καὶ ἐπιστηρίξας αὐτοὺς κατέστησεν αὐτοῖς ἐπίσκοπον τὸν Φιλόλογον. And after a few days, having confirmed them, he appointed Philologus bishop P. G., vol. CXX, p. 243.. This passage can be compared with the excerpt given above from the Acts which Le Quien saw written out by the hand of Combefis, and which Carl Thilo testifies were not different from the little book of Epiphanius the monk, at least not in substance, if indeed in words Acta SS. Apostolorum Andreae et Mathiae, p. x.. As regards the authority of Epiphanius, as Harles Fabricius, Bibl. graeca, 2nd ed., vol. VIII, p. 258., Dressel Epiphanii edita et inedita. and Tischendorf Acta Apostolorum apocrypha, p. XLV. observe, it must be admitted that Epiphanius relies chiefly on apocryphal Acts; hence, if mention of the episcopate of St. Philologus at Sinope occurs in him, the credit to be given does not on that account increase much; from wherever, therefore, this opinion was drawn, it must be said to be derived from documents that smack of fables.

[8] The cult of SS. Philologus and Patrobas among the Greeks, It remains for us to treat of the cult of SS. Patrobas and Philologus. We have already recited the formula of the menology of Basil at the 5th day of November, while in the Roman martyrology they are named on the 4th day. Their memory is celebrated together with SS. Linus, Hermas and Gaius, who are commemorated on other days in the Latin church. In the synaxarion the following is read; we omit what pertains to SS. Linus, Hermas and Gaius In Bartholomew of Koutloumousiou, Menaeum Novembris, p. 37.:

Τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, μνήμη τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων ἐκ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα Ἑρμᾶ, Πατρόβα, Λίνου, Γαΐου καὶ Φιλολόγου. Στίχ. Ἑρμᾶς, Πατρόβας In the metrical martyrology Siberus writes Πατρωβᾶς. καὶ Γάἳος τρεῖς ἅμα ἀπόστολοι θνήσκουσιν, οἷς Τριὰς [In the same place, instead of οἶς Τριὰς φίλη, the following words are read: εἶς, δὶς, τρὶς, φίλοι.] φίλη

Φιλολόγος φιλῶν σε τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον, πληροῖ λόγους σούς, καὶ θανὼν σύνεστί σοι. Οὗτοι πάντες ὑπῆρχον ἐκ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα μαθητῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Καὶ ὁ μὲν Πατρόβας, οὗ καὶ ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος Παῦλος ἐν ταῖς αὑτοῦ μέμνηται ἐπιστολαῖς ἐπίσκοπος Ποτιόλων ἐγένετο, πολλοὺς βαπτίσας καὶ τῷ Χριστῷ προσαγαγών…

Ὁ δὲ Φιλόλογος (καὶ τούτου μέμνηται) ὑπὸ Ἀνδρέου τοῦ πρωτοκλήτου ἐπίσκοπος Σινώπης κατέστη. Οἵ καὶ πλείστους πειρασμοὺς καὶ θλίψεις διὰ τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον ὑπομείναντες, καὶ πολλοὺς διδάξαντες, καὶ τῷ Χριστῷ προσαγαγόντες, ἐτελειώθησαν ἐν Κυρίῳ.

On the same day, the commemoration of the holy Apostles [Cf. the title of Pseudo-Hippolytus, of whom it has often been spoken: περὶ τῶν ό ἀποστόλων. P. G., vol. X, p. 954.] from among the seventy, Hermas, Patrobas, Linus, Gaius and Philologus.

VERSES. Hermas, Patrobas and Gaius, three Apostles together, die, to whom the Trinity is dear

Philologus, loving you, God the Word, Fulfils your words, and being dead is present with you Cf. Siberus, Ecclesiae graecae martyrologium metricum..

All of these were of the seventy disciples of Christ. And Patrobas indeed, whom the divine Apostle Paul mentions in his epistles, was made bishop of Puteoli, baptizing many and leading them to Christ… But Philologus (he mentions him too) was appointed bishop of Sinope by Andrew the first-called. Having endured very many temptations and afflictions on account of the word of piety, when they had instructed many and brought them to Christ, they rested in the Lord.

The menology of Sirleto is silent about all that is put about concerning the episcopate of SS. Patrobas and Philologus, in which it is certainly to be praised. This is its formula: On the same day The 5th day of November. the commemoration of the holy martyrs Hermas, Linus, Gaius, Philologus and Patrobas, who, distinguished by the confession of the Christian faith, having endured many things on account of piety, and having converted very many to the faith of Christ, rested in the Lord. If SS. Philologus and Patrobas are here adorned with the title of martyrs, although it has not been heard from elsewhere that they poured out their life for Christ, the word can be taken in the wider sense of confessors, as the Greek language allows. Maximus Margunius, in the Lives translated from the synaxaria, reports nothing that is not found in the menaia.

[9] the Slavs Our saints, as was to be expected, are commemorated in the hagiological fasti of the Slavs, both at the 4th and at the 5th of November, but chiefly on the 4th day Ann. eccl. gr.-slav., p. 269, 270.. Hence Fr. Martinov confesses that it remains doubtful for what reason the memory was transferred to the 5th day in the Slavonic menaia Ann. eccl. gr.-slav., p. 270.. Mention of them appears, with SS. Linus, Hermas and Gaius, in the Novgorod codex of the Rumyantsev museum and in the Horologion of Pochaiv.

[10] and the Latins. Among the Latins, no martyrologies present SS. Patrobas and Philologus before the 16th century, at which time the monuments of the Greeks revealed their names. Galesini first, as it seems, in the year 1578, received them, of whom he says, at the 4th day of November: At Puteoli, of St. Patrobas, bishop: who, one of the seventy disciples, having been made bishop of that city, when in the government of his people he had endured many troubles and inconveniences from the gentiles, adversaries of the faith, and by the preaching of the gospel had led very many to the Christian religion, renowned for the praise of his merits, departed to his reward in heaven… Likewise of St. Philologus, bishop. He adds Hermas and Gaius, whom he makes bishops at Philippopolis and Ephesus, but not Linus. The earlier editions of the Roman martyrology, namely those which were published in the years 1583 and 1586, following the Greeks, record SS. Philologus and Patrobas at the 5th day of November; but in the Venetian edition of the year 1584 and in the later Roman ones they are venerated on the 4th day. In his earlier edition His Eminence Cardinal Baronius had noted that the body of St. Patrobas is preserved at Rome in the church of St. Mary Major, but in the following editions this note was struck out.