ON ST. MARK OF JERUSALEM, BISHOP,
ABOUT THE YEAR 150.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Mark, bishop of Jerusalem. (S.)
BY B. B.
§ I. Of the see of Jerusalem and its bishops from the circumcision; the first from the Gentiles, St. Mark.
That the see of Jerusalem, coeval with the very cradle of the Church of Christ, Of the see of Jerusalem, was raised into a patriarchate no one is unaware; although there is no agreement among the learned at what time this was done, at least by right. Papebroch Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, p. XIX, vol. III of May expressly inscribes as first patriarch John, who he notes sat from the year 389 to the year 415. According to Fr. Le Quien Oriens Christianus, vol. III, col. 109 and following: John attempted nothing else against the rights of the metropolitan church of Caesarea except that he strove to usurp clerics not his own, and that he had sometimes appealed to the patriarch of Alexandria, not to the prelate of Caesarea or the bishop of Antioch; but Juvenal (who according to Papebroch's chronology presided from the year 418 to the year 458 As above, p. XXII and following) was the founder of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. And so thereafter most lay it down [Compare Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, under the word Gerusalemme, vol. XXIX, p. 76 and following]. But whether Juvenal really obtained patriarchal rights for his see is doubtful. The first council of Nicaea had laid down in canon VII: Since custom and ancient tradition have obtained that the bishop of Aelia be honoured, let him have the consequence of honour, the proper dignity of the metropolis being preserved. It is plain that only a prerogative of honour is meant, the prerogative of jurisdiction remaining with the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine as metropolitan. Wherefore Juvenal too tried to raise his see higher at the synod of Ephesus, endeavouring to annex to his jurisdiction some parts of the patriarchate of Antioch. In vain, however; namely, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the apostolic see, over which Celestine presided, opposing it [Oriens Christianus, vol. III, col. 112. Cabassut, Notitia ecclesiastica, p. 217. Lyons, 1690]. With a somewhat better outcome he undertook the same again at the council of Chalcedon. Hear Cabassut Ibid.: What Juvenal could not obtain from Cyril and the Synod (of Ephesus, and indeed from Celestine), he obtained from the emperor Theodosius, who by an imperial decree transferred to Juvenal six provinces taken from the patriarch of Antioch, and exalted his see of Aelia with the new dignity of patriarch of Jerusalem, and this, as is asserted in the notes in Devoti, but wrongly Institutiones canonicae, vol. I, p. 179, note 2. Ghent, 1822, with the approval of the apostolic see. Cabassut continues: These provinces were the three Palestines, the two Phoenicias and Arabia. But the Synod of Chalcedon which followed, in Action 7, the emperor Marcian intervening … settled that dispute for ever by a mutual agreement of the parties, that Juvenal and his successors should retain the three Palestines with the title of Patriarch, but the two Phoenicias with Arabia should be restored to Maximus of Antioch… Finally, this Chalcedonian arbitration concerning the two patriarchates the fifth Synod, at the request and persuasion of Justinian, confirmed and strengthened by a new decree. But truly Cabassut is silent that Leo the Great made void that Chalcedonian pact, although it was entered into between Maximus and Juvenal in the presence of the pontifical legates. For thus he writes in letter CXIV, according to the recension of the Ballerini, given on the 21st of March 453 to the holy Synod held at Chalcedon [Works of St. Leo the Great, vol. I, col. 1197. Venice, 1753. Likewise Patrologia, Migne, vol. LIV, col. 1029 and following]: I admonish the observance of your holiness that the rights of the churches remain as they were ordained by those 318 divinely inspired Fathers; … whatever shall have departed from the canons of the aforesaid Fathers will be weak and void. And again in letter CXIX to Maximus of Antioch, of the 11th of June of the same year Works, col. 1217; Patrologia, col. 1045: If anything indeed is alleged to have been done by those brothers whom I sent in my place to the holy Synod, beyond what pertained to the cause of the faith, it will be of no force whatever, because they were sent by the apostolic see only for this, that, heresies being cut off, they should be defenders of the catholic faith… For what disagrees with their (the Nicene Fathers') rules and constitution can never obtain the consent of the apostolic see. The same texts are recited for the same purpose in Le Quien Oriens Christianus, vol. III, col. 115, but in inverted order: for there the letter to Maximus is judged prior in time and written before the return of the Legates; the other, to the Synod, after their return. However that may be, it matters little to our subject.
[2] afterwards increased with the patriarchal dignity, As regards the fifth Synod, in which the Three Chapters were treated, let us remember from the same Cabassut, but in another work Notitia Conciliorum sanctae ecclesiae, p. 354. Louvain, 1776, that, begun with evil beginnings and evil intention, it brought the Church nothing but innumerable dissensions, disasters, vexations, schisms, etc. And since that council was assembled and held against the mind of the supreme pontiff (Vigilius) by the secular power, … no apostolic legate being present, and since Eutychius, bishop of Constantinople, who presided over it by his own authority, subscribed first, it was manifestly an illegitimate and schismatic conventicle, by no means to be reckoned among the councils of the Church, except from the time alone when force accrued to it from apostolic approval, whether after Pope Vigilius, long afflicted with prison and in his reputation and with the miserable slaughter of his followers so that he might be driven to approve it, at length approved it; … or (when the Church was already enjoying greater security and peace) from the approval of the holy Pope Gregory, or from the approval of Nicholas I. To all which is also to be added the approval of the sixth and seventh ecumenical synods [Compare L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 184, and Cabassut, Notitia ecclesiastica, p. 267]. Besides (and this especially concerns our question), the Acts and decrees of the fifth Synod, as Cabassut again says Notitia Conciliorum, p. 355, survive in Latin, in which also he recognizes not a few supposititious things. From which is shown the lavish licence of the Easterners of that age in weaving impostures. Whence Fr. Antoine Tinnebroek of pious memory, our colleague, lately dead in the flower of his age, in a certain manuscript treatise in which he undertakes to demonstrate the Primacy of the Roman pontiff from the ancient ecclesiastical Patriarchates, writes thus, neatly and accurately as was his custom: In the council of Chalcedon, the judges of the council approving, Juvenal entered into a pact with Maximus of Antioch for dividing the patriarchal authority; but St. Leo the Great rescinded the pact with the same power with which he had made void the canon on the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The bishops of Jerusalem, however, seized the three Palestines with the help of the secular arm; and thence until the fourth Lateran council they used a doubtful right. And in very truth, in this council, celebrated in the year 1215 under Pope Innocent III, the see of Jerusalem is expressly decreed to be numbered among the patriarchal churches, in canon V: Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees … we decree that after the Roman church… that of Constantinople hold the first place, that of Alexandria the second, that of Antioch the third, that of Jerusalem the fourth. Other things which are brought forward to prove the patriarchal dignity claimed for the bishops of Jerusalem seem either of doubtful or not sufficiently firm credibility or authority, or prove the fact but not the right Compare Cabassut, Notitia ecclesiastica, p. 444. This further is certain, that the prelates of that see were named first bishops, then at least from Juvenal patriarchs Chronological History, p. 1.
[3] the first bishops Hebrews: A twofold series of the bishops of the see of Jerusalem occurs. The first, fifteen in number, were Jews; the following, beginning from St. Mark, were taken from the Gentiles. Of the former Eusebius relates this Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chap. 5. Valesius. Mainz, 1672: The times of those bishops who presided at Jerusalem I have nowhere been able to find. For all of them (except indeed SS. James and Symeon) are said to have sat for a very short time. This, however, I have learned from the monuments of ancient writers, that up to that siege of the Jews which happened in the reign of Hadrian, fifteen bishops presided over that church in continuous succession: all of whom they record to have been Hebrews by origin, and to have received the faith of Christ sincerely and from the heart; so that they were judged most worthy of the episcopal office by those who could pass judgement on matters of this kind. For at that time the whole church of Jerusalem was made up of Hebrew believers, who had continued from the age of the apostles up to that siege in which the Jews, again revolting from the Romans, were subdued and conquered in very great battles. Consequently, since the bishops who were of the circumcision ceased at that time, I think it necessary to list all of them in their order from the first to the last. The first, then, was James, he who was called the brother of the Lord. The second Symeon: the third Justus (by St. Epiphanius he is called Judas): the fourth Zacchaeus: the fifth Tobias: the sixth Benjamin: the seventh John: the eighth Matthias: the ninth Philip: tenth Seneca was put in, whom Justus succeeded as eleventh. After whom Levi was twelfth in order. Ephres (in Epiphanius Vaphris)
followed next, after him Joseph (in Epiphanius Josis, and in the Chronicle Joses); last of all was Judas, fifteenth in order. And these are altogether the bishops of Jerusalem who from the apostles down to Judas and to those times which we have indicated were all of the circumcision ἐκ περιτομῆς. In the same order and with the same names they are likewise listed by the same Eusebius in the Chronicle Jerome, ed. Vallarsi, Patrologia, vol. XXVII (of which I shall say some things below): namely at the year of Christ 63: James the brother of the Lord … is crushed with stones by the Jews: to whose throne Simeon, who is also Simon, is taken up as second Ibid., col. 585 and 586; at the year 109: Simon, son of Cleophas, who held the bishopric at Jerusalem, is crucified, whom Justus succeeds Ibid., col. 607 and 608; the rest are named at the year 113 Ibid., col. 609 and 610 and at the year 126 Ibid., col. 615 and 616. St. Epiphanius agrees Heresy 66, Works of St. Epiphanius, vol. II, pp. 264 and 266. Paris, 1622, with only a very few letters varied, which I have noted above. (Compare below, where the years of St. Mark's episcopate are treated.) If, therefore, we suppose that Justus died in the year 115, in which some of his successors are listed in the Chronicle, from then until the year 126, in which Eusebius in the same place records the overthrow of Jerusalem by Hadrian, there will be an interval of thirteen years, in which twelve bishops in all would have sat, certainly for a very short time. Indeed, as Fr. Marcellinus Molkenbuhr has it [Dissertation on the series of the first bishops from Eusebius of Caesarea, p. 17. Münster in Westphalia, 1794], if Simeon died in the year of the common era 116 (as Pagi contends), and the second destruction of Jerusalem, made under Hadrian, fell in the year 134, then in a space of 18 years 13 bishops would have sat at Jerusalem, and all circumcised. From which, as also from certain other things of even lighter moment, he concludes that the history of Eusebius, in this place as in many others, was interpolated. This I for my part cannot admit, as far as the present matter is concerned, especially since Eusebius himself guards against the objected difficulty, and there is complete agreement between the History and the Chronicle. Which Binterim also observes: Whether, he says Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. III, part I, p. 226, the learned man's (Molkenbuhr's) arguments have the weight due according to sound criticism I greatly doubt. For it is not so unlikely to me that in so great a disturbance of Jewish, and especially of Jerusalem, affairs, so many bishops sat in so short a space of time, who probably were raised to this dignity when already advanced in age.
[4] St. Mark, the first from the Gentiles. These things having been touched on beforehand in general concerning the see of Jerusalem and its first bishops, we come to the election of St. Mark, who begins the other series of prelates, namely of those taken from the Gentiles. How it was made the same Eusebius fully relates Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chap. 6, p. 118: When the revolt of the Jews again grew more and more (Jerusalem had been destroyed under Vespasian and Titus, but was gradually being reborn from its ashes Baillet, Vies des Saints, on 22 Oct., p. 341), Rufus, the governor of Judaea, reinforcements having been sent to him by the emperor (Hadrian), turning the madness and desperation of the men into an occasion for cruelty, punished them most bitterly, an innumerable multitude of men being slain with their wives and children, and their land being reduced by right of war into the dominion of the Roman people. The leader of the Jews at that time was a certain Barchochebas, which name signifies a star, a man in other respects bloodthirsty and greedy for robbery, but who by his name imposed upon his hearers, as being the vilest of slaves, as though he were a star fallen from heaven to bring light to them, oppressed under a mass of hardships. At length in the eighteenth year of the reign of Hadrian, when the whole force of the war had blazed up around Bether, a very strongly fortified city not far distant from Jerusalem, and the siege having been protracted for a long time by the Romans, the rebels were overcome by hunger and thirst, and the author of the sedition himself had paid the due penalty, from that time thenceforth the whole nation of the Jews was forbidden by the law and constitution of the emperor Hadrian to set foot in the region situated around Jerusalem; so that it was not permitted them even to look upon their native soil from afar, as Aristo of Pella writes. When, therefore, in this manner the city had been stripped of the nation of the Jews and entirely emptied of its old inhabitants, and afterwards foreigners flowed in there, being made a city and colony of Roman citizens, it was called Aelia in honour of the emperor Aelius Hadrian. And since the church of the same place had grown together out of the Gentiles, the first after the bishops of the circumcision ἐκ περιτομῆς to take up the priesthood of that city was Mark. Thus far Eusebius. Le Quien notes, however Oriens Christianus, vol. III, col. 103, that the expression ἐκ περιτομῆς, which St. Epiphanius also uses, signifies that those bishops were Hebrews not only by race but also by manner of life; inasmuch as they showed themselves tenacious observers of certain Mosaic laws, and especially of circumcision, according to what the apostles had formerly permitted their forebears, although in the synod of Jerusalem the same apostles had declared the Gentiles who believed in Christ free from almost all of them, and especially from circumcision Compare the Acts of the Apostles, chap. XXI, v. 30 and following… Their descendants, therefore, even after the overthrow of Jerusalem, did not altogether depart from their ancestral rites, which, however, they did not assert to be necessary, after the manner of the Ebionites, for gaining eternal salvation. Sulpicius Severus also writes [Sacred History, book II, num. 31. Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. XX, col. 147. Paris, 1845]: At that time the church of Jerusalem had no priest except from the circumcision. And a little after: then almost all believed Christ to be God under the observance of the law; and he adds: thus then for the first time Mark from the Gentiles was bishop at Jerusalem. Compare Tillemont Mémoires, vol. II, p. 391 and following. Paris, 1701 and Baillet Vies des Saints, as above.
§ II. Of the years of the episcopate of St. Mark from the Chronicle of Eusebius, whose editions before and after the finding of the Haykan codex are reviewed. St. Mark is wrongly held by some to be a martyr. His office and mass.
Notice of the Eusebian Chronicle About the years in which St. Mark presided there is no agreement among writers. Papebroch notes in the margin Chronological History, p. XI: from the year 135 to the year 156, which agrees fairly well with the Chronicle of Eusebius, as I shall show more explicitly a little later, after I have said something by way of preface about the Chronicle itself. Which I have thought should be done, both because certain things, since the Vallarsi edition of the works of St. Jerome was then lacking to me, I set out less distinctly in the previous volume of our Acts on the 19th of October in the Preliminary Commentary on SS. Ptolemy and Companions, n. 42 and following, and because today I have in hand not only this, but absolutely all the more excellent editions of the Chronicle, but especially those three which, the Armenian text having been used, were prepared in this current nineteenth century. I make a beginning from the accurate description of Eusebius's work, which in past centuries it was possible to give neither entire nor sufficiently reliable, because before the recent discovery of the Armenian codex we had only a part of the Chronicle, and that not altogether genuine. Let us hear Aucher, an Armenian monk and Mechitarist doctor, of whose industry and diligence more will have to be said below. Eusebius, he says [The bipartite Chronicle of Eusebius, now for the first time translated into Latin from the Armenian text. Venice, 1818, preface, pp. II and III], having undertaken the work of the Chronicle, which now appears entire for the first time from the Armenian codex, embraced, as in a small table, the deeds of all nations and peoples: which he so arranged through the series of times that anyone might see even at a single glance in what age of the world each nation flourished, in what year of the world the several empires, cities and commonwealths were founded, by what increments they grew, at what time they ceased. And the reckonings of the times being carefully computed, he demonstrates that nothing can be found either more excellent or more ancient than the Mosaic origins, he who, since he preceded the Trojan war by almost 850 years, is to be held not only the most ancient of all writers, but far older than the very fabulous gods of the Greeks. And in the first book indeed (for he distributed the whole work into two volumes), beginning from Adam himself, the parent of our race, he reviewed singly the history and times of each empire or nation, and therefore it could be called παντοδαπὴν ἱστωρίαν, that is, history of every kind; but in the second, the beginning of the reckoning being taken from the age of Abraham, and the annals of the same nations being set out in certain columns, he so arranged those columns or tables with one another that it should be plain at the first glance to what year of another nation or kingdom the several years of one nation corresponded; and this part of his work, by far the most laborious, he named χρονικοῦς κανόνας, or with a simple word κανόνα. Then Aucher adds Ibid. that this chronography, in the course of the same century in which it had been written by Eusebius, namely in the reign of Theodosius the Great, St. Jerome communicated to men of the Latin tongue, who, however, discharging the office of interpreter (nay, elsewhere he says that he is either an interpreter or the founder of a new work [Preface to the book On the situation and names of Hebrew places. Migne's Patrologia, vol. XIII, col. 860]) and in part of a writer, passed over the first book, as it seems to us, untouched, and translated the Canon alone: but some things which seemed to him left out he added, especially in Roman history; and that Armenia received the same, scarcely a century having elapsed from the death of the author (Eusebius), translated into the Haykan tongue; so translated, however, that the Armenian copy corresponded exactly to the Greek archetype Preface, §2, p. VI and following. Below Aucher proves expressly that the Armenian version was made in the fifth century Ibid., p. IX, num. 4, and was elaborated diligently and laboriously, so that not only do sentences correspond exactly to sentences, but very often words also to words Ibid., §5, p. XIV, num. 1; finally he brings forward reasons Vallarsi, Works of St. Jerome, Migne, vol. XXVII, p. 10 by which he is persuaded that the Canon alone was translated by St. Jerome, and notes that Girolamo da Prato agrees with him, and indeed that the chief argument of his (da Prato's) Dissertation is occupied in demonstrating this point, namely that Two books On the times were published by Eusebius, and this against Vallarsi; but that St. Jerome translated only one of them, which is against Scaliger and many others. This further is certain, that the first part of the Eusebian Chronicle, if indeed it was ever translated by St. Jerome, has long since perished. Since, therefore, the text of Eusebius had been lost and the Armenian version lay hidden, only Jerome's translation of the Canon was known to the learned, which, until Vallarsi, was lacking in the collections of the works
of the holy Doctor. Martianay indeed had undertaken to do this; but he lost heart when, on the very threshold, he noticed how great and how entangled a business it would give him [The same, ibid. Compare Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. VII, p. 338 and following, ed. Harles].
[6] and the various editions, before The book, however, had been printed separately several times; but the old editions are disfigured with every kind of fault Works of St. Jerome, as above; in the year 1604, however, there appeared at Bordeaux, under the title: The Chronicles of three illustrious men (Eusebius, SS. Jerome and Prosper) from 28 manuscripts, 8 editions, etc., by the labour and care of Arnaud de Pontac, bishop of Bazas in Aquitaine; which edition is said by Vallarsi to be most diligently prepared Ibid., p. 31, and by Jean Morin to be the most correct of all and deservedly to be preferred to the others (and so to Scaliger's) Aucher, preface, p. XV. We shall see, however, that not so much praise is to be attributed to it. Two years after Pontac, Joseph Scaliger, namely in the year 1606, published it afresh at Leiden; which he afterwards thought of reprinting enlarged and adorned with new care; but, prevented by death, he could not bring the matter to completion; and Alexander Morus did this at Amsterdam in the year 1658. Further, the whole work, whether Scaliger himself or Morus who published it, entitled the Thesaurus temporum, and it was at once received by the learned with great applause, especially on account of the huge selection of Greek fragments of Eusebius, which Scaliger had plucked from every side and had subjoined in such abundance that he seemed to have restored the entire text of Eusebius, long desired and sought in vain Ibid., p. XXII, nay, he himself, according to his custom, boasted rather vaingloriously that he had exhibited, if not the body itself, yet something not altogether unlike what had been set up by the author (Eusebius). But when the matter was examined more deeply and more accurately, as much praise as accrued to Scaliger's industry from the collected Greek fragments, so much was taken away from Scaliger's trustworthiness by their corruption and confusion Ibid., p. XVIII. After Scaliger no one was found, up to the middle of the past eighteenth century, who gave labour worthy of particular memory to illustrating the chronography of Eusebius. Then indeed Vallarsi again undertook to publish and illustrate the Eusebian Chronicle in volume VIII of the works of St. Jerome; he illustrated it with annotations, added Greek fragments from Syncellus and others (namely for the Canon alone), not, however, collected rashly and piecemeal from anywhere with Scaliger's licence, but drawn from where they seemed in some way to correspond to the Jerome–Eusebian canon, the places of the authors from which he had drawn them being also faithfully indicated (which Scaliger had omitted) [Compare the Preface to the books of the Chronicles of Eusebius from the Haykan codex, edited by Angelo Mai and Zohrab. Milan, 1818, p. XVI]. Having rejected, therefore, the Scaliger edition, he followed Pontac's. Vallarsi, however, is to be blamed, both because he constantly carps at Scaliger's reading, and for the most part uses those codices which depart further from Scaliger, although they are very far from the true reading Aucher, as above; and especially because he counts among Scaliger's fictions and dreams the first part of the chronographic work, mentioned again and again by Eusebius himself P. XI, num. 1. And this hallucination of Vallarsi did not escape the critics. For scarcely had his Chronicle appeared when straightway Girolamo da Prato, provost of the Oratory of Verona, wrote and published in the year 1750 a dissertation on the chronicles of Eusebius of Caesarea against the singular opinion of the man; in which he weighs the system both of Scaliger and of Vallarsi and refutes both at once with the strongest weights of reasons, and sets forth against both those things which, now that the genuine work of Eusebius has been discovered, have been found to be most true and most certain.
[7] and after the finding of the Armenian codex. Having obtained, then, so great and so singular a monument of antiquity … Aucher formed the plan of translating it into Latin, applying himself chiefly to this, that that codex, to be valued against gold, should come into the hands of learned men just as it had come forth from the ancient copyist Ibid., num. 11. Therefore, when in the year 1787 a certain George the lector … a man most learned among the Armenians, had communicated to us by letter the knowledge of a most precious codex lately brought to Constantinople, we wrote back at once to the most learned man that it would be most welcome to us if he would send us to Venice a copy of that codex, written out as correctly as possible with his own hand… When I had received it and had compared it with the Eusebian Chronicle published by Scaliger, straightway a certain suspicion arose in me that the copy sent to us did not altogether correspond to that ancient codex Ibid., p. XII. George, warned on this matter, undertook another transcription, and sent it to Aucher at Venice together with a letter dated the 25th of July 1795, in which he freely confessed that that former copy, which he had sent three years before, had been interpolated by him; and this in order to comply with a certain Gennadius, a Greek Metropolitan, who had persuaded him that it ought to be brought into line with Scaliger's edition. But into this new transcription he had introduced nothing foreign, nothing alien or adventitious; but had represented the most ancient codex itself in good faith and exactly, not only as to the words, but also according to all its conditions with diligent care, down to syllables, accents and points. These are the very words of George. But the disturbances that followed and the common calamities of all Europe brought it about P. XIII that, the publication of the work being put off, Aucher, having gone to Constantinople at the beginning of the nineteenth century and stayed there seven years, saw Rhedestonius, who had brought the codex from Jerusalem, as also George the Lector, and conferred much with them about the codex, which he was able to look over at leisure and examine most diligently not once only or twice but many times, and to emend what had crept into the second copy through thoughtlessness or ignorance. In which matter, adds Aucher Ibid., I could never sufficiently admire the diligence of George, who, with very few exceptions, which either carelessness let slip or human nature too little guarded against, had so reproduced that codex that, as they say, egg could scarcely be so like to egg. Finally he concludes in these words Ibid.: the work which I had undertaken many years before, I had finished in the year 1815; it was given to the press in the year 1818 in a double format, in quarto and in folio, as it is called; of which the second (this we use) was more purged of the printer's errors, and is Armenian-Greek-Latin, and appeared from the press of the monastery of the Armenian Fathers on the island of St. Lazarus at Venice. Read the title below [The bipartite Chronicle of Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea, now for the first time translated into Latin from the Armenian text, enlarged with annotations and adorned with Greek fragments, by the labour of Fr. John Baptist Aucher of Ancyra, Armenian monk and Mechitarist doctor]. A few months before there had appeared at Milan a Latin version from the same codex, by the joint care of Angelo Mai and John Zohrab, a pupil of the Armenian college of Venice. How this came about Aucher will teach Aucher, p. XIX: This would also be the place to speak of a certain very recent Latin edition of Milan borrowed from this Armenian-Latin-Greek copy: but since the studious reader can test it for himself against our genuine reading, it seems superfluous to us to labour over an obvious matter. It will be enough at present to note that it was derived from that former copy, which we said had been interpolated by George the copyist, brought to Milan without our knowledge, I being absent from Venice, some things meanwhile being corrected from the other sounder copy which we afterwards received from the same George Ibid., p. XIX. Receive the rest pertaining to this matter from Angelo Mai in the Preface to the second and so the very last edition of all of the Eusebian Chronicle [Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, edited by Angelo Mai, Vatican press, 1836, vol. VIII, p. V]: After the finding of the first book of the Chronicles of Eusebius, which the old Latins never had, the Greeks had long desired, and the Armenians at last restored to the world, only two editions of the whole work were prepared, namely the Milanese and the Venetian: which, made in separate places and by separate studies, differ more than once from one another; but neither is either polished to a nicety or perfect: although I willingly give the chief honour to the Venetian edition (namely Aucher's) on account of the accompaniment of the Armenian text and of learned scholia. This being so, I have always wished at length to prepare a third edition, which should join together all the good things of the previous ones, the blunders being excluded; which is to be said especially of the first book, which rests on the authority of a single Armenian codex and the support of Greek fragments… I have thought it worth while, therefore, to make the whole Chronicle of Eusebius more entire, more correct and fuller in this new edition: namely to polish and reform the first book by comparison of the two editions, by some critical observations, by philological study and assiduity; the second, not only to increase with the Eusebian fragments omitted by the Armenian interpreter (both in the Venetian and in the Milanese the additions of St. Jerome are lacking, and the very text of Eusebius, taken from the Haykan codex alone, is neither entire nor pure; for the Armenian interpreter omitted not a few of the genuine fragments of Eusebius Ibid.), but also to heap up with the learned labours of Jerome, and, what was of the first importance, relying on the help of so many Vatican codices (more than twenty), to endow it with an altogether new reading. And from these things it is sufficiently seen why this second edition has been inserted in Migne's newest patrology of the Greeks Vol. XIX. Paris, 1857; in the Latin, among the works of St. Jerome, Vallarsi's has been reprinted with Pontac's notes Patrologia Latina, vol. XXVII. Paris, 1846. Now let us return to St. Mark, and see what can be established from the Chronicle of Eusebius about the years of his episcopate.
[8] From the Chronicle it is not plainly established about the years of St. Mark; In Vallarsi's Eusebius, at the 18th year of the emperor Hadrian, of Christ 136, and finally the third of the 228th Olympiad, there is noted Patrologia, Migne, Works of St. Jerome, vol. VIII, col. 619 the end of the Jewish war, and it is added: At Jerusalem Mark is appointed the first bishop from the Gentiles, those who had been from the Jews ceasing; and in the 18th year of Titus Antoninus, of Christ 157, the third of the 233rd Olympiad Ibid., col. 623: Cassianus, 17th, took up the bishopric of Jerusalem after Mark, after whom Publius was 18th, whom Maximus succeeds as 19th, etc. There is therefore a space of 21 years between the two limits; whence, if it be supposed that Cassianus succeeded St. Mark without delay, it will follow that the latter sat for 21 years in all. The Scaliger recension agrees fairly well, where the end of the Jewish war is ascribed Thesaurus temporum, p. 167 to the 18th year of Hadrian, of Christ 135; Mark to the 19th year of the former, the 136th of the latter; Cassianus Ibid., p. 169 to the 19th year of Titus Antoninus, of Christ 157. Consequently, as regards Mark, complete agreement is found. It is otherwise in Mai's chronicle of Eusebius, where Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, vol. VIII, p. 386 at the 20th year of Hadrian, of Christ 137, the first of the 229th Olympiad, one reads: At Jerusalem
Mark is appointed the first bishop from the Gentiles for 16 years (rather Mark 16th, and the word years is to be struck out, as I shall say a little below), those who had been of the circumcision ceasing. To the preceding year is attached the end of the Jewish war. So too in the Venetian edition of Aucher P. 161 and the Milanese of Mai and Zohrab P. 384, with which Samuel of Ani agrees Temporum ratio, p. 35. Then in Mai's Roman edition, at the 23rd year of Titus Antoninus, of Christ 161, the first of the 235th Olympiad Scriptorum veterum, vol. VIII, p. 387: At Jerusalem Cassianus takes up the bishopric after Mark as seventeenth; and Aucher's Venetian edition again agrees in the years of the Olympiads and of Antoninus P. 161. Different in these, therefore, from Vallarsi and Scaliger are the Olympiads, different the years of the emperors, and the years of Christ also disagree. Besides, from the election of Mark to the election of Cassianus (if indeed this really took place in that year in which mention is made of him in Eusebius) not sixteen years but rather twenty-four would have to be counted; which no one else had said hitherto. It is to be noted, however, that the Milanese edition differs from Mai's Roman edition, and Samuel likewise: the former P. 385 refers Cassianus to the second year of the 234th Olympiad, the 21st year of Titus Antoninus; the latter P. 36 to the third year of the 235th Olympiad, of Christ 160, of Titus Antoninus 21: yet by the reckoning of both twenty-one years run from Mark to Cassianus. Moreover, that the text where St. Mark is treated is corrupted I for my part should not doubt, although it is rendered in exactly the same way in the Roman, the Venetian and the Milanese, and consequently is so read in the Haykan codex. From which, however, it follows only that either the original Armenian interpreter of Eusebius slipped, or the copy which either George or Aucher used was faulty. Compare above num. 7. In place, therefore, of Mark for 16 years, one must put: Mark 16th, as he really comes among the bishops of Jerusalem, and strike out the word years. Otherwise neither does the passage hang together properly, nor does it agree with the other places of Eusebius in which he lists the sacred prelates of the same city: for a number indicating the order of succession is constantly ascribed by him, but nowhere are the years added, how many each sat. Why should Eusebius have used another method in Mark alone, and that in order to put forward things manifestly conflicting with one another? Since he who would be noted as having presided 16 years would, from the numbers of the Olympiads and the emperors ascribed, have had twenty-four years of pontificate in all. For the rest, the years set down by Pontac, Scaliger and Vallarsi please me better, because they seem more conformable to the Jerome-Eusebian canon. Nor should I think that the place in question here was tested or emended against its Vatican manuscript codices in Cardinal Mai's later edition, since that place is rendered in exactly the same words in the threefold chronicle printed after the Armenian version was found. Besides, as I noted, in the Milanese edition and in Samuel's Ratio twenty-one years are also counted from Mark to Cassianus.
[9] and it is uncertain when it ended, Nor yet do I assume as certain that St. Mark presided for about twenty-one years; especially because it is not established from Eusebius's very manner of speaking that he died in the year in which mention is made of Cassianus. For, as Tillemont has already remarked Histoire des Empereurs, vol. II, p. 237. In folio. Brussels, 1732, from this indeed it follows that Cassianus then held the see of Jerusalem, not that he succeeded St. Mark precisely in that year. Indeed, since he notes several bishops together under the same year: Cassianus, 17th, takes up the bishopric of Jerusalem after Mark, after whom Publius was 18th, whom Maximus succeeds as 19th… Capito 25th Vallarsi, vol. VIII, col. 623 and 624; it is not absurd to conclude that Eusebius did not know the years of succession; just as he certainly did not know (for he himself confesses it) in what years the prelates presided from Simeon or Justus down to Mark, whom therefore he assigns as it were in two groups, the one at the year 113, from Justus, 3rd, to Philip, 9th Ibid., col. 609 and 610; the other at the year 126, from Philip, 9th, to Judas, 15th, adding: all these presided as bishops from the circumcision up to the overthrow which Jerusalem suffered from Hadrian Ibid., col. 615 and 616. Add that Nicephorus Callistus expressly affirms that the times of these bishops were not committed to writing [Ecclesiastical History, book III, chap. 25. Edited by Fronton du Duc. Paris, 1630, vol. I, p. 258]. Why should not the same be said of the successor bishops of St. Mark, very many of whom Eusebius also heaps together in the Ecclesiastical History Book V, chap. 12, p. 314? If this be admitted, it will follow that it is not sufficiently established from Eusebius that he continued in the see of Jerusalem up to the hundred and fifty-sixth or seventh year, to which Cassianus and several others, as we have said, are ascribed in the chronicle. Nothing therefore prevents anyone from admitting that St. Mark died before the year in which Cassianus is noted to have flourished; and consequently an episcopate of 16 years, as is found in Mai's Eusebius according to the Armenian codex, as we saw above, is not to be held altogether absurd. Indeed in the Greek text of Eusebius in Scaliger (which he published here under the title χρονικῶν λόγος) only eight years are given to Mark: πρώτος δ᾽ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἐπίσκοπος Ιεροσολύμων Μαρκος ἔτη η᾽ Thesaurus temporum, p. 81. I know that this farrago of Scaliger is not much esteemed by the learned. Yet here George Syncellus [Chronographia, vol. I, pp. 662 and 663. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae, Rome, 1829] and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople Chronographia compendiaria. Ibid., p. 765, agree: each similarly reduces St. Mark's episcopate to eight years. Of course, neither is the authority of these so great as to settle the matter. Certainly of Nicephorus (nor is Syncellus to be valued more) our Petau, where he treats of his catalogue with the years of the several prelates, writes thus Works of St. Epiphanius, vol. II, pp. 264 and 266. Paris, 1622: Whence Nicephorus fished out the years of each I cannot divine. That they are very badly conceived, however, is not doubtful. First of all he gives James 26 years, Symeon 23: both of which are false, as is proved by many. Petau adds lower down that according to Eusebius's chronicle St. Mark sat 22 years. And this he says, by the same labour, as he puts it, correcting Nicephorus and St. Epiphanius: for it is known that the latter was published by Petau with animadversions. Further, Epiphanius, Heresy LXVI Ibid., vol. I, p. 636, weaves a List of the bishops of Jerusalem of still less value than Nicephorus's catalogue. Besides, as Tillemont rightly observes Histoire des Empereurs, vol. II, p. 237, Epiphanius tried to distinguish the times somewhat more distinctly indeed than Eusebius: but since his text swarms with blunders or errors, no proof can be drawn from it. And even if it were more correct, no light would shine on our subject, since it runs only through certain years of the emperors. It remains doubtful, therefore, in what year St. Mark ended his office or his life; and already on that head the years of his pontificate are uncertain.
[10] when his episcopate began: But another difficulty also, a lesser one indeed, arises about its beginning, which is tied to the last ruin of Jerusalem under Hadrian; and about this again there is not one opinion among the learned. First of all Scaliger Thesaurus temporum. Animadversions, p. 212 asserts too confidently, not to say, as is his custom, too boldly, that this destruction is imaginary. For what reason, as Tillemont rightly replies Histoire des Empereurs, vol. II, p. 236, could induce us to reject the testimony of Eusebius, St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom and Appian, who expressly affirm it? But if that destruction cannot reasonably be called into doubt, its time is not so easily determined. Tillemont will have it Ibid., in the chronological table, pp. 258 and 259 that the last rebellion of the Jews began in the year of Christ 134, in which Jerusalem too was again levelled to the ground; that the war then blazed for three whole years, so that in the year of Christ 136 the perfidious nation was slaughtered to destruction; and finally that in the year of Christ 137 the city was rebuilt, which was also called Aelia Capitolina from its founder; and that in the same year (or the following, as he says in another place Ibid., p. 237) St. Mark was elected, who consequently would have sat twenty-one years. So Tillemont, writing elsewhere Ibid., p. 124 that the election of St. Mark is not to be put off beyond the year of Christ 138, and that his episcopate was of eighteen or twenty years according to Eusebius's chronicle, adding, however, that nothing certain can be established on this matter. According to our Petau Rationarium temporum, p. 188. Amsterdam, 1710 the end of the Jewish war falls in the year of Christ 135, in which Hadrian entered the twentieth year of his reign. And so further others set down other years, differing from one another by about three years.
[11] It is doubtful, therefore, both as regards the beginnings and as regards the end of that pontificate. It is more commonly assumed (for it cannot be proved) that it was of twenty-one years, most give him 21 years. standing, namely, by the Eusebian reading, which seems more accurate. So Papebroch Chronological History, p. XI: In the 19th year of the emperor Hadrian (rather the 18th according to Le Quien Oriens Christianus, vol. III, col. 145), of Christ 135, Pompeianus Lupercus (read, by Noris's correction, Pontianus [Epistola consularis. Apparatus of Baronius, p. 208. L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 528]) and Lucius Junius Atticus Acilianus (according to Noris As above, without any forename, Atilianus or Atelanus) being Consuls, Mark is appointed the first from the Gentiles at Jerusalem … and sat until the consulate of Silvanus and Augurinus, that is, until the year of Christ 156. (He adds, however, that by Nicephorus and others at least 8 years are counted.) So also Le Quien in the place cited; so the chronicle of Eusebius, as we saw above, in the editions of Pontac, Scaliger, Vallarsi, and the Milanese of Mai and Zohrab; likewise Samuel of Ani and the Benedictines L'Art de vérifier les dates, p. 240: According to Tillemont he was ordained in the year of Christ 138: it is not known in what year he died.
[13] His memory almost only in the martyrologies; Of Mark of Jerusalem, says Sollerius Martyrology of Usuard, p. 619, the first among the Martyrologists to speak is the author of the Little Roman, from his usual source Rufinus, in these words: "At Jerusalem, of Mark, who was made the first bishop there from the Gentiles." Our Rosweyde notes in the margin, in his Old Roman which for Sollerius is the Little Roman), that in the manuscript Mark and
Salome are announced on the 21st of October, while the 22nd is vacant; but that Ado and all put both on this latter day. And Sollerius continues thus: The man of Vienne (Ado) in the first place composes a brief eulogy for Mark, which is taken in some part from the place cited (of Rufinus Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chap. 7. Rome, 1740, part I, p. 185). From Ado our Usuard took all his material; which Notker also did, but on the preceding day. Further, Usuard has in the second place: Likewise of blessed Mark, bishop, a most illustrious and most learned man, who first from the Gentiles took up the government of the church of Jerusalem, and not long after merited the palm of martyrdom. The Roman agrees, except that in it Mark occurs in the first place, and he is asserted to have suffered under the emperor Antoninus. For the rest, the words a most illustrious and most learned man seem to have flowed from Ado into other martyrologies: for they are found neither in Eusebius, nor in Rufinus, nor in the Eusebian and Hieronymian Chronicles praised by us above; nor indeed in Nicephorus Callistus Ecclesiastical History, as above, pp. 259 and 314, who flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, vol. VII, p. 437. Papebroch in the often-mentioned Chronological History P. XI adds from Theodoric Pauli: This St. Mark began by his faith and industry to gather together and rule the church of Jerusalem, scattered by great terror, because the city of Jerusalem, having passed into the jurisdiction of the Romans, entirely changed its rite and its name. I have no doubt that Theodoric or Theoderic Pauli is that writer of Gorinchem of the fifteenth century, as Fabricius has it Bibliotheca mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. VI, p. 228. Padua, 1754, whose manuscript universal chronicle the Jesuits of Antwerp (the Bollandists) possess, as they themselves testify in vol. II of March, p. 641. I should not think it afterwards came out to light; nor is the manuscript now in my hands. Finally, that I may omit nothing of what occurs about our holy Pontiff in approved writers, Binterim suspects that St. Mark was ordained by the bishop of Caesarea, which, after Jerusalem was overthrown, was the chief city of Palestine …; perhaps also St. Mark had previously been a presbyter of the church of Caesarea Denkwürdigkeiten, vol. III, part I, p. 227.
[14] Very few things, therefore, have come down to us about St. Mark. Indeed, I have scarcely any doubt that he is wrongly called a martyr. First of all, says Papebroch As above, nor about martyrdom the martyrologists, and others after them, err when they write that not long after his ordination he merited the palm of martyrdom: for by Jerome 21 years are given, while by Nicephorus and others at least 8 years are counted. This at any rate is certain, that there is nothing from which it may be concluded that St. Mark died a little after obtaining the pontifical dignity, unless one would have it that that octennium of Nicephorus can not absurdly be so interpreted; which itself, as we have seen, is at least very uncertain, nay even merely supposititious. Then, as regards the martyrdom, it is at the very least doubtful, says Sollerius Martyrology of Usuard, p. 619; and according to Papebroch As above it finds difficult credence, especially on account of the silence of Eusebius, who, most solicitously seeking out the passions of the martyrs, supplied the material for writing the Hieronymian martyrology. Nor is Eusebius alone in not numbering St. Mark among the martyrs, but neither do Rufinus nor all the other writers praised above, as also the Little Roman; so that the first who calls him a martyr is Ado, whom Usuard followed, from whom our Roman drew. And hence Papebroch is to be marked with some asterisk where he asserts that all except Eusebius have spoken of the martyrdom of St. Mark. I confess that that silence of the more ancient writers weighs so much with me that the assertion of a more recent age is rendered more than doubtful to me. Why do they not say from what sources they drew such things? If these are lacking, there is no reason why any credence should be given to one who asserts and does not prove.
[15] is established There is also another kind of argument, thus rendered by our Papebroch in the same place: Already some years before, by a public edict of the emperor himself, the persecution of the Christians had been restrained, and it is scarcely credible that there was more obstinate cruelty at Jerusalem than at Rome. Baronius referred that edict to the year 155, because he thought that St. Telesphorus, pope and martyr, lived until then: but from the ancient catalogues of the Roman pontiffs, very well arranged by the yearly consuls before our April volume, St. Telesphorus was crowned in the year of Christ 138, Caesar and Balbinus being consuls. Here, however, a most involved question is raised, concerning the chronology of the Roman pontiffs, for re-treating which this is not the place. Let it suffice to have recited what serves to determine the value of Papebroch's argument. It is to be recalled to memory, therefore, that Henschenius prefixed to our first volume of April a Diatribe on the old catalogues of the Roman pontiffs, in which the author undertook to establish the chronological succession from the very beginning of the whole pontificate, Jesus Christ, down to St. Julius (in the year 353), and that, as regards the first vicars of Christ, not a little different from the chronology of Baronius, as may be seen at a single glance from the table drawn up there for this purpose Acta SS., vol. I of April, p. XXXVII. Papebroch agrees with Henschenius in his chronico-historical essay on the catalogue of the pontiffs Propylaeum of May. Now both tie the death of St. Telesphorus to the year of Christ 138, after a pontificate of eleven years; while Baronius, says Henschenius Diatribe, p. 22, we know not for what reason, moved the martyrdom of St. Telesphorus as far as the year 154: and refers his election to the month of April of the year 142 Annals, vol. II, p. 158. Pagi notes Ibid., p. 193 that Telesphorus did not reach these times, and ascribes his death to the year 137, and is consequently not far from Henschenius, with whom most other writers have also agreed. But José de Novaes, whose History of the pontiffs, recently published Elementi della storia de' sommi Pontefici. Rome, 1821, was received by the learned with no ordinary applause, restored the chronology of Baronius, by now almost obsolete, and in particular holds that St. Telesphorus sat from the year 142 to the year 154 Ibid., vol. I, pp. 43 and 45. From this dissension of the learned it follows that Papebroch's argument does not stand so firm. I confess, however, that his and Henschenius's chronology is more approved by me; for otherwise it would not be true, what writers generally affirm [Compare Pagi, in the place cited; likewise Papebroch in the chronico-historical essay, p. 21], that Telesphorus sat in the time of the emperor Hadrian. But as regards that edict of the Emperor, referred by Baronius, as Papebroch asserts, to the year 155, Pagi observes Annals of Baronius, vol. II, pp. 194 and 195 that the edict for restraining the persecution has divided writers into two parties. Baronius, Halloix and Papebroch on the 13th day of April (in the Life of St. Justin) contend that it was issued by Antoninus Pius; on the other hand Valesius thinks that Eusebius erred, who attributes that edict or letter to Antoninus Pius Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chaps. 12 and 13, since it is of M. Aurelius…, whose (Valesius's) opinion is to be preferred. From these things it is sufficiently clear that Papebroch's argument, drawn from the emperor's edict, is not sufficiently binding, since there is so great a discrepancy among the learned. For the rest, a martyrdom would easily be explained even without any edict, namely from the inveterate hatred of the Jews against the Christians, of which see more in the preceding volume Acta SS., vol. VIII of October, p. 23. Which hatred indeed one may believe blazed more vehemently against St. Mark, who was the first bishop from the Gentiles. But there remains the silence of Eusebius and the more ancient writers about St. Mark's martyrdom, which seems to me almost decisive. Baillet and Butler leave the matter undecided: the latter has it thus Vies des Saints, 22 Oct.: He is said to have presided twenty years, and to have ended his life by martyrdom; the former Les Vies des Saints. The same month and day: they (the martyrologists) add that a little after his election he was crowned with martyrdom.
[16] among approved authors. After this the learned reader will certainly judge that the author of the Hagiological dictionary in Migne's Encyclopaedia wrote thus either with too little reflection or with too much confidence [Encyclopédie théologique, vol. XL. Dictionnaire hagiographique, under the word Marc. Paris, 1850]: St. Mark, bishop of Jerusalem and martyr, came to this city with other Christians about the year 131, when the emperor Hadrian had rebuilt it, the Jews being removed from it. Elected prelate on account of his learning and holiness of life, after he had governed his church for twenty years he suffered death for Christ in the year 156, under the reign of Antoninus. He is venerated on the 22nd of October.
[17] Office and Mass. Nevertheless, certainly because he is generally so announced in the more recent martyrologies, St. Mark is venerated as a martyr by the church of Jerusalem; for thus on this day it is found in the kalendar of the proper feasts of that church: Of St. Mark, bishop and martyr. Double. Which kalendar you will find in Wadding at the year 1342 Annals of the Minors, vol. VII, p. 277 and following, where he adds: The proper Offices were printed at Venice in the year 1623 by Melchior of Antwerp, a Minorite. Likewise in the Missal according to the institution of the order of the hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, which was published in the sixteenth century, there is found both in the work itself and in the prefixed kalendar: Jerusalem. Of Mark, bishop and martyr. And the Mass shows this singular feature, that the Introit (Statuit ei Dominus), the Epistle (Memor esto Dominum), the Gradual (Ecce sacerdos magnus), the Gospel (Homo quidam nobilis), the Offertory (Inveni David servum meum) and the Communion (Domine quinque talenta) are from the Common of a confessor pontiff; but the prayer and the complenda say Martyr, the Secret Confessor. It is worth while to write them down here. — Prayer. Hear our prayers, O Lord, and, blessed Mark thy MARTYR and pontiff interceding, appeased, attend to our supplications. — Secret. May the offering of our devotion be acceptable to thee, O Lord our God: that, blessed Mark thy CONFESSOR and pontiff interceding, it may both please thy majesty and profit our salvation. — Complenda or Postcommunion. Refreshed by the divine mysteries, O Lord God, we beseech thee that we may everywhere be protected by the intercession of blessed Mark thy MARTYR and pontiff, for whose veneration we have offered these things to thy majesty.