CHAPTER III: THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS

THE NAMES OF CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS

Jesus called those who gathered round him "disciples" (mathetai); he called himself the "teacher" [686] (this is historically certain), while those whom he had gathered addressed him as teacher, [687] and described themselves as disciples (just as the adherents of John the Baptist were also termed disciples of John). From this it follows that the relation of Jesus to his disciples during his lifetime was determined, not by the conception of Messiah, but by that of teacher. As yet the Messianic dignity of Jesus--only to be revealed at his return--remained a mystery of faith still dimly grasped. Jesus himself did not claim it openly until his entry into Jerusalem.

After the resurrection his disciples witnessed publicly and confidently to the fact that Jesus was the Messiah, but they still continued to call themselves "disciples"--which proves how tenacious names are when once they have been affixed. The twelve confidants of Jesus were called "the twelve disciples" (or, "the twelve"). [688] From Acts (cp. i., vi., ix., xi., xiii.-xvi., xviii., xxi.) we learn that although, strictly speaking, "disciples" had ceased to be applicable, it was retained by Christians for one or two decades as a designation of themselves, especially by the Christians of Palestine. [689] Paul never employed it, however, and gradually, one observes, the name of of oi mathetai (with the addition of tou kurion) came to be exclusively applied to personal disciples of Jesus, i.e., in the first instance to the twelve, and thereafter to others, also, [690] as in Papias, Irenæus, etc. In this way it became a title of honor for those who had themselves seen the Lord (and also for Palestinian Christians of the primitive age in general?), and who could therefore serve as evidence against heretics who subjected the person of Jesus to a docetic decomposition. Confessors and martyrs during the second and third centuries were also honored with this high title of "disciples of the Lord." They too became, that is to say, personal disciples of the Lord. Inasmuch as they attached themselves to him by their confession and he to them (Matt. x. 32), they were promoted to the same rank as the primitive personal disciples of Jesus; they were as near the Lord in glory as were the latter to him during his earthly sojourn. [691]

The term "disciples" fell into disuse, because it no longer expressed the relationship in which Christians now found themselves placed. It meant at once too little and too much. Consequently other terms arose, although these did not in every instance become technical.

The Jews, in the first instance, gave their renegade compatriots special names of their own, in particular "Nazarenes," "Galileans," and perhaps also "Poor" (though it is probably quite correct to take this as a self-designation of Jewish Christians, since "Ebionim" in the Old Testament is a term of respect). But these titles really did not prevail except in small circles. "Nazarenes" alone enjoyed and for long retained a somewhat extensive circulation. [692]

The Christians called themselves "God's people," "Israel in spirit (kata pneuma)," "the seed of Abraham," "the chosen people," "the twelve tribes," "the elect," "the servants of God," "believers," "saints," "brethren," and the "church of God." [693] Of these names the first seven (and others of a similar character) never became technical terms taken singly, but, so to speak, collectively. They show how the new community felt itself to be heir to all the promises and privileges of the Jewish nation. At the same time, "the elect" [694] and "the servants of God" [695] came very near being technical expressions.

From the usage and vocabulary of Paul, Acts, and later writings, [696] it follows that believers" (pistoi) was a technical term. In assuming the name of "believers" (which originated, we may conjecture, on the soil of Gentile Christianity), Christians felt that the decisive and cardinal thing in their religion was the message which had made them what they were, a message which was nothing else than the preaching of the one God, of his son Jesus Christ, and of the life to come.

The three characteristic titles, however, are those of "saints," "brethren," and "the church of God," all of which hang together. The abandonment of the term "disciples" for these self-chosen titles [697] marks the most significant advance made by those who believed in Jesus (cp. Weizsäcker, op. cit., pp. 36 f.; Eng. trans., i. pp. 43 f.). They took the name of "saints," because they were sanctified by God and for God through the holy Spirit sent by Jesus, and because they were conscious of being truly holy and partakers in the future glory despite all the sins that daily clung to them. [698] It remains the technical term applied by Christians to one another till after the middle of the second century (cp. Clem. Rom., Hermas, the Didachê, etc.); thereafter it gradually disappears, [699] as Christians had no longer the courage to call themselves "saints," after all that had happened. Besides, what really distinguished Christians from one another by this time was the difference between the clergy and the laity (or the leaders and the led), so that the name "saints" became quite obliterated; it was only recalled in hard times of persecution. In its place, "holy orders" arose (martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and finally--during the third century--the bishops), while "holy media" (sacraments), whose fitful influence covered Christians who were personally unholy, assumed still greater prominence than in the first century. People were no longer conscious of being personally holy; [700] but then they had holy martyrs, holy ascetics, holy priests, holy ordinances, holy writings, and a holy doctrine.

Closely bound up with the name of "saints" was that of "brethren" (and "sisters"), the former denoting the Christians' relationship to God and to the future life (or basileia tou theou, the kingdom of God), the latter the new relationship in which they felt themselves placed towards their fellow-men, and, above all, towards their fellow-believers (cp. also the not infrequent title of "brethren in the Lord"). After Paul, this title became so common that the pagans soon grew familiar with it, ridiculing and besmirching it, but unable, for all that, to evade the impression which it made. For the term did correspond to the conduct of Christians. [701] They termed themselves a brotherhood (adelphoes; cp. 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9, etc.) as well as brethren (adelphoi), and to realize how fixed and frequent was the title, to realize how truly it answered to their life and conduct,
[702] one has only to study, not merely the New Testament writings (where Jesus himself employed it and laid great emphasis upon it [703] ), but Clemens Romanus, the Didachê, and the writings of the apologists. [704] Yet even the name of "the brethren," though it outlived that of "the saints," lapsed after the close [705] of the third century; or rather, it was only ecclesiastics who really continued to call each other "brethren," [706] and when a priest gave the title of "brother" to a layman, it denoted a special mark of honor.
[707] "Brethren" ("fratres") survived only in sermons, but confessors were at liberty to address ecclesiastics and even bishops by this title (cp. Cypr., Ep. liii.). [708]

Since Christians in the apostolic age felt themselves to be "saints" and "brethren," and, in this sense, to be the true Israel and at the same time God's new creation, [709] they required a solemn title to bring out their complete and divinely appointed character and unity. As "brotherhood" (adelphotes, see above) was too one-sided, the name they chose was that of "church" or "the church of God" (ekklesia, ekklesia tou theou). This was a masterly stroke. It was the work, [710] not of Paul, nor even of.Jesus, but of the Palestinian communities, which must have described themselves as qhl. Originally, it was beyond question a collective term; [711] it was the most solemn expression of the Jews for their worship [712] as a collective body, and as such it was taken over by the Christians. But ere long it was applied to the individual communities, and then again to the general meeting for worship. Thanks to this many-sided usage, together with its religious colouring ("the church called by God") and the possibilities of personification which it offered, the conception and the term alike rapidly came to the front. [713] Its acquisition rendered the capture of the term "synagogue" [714] a superfluity, and, once the inner cleavage had taken place, the very neglect of the latter title served to distinguish Christians sharply from Judaism and its religious gatherings even in terminology. From the outset, the Gentile Christians learned to think of the new religion as a "church" and as "churches." This did not originally involve an element of authority, but such an element lies hidden from the first in any spiritual magnitude which puts itself forward as at once an ideal and an actual fellowship of men. It possesses regulations and traditions of its own, special functions and forms of organization, and these become authoritative; withal, it supports the individual and at the same time guarantees to him the content of its testimony. Thus, as early as 1 Tim. iii. 15 we read: oikos theou, hetis estin ekklesia theou zontss, stulos kai hedraioma tes aletheias. "Ecclesia mater" frequently occurs in the literature of the second century. Most important of all, however, was the fact that ekklesia was conceived of, in the first instance, not simply as an earthly but as a heavenly and transcendental entity. [715] He who belonged to the ekklesia ceased to have the rights of a citizen on earth; [716] instead of these he acquired all assured citizenship in heaven. This transcendental meaning of the term still retained vigour and vitality during the second century, but in the course of the third it dropped more and more into the rear. [717]

During the course of the second century the term ekklesia acquired the attribute of "catholic" (in addition to that of "holy"). This predicate does not contain anything which implies a secularisation of the church, for "catholic" originally meant Christendom as a whole in contrast to individual churches (ekkleia katholike = pasa he ekklesia). The conception of "all the churches" is thus identical with that of "the church in general." But a certain dogmatic element did exist from the very outset in the conception of the general church, as the idea was that this church had been diffused by the apostles over all the earth. Hence it was believed that only what existed everywhere throughout the church could be true, and at the same time absolutely true, so that the conceptions of "all Christendom," "Christianity spread over all the earth," and "the true church," came to be regarded at a pretty early period as identical. In this way the term "catholic" acquired a pregnant meaning, and one which in the end was both dogmatic and political. As this was not innate but an innovation, it is not unsuitable to speak of pre-catholic and catholic Christianity. The term "catholic church" occurs first of all in Ignatius (Smyrn., viii. 2: hopou an phane ho episkopos, ekei to tlethos esto; hosper hopou an e Christos Iesous, ekei he katholike ekklesia), who writes "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church." Here, however, the words do not yet denote a new conception of the church, in which it is represented as an empirical and authoritative society. In Mart. Polyc. Inscr., xvi. 2, xix. 2, the word is probably an interpolation ("catholic" being here equivalent to "orthodox": he en Smurne katholike ekklesia). From Iren., iii. 15. 2 ("Valentiniani eos qui sunt ab ecclesia communes' et ecclesiasticos' dicunt" = "The Valentinians called those who belong to the Church by the name of communes' and ecclesiastici'") it follows that the orthodox Christians were called "catholics" and "ecclesiastics" at the period of the Valentinian heresy. [718] Irenæus himself does not employ the term; but the thing is there (cp. i. 10. 2; ii. 9. 1, etc.; similarly Serapion in Euseb., H.E., v. 19, pasa he en kosmo adeliphotes). After the Mart. Polyc. the term "catholic," as a description of the orthodox and visible church, occurs in the Muratorian fragment (where "catholica" stands without "ecclesia" at all, as is frequently the case in later years throughout the West), in an anonymous anti-Montanist writer (Eus., H.E., v. 16. 9), in Tertullian (e.g., de Præscript., xxvi., xxx.; adv. Marc., iv. 4, iii. 22), in Clem. Alex (Strom., vii. 17, 106 f.), in Hippolytus (Philos., ix. 12), in Mart. Pionii (2. 9. 13. 19), in Pope Cornelius (Cypr., Epist. xlix. 2), and in Cyprian. The expression "catholica traditio" occurs in Tertullian (de Monog. ii.), "fides catholica" in Cyprian (Ep. xxv.), kanon katholikos in Mart. Polyc. (Mosq. ad fin.), and Cyprian (Ep. lxx. 1), and "catholica fides et religio" in Mart. Pionii (18). Elsewhere the word appears in different connections throughout the early Christian literature. In the Western symbols the addition of "catholica" crept in at a comparatively late period, i.e., not before the third century. In the early Roman symbol it does not occur.

We now come to the name "Christians," which became the cardinal title of the faith. The Roman authorities certainly employed it from the days of Trajan downwards (cp. Pliny and the rescripts, the "cognitiones de Christianis"), and probably even forty or fifty years earlier (1 Pet. iv. 16; Tacitus), whilst it was by this name that the adherents of the new religion were known among the common people (Tacitus; cp. also the well known passage in Suetonius).

Luke has told us where this name arose. After describing the foundation of the (Gentile Christian) church at Antioch, he proceeds (xi. 26): chrematisai trotos en Antiocheia tous mathetas Christianous [Chrestianous ]. It is needless to suppose that the name was given immediately after the establishment of the church, but neither need we assume that any considerable interval elapsed between the one fact and the other. [719] Luke does not tell us who gave the name, but he indicates it clearly enough. [720] It was not the Christians (otherwise he would not have written chrematisai for they simply could not have given it to themselves. The essentially inexact nature of the verbal form precludes any such idea. And for the same reason it could not have originated with the Jews. It was among the pagans that the title arose, among pagans who heard that a lean called "Christ" [Chrestus] was the lord and master of the new sect. Accordingly they struck out [721] the name of "Christians," as though "Christ" were a proper name, just as they spoke of "Herodiani," "Marciani," etc. [722] At first, of course, Christians did not adopt the title. It does not occur in Paul or anywhere in the New Testament as a designation applied by Christians to themselves, for in the only two passages [723] where it does occur it is quoted from the lips of an opponent, and even in the apostolic fathers (so-called) we look for it in vain. The sole exception is Ignatius, [724] who employs it quite frequently a fact which serves admirably to corroborate the narrative of Acts, for Ignatius belonged to Antioch [725] Thus the name not only originated in Antioch, but, so far as we know, it was there that it first became employed by Christians as a title. By the days of Trajau the Christians of Asia Minor had probably been in possession of this title for a considerable period, but its general vogue cannot he dated earlier than the close of Hadrian's reign or that of Pius. Tertullian, however, employs it as if it had been given by the Christians to themselves. [726]

A word in closing on the well-known passage from Tacitus (Anal., xv. 44). It is certain that the persecution mentioned here was really a persecution of Christians (and not of Jews), the only doubtful point being whether the use of "Christiani" ("quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat") is not a hysteron proteron. Yet even this doubt seems to me unjustified, If Christians were called by this name in Antioch about 40-45 A.D., there is no obvious reason why the name should not have been known in Rome by 64 A.D., even although the Christians did not spread it themselves, but were only followed by it as by their shadow. Nor does Tacitus (or his source) aver that the name was used by Christians for their own party: he says the very opposite; it was the people who thus described them. Hitherto, however, the statement of Tacitus has appeared rather unintelligible, for he begins by ascribing the appellation of "Christians" to the common people, and then goes on to relate that the "autor nominis," or author of the name, was Christ, in which case the common people did a very obvious and natural thing when they called Christ's followers "Christians." Why, then, does Tacitus single out the appellation of "Christian" as a popular epithet? This is an enigma which I once proposed to solve by supposing that the populace gave the title to Christians in an obscene or opprobrious sense. I bethought myself of "crista," or of the term "panchristarii," which (so far as I know) occurs only once in Arnobius, ii. 38 "Quid fullones, lanarios, phrygiones, cocos, panchristarios, muliones, lenones, lanios, meretrices (What of the fullers, wool-workers, embroiderers, cooks, confectioners, muleteers, pimps, butchers, prostitutes)?" Tacitus, we might conjecture, meant to suggest this meaning, while at the same time he explained the real origin of the term in question. But this hypothesis was unstable, and in my judgment the enigma has now been solved by means of a fresh collation of the Tacitus MS. (see G. Andresen, Wochenschr. f. klass. Philologie, 1902, No. 28, col. 780 f.), which shows, as I am convinced from the facsimile, that the original reading was "Chrestianos," and that this was subsequently corrected (though "Christus" and not "Chrestus" is the term employed ad loc.). This clears up the whole matter. The populace, as Tacitus says, called this sect "Chrestiani," while he himself is better informed (like Pliny, who also writes "Christian"), and silently corrects the mistake in the spelling of the names, by accurately designating its author (actor nominis) as "Christus." Blass had anticipated this solution by a conjecture of his own in the passage under discussion, and the event has proved that he was correct. The only point which remains to be noticed is the surprising tense of "appellabat." Why did not Tacitus write "appellat," we may ask? Was it because he wished to indicate that everyone nowadays was well aware of the origin of the name? [727]

One name still falls to be considered, a name which of course never became really technical, but was (so to speak) semi-technical; I mean that of stratiotes Christou (miles Christi, a soldier of Christ). [728] With Paul this metaphor had already become so common that it was employed in the most diverse ways; compare the great descriptions in 2 Cor. x. 3-6 (strateuometha--ta hopla tes strateias--pros kathairesin ochuromaton--logismous kathairountes--aichmalotizontes), and the elaborate sketch in Ephes. vi. 10-18, with 1 Thess. v. 8 and 1 Cor. ix. 7, xi. 8; note also how Paul describes his fellow prisoners as "fellow-captives" (Rom. xvi. 7; Col. iv. 10; Philemon 23), and his fellow-workers as "fellow-soldiers" (Phil. ii. 25; Philemon 2). We come across the same figure again in the pastoral epistles (1 Tim. i. 18: hina strateue ten kalen strateian; 2 Tim. ii. 3 f.: sunkakopatheson hos kalos stratiotes I. Ch. oudeis strateuomenos empleketai tais tou biou pragmateiais, hina to stratologesanti arese. ean de athlese tis, ou stephanoutai ean me nomimos athlese; 2 Tim. iii. 6:, aichmalotizontes gunaikaria). Two military principles were held as fixed, even within the first century, for apostles and missionaries. (1) They had the right to be supported by others (their converts or churches). (2) They must not engage in civil pursuits. Thereafter the figure never lost currency, [729] becoming so naturalized, [730] among the Latins especially (as a title for the martyrs pre-eminently, but also for Christians' in general), that "soldiers of Christ" (milites Christi) almost became a technical term with them for Christians; cp. the writings of Tertullian, and particularly the correspondence of Cyprian--where hardly one letter fails to describe Christians as "soldiers of God" (milites dei), or "soldiers of Christ" (milites Christi), and where Christ is also called the "imperator" of Christians. [731] The preference shown for this figure by Christians of the West, and their incorporation of it in definite representations, may be explained by their more aggressive and at the same time thoroughly practical temper. The currency lent to the figure was reinforced by the fact that "sacramentum" in the West (i.e., any musterion or mystery, and also anything sacred) was an extremely common term, while baptism in particular, or the solemn vow taken at baptism, was also designated a "sacramentum." Being a military term (= the military oath), it made all Western Christians feel that they must be soldiers of Christ, owing to their sacrament, and the probability is, as has been recently shown (by Zahn, Neue kirchl. Zeitschrift, 1899, pp. 28 f.), that this usage explains the description of the pagans as "pagani." It can be demonstrated that the latter term was already in use (during the early years of Valentinian 1; cp. Theodos., Cod. xvi.
2. 18) long before the development of Christianity had gone so far as to enable all non-Christians to be termed "villagers"; hence the title must rather be taken in the sense of "civilians" (for which there is outside evidence) as opposed to "milites" or soldiers. Non-Christians are people who have not taken the oath of service to God or Christ, and who consequently have no part in the sacrament ("Sacramentum ignorantes," Lactant.)! They are mere "pagani." [732]

Pagans in part caught up the names of Christians as they heard them on the latter's lips, [733] but of course they used most commonly the title which they had coined themselves, viz., that of "Christians." Alongside of this we find nicknames and sobriquets like "Galileans," "ass-worshippers" (Tert., Apol. xvi., cp. Minut.), "magicians" (Acta Theclæ, Tertull.), "Third race," "filth" (copria, cp. Commod., Carm. Apolog. 612, Lact., v. 1. 27), "sarmenticii" and "semi-axii" (stake-bound, faggot circled; Tert., Apol. i.). [734]

Closely bound up with the "names" of Christians is the discussion of the question whether individual Christians got new names as Christians, or how Christians stood with regard to ordinary pagan names during the first three centuries. The answer to this will be found in the second Excursus appended to the present chapter. __________________________________________________________________

[686] The saying addressed to the disciples in Matt. xxiii. 8 (humeis me klethete rhabbei; heis gar estin humon ho didaskalos, pantes de humeis adelphoi este) is very noticeable. One would expect mathetai instead of adelphoi here; but the latter is quite appropriate, for Jesus is seeking to emphasize the equality of all his disciples and their obligation to love one another. It deserves notice, however, that the apostles were not termed "teachers," or at least very rarely, with the exception of Paul.

[687] Parallel to this is the term epistates, which occurs more than once in Luke.

[688] hoi mathetai is not a term exclusively reserved for the twelve in the primitive age. All Christians were called by this name. The term he mathetria also occurs (cp. Acts ix. 36, and Gosp. Pet. 50).

[689] In Acts xxi. 16 a certain Mnason is called archaios mathetes, which implies perhaps that he is to be regarded as a personal disciple of Jesus, and at any rate that he was a disciple of the first generation. One also notes that, according to the source employed by Epiphanius (Hær., xxix. 7), mathetai was the name of the Christians who left Jerusalem for Pella. I should not admit that Luke is following an unjustifiable archaism in using the term mathetai so frequently in Acts.

[690] Is not a restriction of the idea voiced as early as Matt. x. 42 (hos an potise hena ton mikron touton poterion psuchroo monon eis onoma mathetou)?

[691] During the period subsequent to Acts it is no longer possible, so far as I know, to prove the use of mathetai (without the addition of tou kurion or Christou) as a term used by all adherents of Jesus to designate themselves; that is, if we leave out of account, of course, all passages--and they are not altogether infrequent--in which the word is not technical. Even with the addition of tou kurion, the term ceases to be a title for Christians in general by the second century.--One must not let oneself he misled by late apochryphal books, nor by the apologists of the second century. The latter often describe Christ as their teacher, and themselves (or Christians generally) as disciples, but this has no connection, or at best an extremely loose connection, with the primitive terminology. It is moulded, for apologetic reasons, upon the terminology of the philosophic schools, just as the apologists chose to talk about "dogmas" of the Christian teaching, and "theology" (see my Dogmensgeschichte, I.(3) pp. 482 f.; Eng. trans., ii. 176 f.). As everyone is aware, the apologists knew perfectly well that, strictly speaking, Christ was not a teacher, but rather lawgiver (nomothetes), law (nomos), Logos (logos), Saviour (soter), and judge (krites), so that an expression like kuriake didaskalia, or "the Lord's instructions" (apologists and Clem., Strom., VI. xv. 124, VI. xviii. 165, VII. x. 57, VII. xv. 90, VII. xviii. 165), is not to be adduced as a proof that the apologists considered Jesus to be really their teacher. Rather more weight would attach to didache kuriou (the title of the well-known early catechism), and passages like 1 Clem. xiii. 1 (ton logon tou kuriou Iesou ohus elalesen didaskon = the word of the Lord Jesus which he spoke when teaching); Polyc. 2 (mnemoneuontes hon eipen ho kurios didaskon = remembering what the Lord said as he taught); Ptolem., ad Flor. v. (he didaskalia tou soteros) and Apost. Constit., p. 25 (Texte u. Unters., ii., part 5--proorontas tous logous tou didaskalon hemon = the words of our teacher); p. 28 (hote etesen ho didaskalos ton arton = when the teacher asked for bread); p. 30 (proelegen hote edidasken = he foretold when he taught). But, apropos of these passages, we have to recollect that the Apostolic Constitutions is a work of fiction, which makes the apostles its spokesmen (thus it is that Jesus is termed ho didaskalos in the original document underlying the Constitutions, i.e., the disciples call him by this name in the fabricated document). There are numerous passages to prove that martyrs and confessors were those, and those alone, to whom the predicate of "disciples of Jesus" was attached already, in the present age, since it was they who actually followed and imitated Jesus. Compare, e.g., Ignat., ad Ephes. i. (elpizo epituchein en Rhome theriomachesai, hina epituchein dunetho mathetes einai = my hope is to succeed in fighting with beasts at Rome, so that I may succeed in being a disciple); ad Rom. iv. ( tote esomai mathetes alethes tou Christou, hote oude to soma mou ho kosmos opsetai = then shall I be a true disciple of Christ, when the world no longer sees my body; ad Rom. v. (en tois adikemasin auton mallon matheteuomai = through their misdeeds I became more a disciple than ever); Mart. Polyc. xvii. (ton huion tou theou proskunoumen , tous de marturas hos mathetas kai mimetas tou kuriou agapomen = we worship the Son of God, and love the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord). When Novatian founded his puritan church, he seems to have tried to resuscitate the idea of every Christian being a disciple and imitator of Christ.

[692] The first disciples of Jesus were called Galileans (cp. Acts i. 11, ii. 7), which primarily was a geographical term to denote their origin, but was also intended to heap scorn on the disciples as semi-pagans. The name rarely became a technical term, however. Epictetus once employed it for Christians (Arrian, Diss., IV. vii. 6). Then Julian resurrected it (Greg. Naz., Orat. iv.: kainotomei ho Ioulianos peri ten proseyorian, Galilaious anti Christianon onomasas te kai kaleisthai nomothetesas . . . . onoma [Galilaioi] ton ouk eiothoton) and employed it as a tern of abuse, although in this as in other points he was only following in the footsteps of Maximinus Daza, or of his officer Theoteknus, an opponent of Christianity (if this Theoteknus is to be identified with Daza's officer), who (according to the Acta Theodoti Ancyrani, c. xxxi.) dubbed Theodotus pmostates ton Galilaion, or "the ringleader of the Galileans." These Acta, however, are subsequent to Julian. We may assume that the Christians were already called "Galileans" in the anti-Christian writings which Daza caused to be circulated. The Philopatris of pseudo-Lucian, where "Galileans" also occurs, has nothing whatever to do with our present purpose; it is merely a late Byzantine forgery. With the description of Christians as "Galileans," however, we may compare the title of "Phrygians" given to the Montanists.--The name "Ebionites" (or poor) is not quite obvious. Possibly the Christian believers got this name from their Jewish opponents simply because they were poor, and accepted the designation. More probably, however, the Palestinian Christians called themselves by this name on the basis of the Old Testament. Recently, Hilgenfeld has followed the church-fathers, Tertullian, Epiphanius (Hær., xxx. 18), etc., in holding that the Ebionites must be traced back to a certain Ebion who founded the sect; Dalman also advocates this derivation. Technically, the Christians were never described as "the poor" throughout the empire; the passage in Minuc., Octav. xxxvi., is not evidence enough to establish such a theory. The term "Nazarenes" or "Nazoreans" (a Jewish title for all Jewish Christians, according to Jerome, Ep. cxii. 13, and a common Persian and Mohammedan title for Christians in general) occurs first of all in Acts xxiv. 5, where Paul is described by Tertullian the orator as protostates tes ton Nazoraion haireseos. As Jesus himself is called ho Nazoraios in the gospels, there seems to be no doubt that his adherents were so named by their opponents; it is surprising, though not unexampled. The very designation of Jesus as ho Nazoraios is admittedly a problem. Did the title come really from Nazaret (Nazara) the town? Furthermore, Matt. ii. 23 presents a real difficulty. And finally, Epiphanius knows a pre-Christian sect of Jewish Nazarenes (Hær. xviii.; their pre-Christian origin is repeated in ch. xxix. 6) in Galaaditis, Basanitis, and other trans-Jordanic districts. They had distinctive traits of their own, and Epiphanius (Hær. xxix.) distinguishes them from the Jewish Christian sect of the same name as well as from the Nasireans (cp. Hær., xxix. 5), observing (between xx. and xxi., at the conclusion of his first book) that all Christians were at first called Nazoreans by the Jews. Epiphanius concludes by informing us that before Christians got their name at Antioch, they were for a short while called "Jessæans," which he connects with the Therapeutæ of Philo. Epiphanius is known to have fallen into the greatest confusion over the primitive sects, as is plain from this very passage. We might therefore pass by his pre-Christian Nazarenes without more ado, were it not for the difficulty connected with ho Nazoraios as a title of Jesus (and "Nazarenes" as a title for his adherents). This has long been felt by scholars, and W. B. Smith, in a lecture at St. Louis (reprinted in The Monist, Jan. 1905, pp. 25-45), has recently tried to clear up the problem by means of a daring hypothesis. He conjectures that Jesus had nothing to do with Nazareth, in fact that this town was simply invented and maintained by Christians, on the basis of a wrong interpretation of Nazoraios. Ho Nazoraios is to be understood as a title equivalent to "Nazar-ja" (God is guardian), in the sense of ho soter = Jesus, etc. This is not the place to examine the hypothesis; it will be a welcome find for the "historical religion" school. An unsolved problem undoubtedly there is; but probably, despite Epiphanius and Smith, the traditional explanation may answer all purposes, the more so as the pre-Christian Nazarenes had nothing that reminds us of the early Christians. Epiphanius says that they were Jews, lived like Jews (with circumcision, the Sabbath, festivals, rejecting fate and astronomy), acknowledged the fathers from Adam to Moses (Joshua), but rejected the Pentateuch (!!). Moses, they held, did receive a law, but not the law as known to the Jews. They observed the law part from all its sacrificial injunctions, and ate no flesh, holding that the books of, Moses had been falsified. Such is the extent of Epiphanius' knowledge. Are we really to believe that there was a pre-Christian Jewish sect across the Jordan, called Nazarenes, who rejected sacrifice and the eating of flesh? And, supposing this were credible, what could be the connection between them and Jesus, since their sole characteristic, noted by Epiphanius, viz., the rejection of sacrifice and flesh, does not apply to Jesus and the primitive Christians? Is it not more likely that Epiphanius, who simply says the "report" of them had reached him, was wrong in giving the name of Nazarenes to gnostic Jewish Christians, about whom he was imperfectly informed, or to some pre-Christian Jewish sect which lived across the Jordan? Or is there some confusion here between Nazirites and Nazarenes?

[693] So far as I know, no title was ever derived from the name of "Jesus" in the primitive days of Christianity.--On the question whether Christians adopted the name of "Friends" as a technical title, see the first Excursus at the close of this chapter.

[694] Cp. Minuc. Felix, xi. "Elect" is opposed to hoi polloi. Hence the latter is applied by Papias to false Christians (Eus., H.E., iii. 39), and by Heracleon the gnostic, on the other hand, to ordinary Christians (Clem., Strom. IV. ix. 73).

[695] Cp. the New Testament, and especially the "Shepherd" of Hermas.

[696] Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff is perhaps right in adducing also Min. Felix, xiv. , where Cæcilius calls Octavius "pistorum praecipuus et postremus philosophus" ("chief of believers and lowest of philosophers"). "Pistores" here does not mean "millers," but is equivalent to piston. The pagan in Macarius Magnes (III. xvii.) also calls Christians he ton piston phratria. From Celsus also one may conclude that the term pistoi was technical (Orig., c. Cels., I. ix.). The pagans employed it as an opprobrious name for their opponents, though the Christians wore it as a name of honor; they were people of mere "belief" instead of people of intelligence and knowledge, i.e., people who were not only credulous but also believed what was absurd (see Lucian's verdict on the Christians in Proteus Peregrinus).--In Noricum an inscription has been found, dating from the fourth century (C.I.L., vol. iii. Supplem. Pars Poster., No. 13,529), which describes a woman as "Christiana fidelis," i.e., probably as a baptized Christian. "Fidelis" in the Canon of Elvira means baptized Christian, and "Christianus" means catechumen. The name of "Pistus" was afterwards a favourite name among Christians: two bishops of this name were at the Council of Nicæa. The opposite of "fidelis" was "paganus" (see below).

[697] They are the usual expressions in Paul, but he was by no means the first to employ them; on the contrary, he must have taken them over from the Jewish Christian communities in Palestine. At the same time they acquired a deeper content in his teaching. In my opinion, it is impossible to maintain the view (which some would derive from the New Testament) that the Christians at Jerusalem were called "the saints," kat' edochen, and it is equally erroneous to conjecture that the Christianity of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages embraced a special and inner circle of people to whom the title of "saints" was exclusively applied. This cannot be made out, either from 1 Tim. v. 10, or from Heb. xiii. 24, or from Did. iv. 2, or from any other passage, although there was at a very early period a circle of ascetics, i.e., of Christians who, in this sense, were especially "holy." The expression "the holy apostles" in Eph. iii. 5 is extremely surprising; I do not think it likely that Paul used such a phrase.--The earliest attribute of the word "church," be it noted, was "holy"; cp. the collection of passages in Hahn-Harnack's Bibliothek der Symbole (3), p. 388, and also the expressions "holy people" (ethnos hagion, laos hagios), "holy priesthood."

[698] The actual and sensible guarantee of holiness lay in the holy media, the "charismata," and the power of expelling demons. The latter possessed not merely a real but a personal character of their own. For the former, see 1 Cor . vii. 14: hegiastai ho aner ho apistos en te gunaiki, kai hegiastai he gune he hapistos hen to adelpho; epei ara ta tekna humon akatharta estin, nun de hagia estin.

[699] But Gregory Thaumaturgus still calls Christians in general "the saints," in the seventh of his canons.

[700] The church formed by Novatian in the middle of the third century called itself "the pure" (katharoi), but we cannot tell whether this title was an original formation or the resuscitation of an older name. I do not enter into the question of the names taken by separate Christian sects and circles (such as the Gnostics, the Spiritualists, etc.).

[701] See the opinions of pagans quoted by the apologists, especially Tertull., Apo1. xxxix., and Minuc., Octav., ix., xxxi., with Lucian's Prot. Peregrinus. Tertullian avers that pagans were amazed at the brotherliness of Christians: "See how they love one another!"--In pagan guilds the name of "brother" is also found, but so far as I am aware, it is not common. From Acts xxii. 5, xxviii. 21, we must infer that the Jews also called each other "brethren," but the title cannot have had the significance for them that it possessed for Christians. Furthermore, as Jewish teachers call their pupils "children" (or "sons" and "daughters"), and are called by them in turn "father," these appellations also occur very frequently in the relationship between the Christian apostles and teachers and their pupils (cp. the numerous passages in Paul, Barnabas, etc.).

[702] Details on this point, as well as on the import of this fact for the Christian mission, in Book II. Chap. III.

[703] Cp. Matt. xxiii. 8 (see above, p. 399), and xii. 48, where Jesus says of the disciples, idou he meter mou kai hoi adelphoi mou. Thus they are not merely brethren, but his brethren. This was familiar to Paul (cp. Rom. viii. 29, prototokos en pollois adelphois), but afterwards it became rare, though Tertullian does call the flesh "the sister of Christ" (de Resurr. ix., cp. de Carne, vii.).

[704] Apologists of a Stoic cast, like Tertullian (Apol. xxxix.), did not confine the name of "brethren" to their fellow-believers, but extended it to all men "Fratres etiam vestri sumus, lure naturae matris unius" ("We are your brethren also in virtue of our common mother Nature").

[705] It still occurs, though rarely, in the third century; cp., e.g., Hippolytus in the Philosophumena, and the Acta Pionii, ix. Theoretically, of course, the name still survived for a considerable time; cp., e.g., Lactant., Div. Inst., v. 15: "Nec alia causa est cur nobis invicem fratrum nomen impertiamus, nisi quia pares esse nos credimus" [p. 168]; August., Ep. xxiii. 1: "Non te latet praeceptum esse nobis divinitus, ut etiam eis qui negant se fratres nostros esse dicamus, fratres nostri estis."

[706] By the third century, however, they had also begun to style each other "dominus."

[707] Eusebius describes, with great delight, how the thrice-blessed emperor addressed the bishops and Christian people, in his numerous writings, as adelphoi kai suntherapontes (Vita Const., iii. 24).

[708] The gradual restriction of "brethren" to the clergy and the confessors is the surest index of the growing organization and privileges of the churches.

[709] On the titles of "a new people" and "a third race," see Book II. Chap. VI.

[710] Paul evidently found it in circulation; the Christian communities in Jerusalem and Judea already styled themselves ekklesiai (Gal. i. 22). Jesus did not coin the term; for it is only put into his lips in Matt. xvi. 18 and xviii. 17, both of which passages are more than suspect from a critical standpoint (see Holtzmann, ad loc.); moreover, all we know of his preaching well-nigh excludes the possibility that he entertained any idea of creating a special ekklesia (so Matt. xvi. 18), or that he ever had in view the existence of a number of ekklesiai (so Matt. xviii. 17).

[711] This may be inferred from the Pauline usage of the term itself, apart from the fact that the particular application of all such terms is invariably later than their general meaning. In Acts xii. 1, Christians are first described as hoi apo tes ekklesias

[712] qhl (usually rendered ekklesia in LXX.) denotes the community in relation to God, and consequently is more sacred than the profaner dh regularly translated by sunagoge in the LXX.). The acceptance of ekklesia is thus intelligible for the same reason as that of "Israel," "seed of Abraham," etc. Among the Jews, ekklesia lagged far behind sunagoge in practical use, and this was all in favour of the Christians and their adoption of the term.

[713] Connected with the term ekklesia is the term ho laos, which frequently occurs as a contrast to ta ethne. It also has, of course, Old Testament associations of its own.

[714] On the employment of this term by Christians, see my note on Herm., Mand. xi. It was not nervously eschewed, but it never became technical, except in one or two cases. On the other hand, it is said of the Jewish Christians in Epiph., Hær., xxx. 18, "They have presbyters and heads of synagogues. They call their church a synagogue and not a church; they are proud of no name but Christ's" (presbuterous houtoi echousi kai archisunagogous; sunagogen de houtoi kalousi ten heanton ekklesian kai ouchi ekklesian; to Christo de onomati monon semnunontai). Still, one may doubt if the Jewish Christians really forswore the name qhl (ekklesia); that they called their gatherings and places of meeting sunagogai, may be admitted.

[715] The ecclesia is in heaven, created before the world, the Eve of the heavenly Adam, the Bride of Christ, and in a certain sense Christ himself. These Pauline ideas were never lost sight of. In Hermas, in apias, in Second Clement, in Clement of Alexandria, etc., they recur. Tertullian writes (de Pænit. x.): "In uno et altero Christus est, ecclesia vero Christus. ergo cum te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contrectas, Christum exoras" ("In a company of one or two Christ is, but the Church is Christ. Hence, when you throw yourself at your brother's knee, you touch Christ with your embrace, you address your entreaties to Christ").

[716] The self-designation of Christians as "strangers and sojourners" became almost technical in the first century (cp. the epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, and Hebrews), while paroikia (with paroikein = to sojourn) became actually a technical term for the individual community in the world (cp. also Herm., Simil. I., on this).

[717] Till far down into the third century (cp. the usage of Cyprian) the word "secta" was employed by Christians quite ingenuously to denote their fellowship. It was not technical, of course, but a wholly neutral term.

[718] Ekklesiastikoi, however, was also a term for orthodox Christians as opposed to heretics during the third century. This is plain from the writings of Origen; cp. Hom. in Luc. XVI., vol. v. p. 143 ("ego quia opto esse ecclesiasticus et non ab haeresiarcha aliquo, sed a Christi vocabulo nuncupari"), Hom. in Jesaiam VII., vol. xiii. p. 291, Hom. in Ezech. II. 2, vol. xiv. p. 34 ("dicor ecclesiasticus"), Hom. in Ezech. III. 4, vol. xiv. p. 47 ("ecclesiastici," as opposed to Valentinians and the followers of Basilides), Hom. in Ezech. VI. 8, vol. xiv. p. 90 (cp. 120), etc.

[719] In my opinion, the doubts cast by Baur and Lipsius upon this statement of the book of Acts are not of serious weight. Adjectival formations in -ianos are no doubt Latin, and indeed late Latin, formations (in Kühner-Blass's grammar they are not so much as noticed); but even in the first century they must have permeated the Greek vernacular by means of ordinary intercourse. In the New Testament itself, we find Herodianoi (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13, Matt. xx. 16), Justin writes Markianoi, Oualentinianoi, Basilidianoi, Satornilianoi (Dial. xxxv.), and similar formations are of frequent occurrence subsequently. If one wishes to be very circumspect, one may conjecture that the name was first coined by the Roman magistrates in Antioch, and then passed into currency among the common people. The Christians themselves hesitated for long to use the name; this, however, is far from surprising, and therefore it cannot be brought forward as an argument against the early origin of the term.

[720] The reason why he did not speak out clearly was perhaps because the pagan origin of the name was already felt by him to be a drawback. But it is not necessary to assume this.

[721] Possibly they intended the name originally to be written "Chrestus" (not "Christus"), an error which was widely spread among opponents of Christianity during the second century; cp. Justin's Apol., I. iv., Theophil., ad Autol., I. i., Tert., Apol. iii., Lact., Instit., iv. 7. 5, with Suetonius, Claud. 25, and Tacitus (see below). But this conjecture is not necessary, although pagans had a pretty common proper name in "Chrestus" (but no "Christus"), and they may have thought from the very first that a man of this name was the founder of the sect.

[722] "Christians" therefore simply means adherents of a man called Christ. Cp. Aristides, Apol. ii.: hoi Christianoi genealogountai apo Iesou Christou. Eusebius (Demonstr., i. 5) gives another explanation of the name: "The friends of God under the old covenant are called christoi as we are called Christianoi." Which is, of course, erroneous. Justin (Dial. lxiii.) writes: kai hoti tois eis auton pisteuousin, hos ousi mia psuche en mia sunagoge kai mia ekklesia, ho logos tou theou hos thugatri, te ekklestia te ex onomatos autou genomene kai metaschouse tou onomatos autou--Christianoi gar pantes kaloumetha--[eiretai], homoios phaneros hoi logoi kerussooi, k.t.l. ("The word of God addresses those who believe in him as being of one soul, in one assembly, and in one church, as to a daughter, to the church born of his name and partaking of his name--for we are all called Christians: so the words proclaim," etc.). Trypho answers (clxiv.): esto humin, ton ex ethnon, kurios kai Christos kai theos gnorizomenos, hos hai graphai semainousin, hoitines kai apo tou onomatos autou Christianoi kaleisthai pantes eschekate; hemeis de, tou theou tou kai auton touton poiesantos latreutai ontes, ou deometha tes homologias autou oude tes proskuneseos ("Let him be recognised by you Gentiles who have been all called Christians from his name, as Lord and Christ and God; but we, who are servants of the God who made this Christ, do not need to confess him or to worship him"). Origen, Hom. in Luc. XVI., vol. v. p. 143: "Opto a Christi vocabulo nuncupari et habere nomen quod benedicitur super terram, et cupio tam opere quam sensu et esse et dici Christianus" (I wish to be called by the name of Christ and to have the name which is blessed over the earth. I long to be and to be called a Christian, in spirit and in deed).

[723] 1 Pet. iv. 16 me tis humon pascheto hos phoneus e kleptes . . . . ei de hos Christianos, referring obviously to official tituli criminum. In Acts xxvi. 28 Agrippa observes, en oligo me peitheis Christianon poiesai.

[724] He employs it even as an adjective (Christiane trophe = Christian food), and coins the new term Christianismos (Magn. x., Rom. iii., Philad. vi.).

[725] Luke, too, was probably an Antiochene by birth (cp. the Argumentum to his gospel, and also Eusebius), so that in this way he knew the origin of the name.

[726] Apol. iii.: "Quid novi, si aliqua disciplina de magistro cognomentum sectatoribus suis inducit? nonne philosophi de autoribus suis nuncupantur Platonici, Epicurei, Pythagorici?" ("Is there anything novel in a sect drawing a name for its adherents from its master? Are not philosophers called after the founder of their philosophies--Platonists, Epicureans, and Pythagoreans?")

[727] Lietzmann (Gött. Gel. Anzeig., No. 6, 1905, p. 488), thinks that this interpretation is too ingenious. "Tacitus simply means to say that Nero punished the so-called Christians qui per flagitia invisi erant,' but, in his usual style, he links this to another clause, so that the tense of the erant' is taken over into an inappropriate connection with the appellabat.' Whereupon follows, quite appropriately, an historical remark on the origin and nature of the sect in question." But are we to suppose that the collocation of this "inappropriate" tense with the change from Christiani to Christus is accidental?

[728] Since the first edition of the present work appeared, I have treated this subject at greater length in my little book upon Militia Christi; the Christian Religion and the Military Profession during the First Three Centuries (1905).

[729] Cp., e.g., Ignat., ad Polyc. vi. (a passage in which the technical Latinisms are also very remarkable): areskete ho strateuesthe, aph' hou kai ta opsonia komisesthe; metis humon desertor heurethe; to baptisma humon meneto hos hopla, he pistis hos perikephalaia, he agape hos doru, he upomone hos panoplia; ta deposita humon ta erga humon, hina ta akkepta humon axia komisesthe ("Please him for whom ye fight, and from whom ye shall receive your pay. Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism abide as your shield, your faith as a helmet, your love as a spear, your patience as a panoply. Let your actions be your deposit, that ye may receive your due assets"); cp. also ad Smyrn. i. (hina are sussemon eis tous aionas, "that he might raise an ensign to all eternity").

[730] Clemens Romanus's work is extremely characteristic in this light, even by the end of the first century. He not only employs military figures (e.g., xxi.: me lipotaktein hemas apo tou thelematos autou = we are not to be deserters from his will; cp. xxviii.: ton automolounton ap' autou = running away from him), but (xxxvii.) presents the Roman military service as a model and type for Christians: strateusometha oun, andres adelphoi, meta pases ekteneias en tois amomois prostagmasin autou; katanoeoomen tous strateuomenous tois hegoumenois hemon; pos eutaktos, pos eueiktos, pos hupotetagmenos epitelousin ta diatassomena; ou pantes eisin eparchoi oude chiliarchoi oude ekatontarchoi oude pentakontarchoi oude to kathexes, all' hekastos en to idio tagmati ta epitassomena hupo tou basileos kai ton hegoumenon epitelei ("Let us then enlist, brethren, in his flawless ordinances with entire earnestness. Let us mark those who enlist under our commanders, how orderly, how readily, how obediently, they carry out their injunctions; all of them are not prefects or captains over a hundred men, or over fifty, or so forth, but every man in his proper rank carries out the orders of the king and the commanders").

[731] Cp. Ep. xv. 1 (to the martyrs and confessors): "Nam cum omnes milites Christi custodire oportet praecepta imperatoris sui [so Lact., Instit., vi. 8 and vii. 27], tunc vos magis praeceptis eius obtemperare plus convenit" ("For while it behoves all the soldiers of Christ to observe the instructions of their commander, it is the more fitting that you should obey his instructions"). The expression "camp of Christ" (castra Christi) is particularly common in Cyprian; cp. also Ep. liv. 1 for the expression "unitas sacramenti" in connection with the military figure. Cp. pseudo-Augustine (Aug., Opp. v., App. p. 150): "Milites Christi sumus et stipendium ab ipso donativumque percepimus" ("We are Christ's soldiers, and from him we have received our pay and presents").--I need not say that the Christian's warfare was invariably figurative in primitive Christianity (in sharp contrast to Islam), It was left to Tertullian, in his Apology, to play with the idea that Christians might conceivably take up arms in certain circumstances against the Romans, like the Parthians and Marcomanni; yet even he merely toyed with the idea, for he knew perfectly well, as indeed he expressly declares, that Christians were not allowed to kill (occidere), but only to let themselves be killed (occidi).

[732] For the interpretation of paganus as "pagan" we cannot appeal to Tertull., de Corona, xi. (perpetiendum pro deo, quod aeque fides pagana condixit = for God we must endure what even civic loyalty has also borne; apud Jesum tam miles est paganus fidelis, quam paganus est miles fidelis = with Jesus the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen; cp. de Pallio, iv.), for "fides pagana" here means, not pagan faith or loyalty (as one might suppose), but the duty of faith in those who do not belong to the military profession, i.e., in those who ate civilians. The subsequent discussion makes this clear, and it also shows that "paganus" was commonly used to mean "civilian." In fact, this connotation can be proved from seven passages in Tacitus. It passed from the military language into that of ordinary people in the course of the first two centuries. The ordinary interpretation of the term (= villagers) rests on the authority of Ulphilas (so still, Schubert, Lehrbuch d. Kirchengeschichte, I. p. 477), who has similarly coined the term "heathen" (from pagus), and also on the later Latin church-fathers, who explain "pagani" as "villagers" (cp., e.g., Orosius, adv. Paganes, præf. c. 9: "Pagani alieni a civitate dei ex locorum agrestium conpitis et pagis pagani vocantur"). Wilh. Schulze, however (cp. Berliner Akad. Sitzungsberichte, 1905, July 6), holds that the term "heathen" in Orosius has nothing to do with "heathen," but is a loan-word (ethnos), which was pronounced also hethnos, as the Coptic and Armenian transliteration shows. Even were this derivation shown to be incorrect, neither Ulphilas nor any of the later Latin fathers could fix the original meaning of "paganus." None of them knew its original sense. About 300 A.D.--to leave out the inscription in C.I.L., x. 2,7112--the non-Christian religions could not as yet be designated as "peasant" or "rural" religions. All doubts would have been set at rest if the address of Commodian's so-called Carmen Apologeticum had run "adversus paganes" (as Gennadius, de Vir. Inlust. 15, suggests), but unfortunately the only extant manuscript lacks any title.--The military figure originated (prior to the inferences drawn from the term "sacramentum" in the West) in the great struggle which every Christian had to wage against Satan and the demons (Eph. vi. 12: ouk estin hemin he pale pros haima kai sarka, alla pros tas archas, pros tas exousias, pros tous kosmokratorous tou skotous toutou, pros ta pneumatika tes ponerias en tois epouraniois). Once the state assumed a hostile attitude towards Christians, the figure of the military calling and conflict naturally arose also in this connection. God looks down, says Cyprian (Ep. lxxvi. 4), upon his troops: "Gazing down on us amid the conflict of his Name, he approves those who are willing, aids the fighters, crowns the conquerors," etc. ("In congressione nominis sui desuper spectans volentes conprobat, adiuvat dimicantes, vincentes coronat," etc.). Nor are detailed descriptions of the military figure awanting; cp., e.g., the seventy-seventh letter addressed to Cyprian (ch. ii.): "Tu tuba canens dei milites, caelestibus armis instructos, ad congressionis proelium excitasti et in acie prima, spiritali gladio diabolum interfecisti, agmina quoque fratrum hinc et inde verbis tuis composuisti, ut invidiae inimico undique tenderentur et cadavera ipsius publici hostis et nervi concisi calcarentur" ("As a sounding trumpet, thou hast roused the soldiers of God, equipped with heavenly armour, for the shock of battle, and in the forefront thou hast slain the devil with the sword of the Spirit; on this side and on that thou hast marshalled the lines of the brethren by thy words, so that snares might be laid in all directions for the foe, the sinews of the common enemy be severed, and carcases trodden under foot"). The African Acts of the Martyrs are full of military expressions and metaphors; see, e.g., the Acta Saturnini et Dativi, xv. (Ruinart, Acta Mart., p. 420). It is impossible to prove, as it is inherently unlikely, that the "milites" of Mithra exercised any influence upon the Christian conceptions of Christianity as a conflict. These "milites" of Mithra were simply one of the seven stages of Mithraism, and we must never regard as direct borrowings from a pagan cult ideas which were spread all over the church at a primitive period of its existence. On the other hand, it is likely that Christians in the Roman army desired the same treatment and consideration which was enjoyed by adherents of Mithra in the same position. Hence the action of the soldier described by Tertullian in the de Corona.--The above-mentioned essay of Schulze is now printed in the Sitzungsberichte d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 1905, pp. 726 f., 747 f. ("Greek Loan-Words in Gothic"). He acknowledges (i.) that "pagani" cannot have been adopted by Christians in order to describe "pagans" as people dwelling in the country; (ii.) he proves carefully and conclusively that the term "heathen" in Ulphilas has nothing to do with heathen, but is a loan-word (ethnos). Non-Christians were originally called "pagani" as "sacramentum ignorantes" (Lactant., v. 1), or because they were "far from the city of God" ("longe sunt a civitate dei," Cassiod., in Cant., vii. 11; cp. Schulze, p. 751). Attention has also been called of late to several inscriptions with the word "paganicum" (cp. Compt. rendus de l'acad. des Inscr. et Belles Lett., 1905, May-June, pp. 296 f.). The scope and the meaning of the word are rather obscure ("une sorte de chapelle rurale"? A building in the country devoted to public purposes? Or has the reference to the country even here become obliterated?).

[733] Celsus, for instance, speaks of the church as "the great church" (to distinguish it from the smaller Christian sects).

[734] 212 __________________________________________________________________

EXCURSUS I
"FRIENDS" (hoi philoi).

The name philoi (oikeioi) tou theou ("amici dei," "cari deo") was frequently used as a self-designation by Christians, though it was not strictly a technical term. It went back [735] to the predicate of Abraham, who was called "the Friend of God" in Jewish tradition. It signified that every individual Christian stood in the same relation to God as Abraham [736] had done. According to two passages in the gospels, [737] Jesus called his disciples his "friends." But in after-years this title (or that of of hoi gnorimoi) was rarely used.

The term hoi philoi is to be distinguished from that of philoi tou theou (christou). Did Christians also call each other "friends"? We know the significance which came to attach to friendship in the schools of Greek philosophy. No one ever spoke more nobly and warmly of friendship than Aristotle. Never was it more vividly realized than in the schools of the Pythagoreans and the Epicureans. If the former went the length of a community of goods, the Samian sage outstripped them with his counsel, "Put not your property into a common holding, for that implies a mutual distrust. And if people distrust each other, they cannot be friends" (me katatitheothai tas ousias eis to koinon; apistounton gar to toiouton; ei d' apiston, oude philon). The intercourse of Socrates with his scholars--scholars who were at the same time his friends--furnished a moving picture of friendship. Men could not forget how he lived with them, how he laboured for them and was open to them up to the very hour of his death, and how everything he taught them came home to them as a friend's counsel. The Stoic ethic, based on the absence of any wants in the perfect wise man, certainly left no room for friendship, but (as is often the case) the Stoic broke through the theory of his school at this point, and Seneca was not the only Stoic moralist who glorified friendship and showed how it was a moral necessity to life. No wonder that the Epicureans, like the Pythagoreans before them, simply called themselves "friends." It formed at once the simplest and the deepest expression for that inner bond of life into which men found themselves transplanted when they entered the fellowship of the school. No matter whether it was the common reverence felt for the master, or the community of sentiment and aspiration among the members, or the mutual aid owed by each individual to his fellows--the relationship in every case was covered by the term of "the friends." We should expect to find that Christians also called themselves "the friends." But there is hardly any passage bearing this out. In one of the "we" sections in Acts (xxvii. 3) we read that Paul the prisoner was permitted tros tous philous poreuthenti epimeleias tuchein. Probably hoi philoi here means not special friends of the apostle, but Christians in general (who elsewhere are always called in Acts of hoi adelphoi) . But this is the only passage in the primitive literature which can be adduced. Luke, with his classical culture, has permitted himself this once to use the classical designation. In 3 John 15 (aspazontai se hoi philoi; aspazou tous philous kat' onoma) it is most likely that special friends are meant, not all the Christians at Ephesus and at the place where the letter is composed. Evidently the natural term hoi philoi did not gain currency in the catholic church, owing to the fact that hoi adelphoi (cp. above, pp. 405 f.) was preferred as being still more inward and warm. In gnostic circles, on the other hand, which arose subsequently under the influence of Greek philosophy, hoi philoi seems to have been used during the second century. Thus Valentinus wrote a homily peri philon (cp. Clem., Strom., vi. 6. 52); Epiphanius, the son of Carpocrates, founded a Christian communistic guild after the model of the Pythagoreans, and perhaps also after the model of the Epicurean school and its organization (Clem., Strom. iii. 5-9); while the Abercius-inscription, which is probably gnostic, tells how faith furnished the fish as food for (tois) philois. Clement of Alexandria would have had no objection to describe the true gnostic circle as "friends." It is he who preserves the fine saying (Quis Dives, xxxii.): "The Lord did not say [in Luke xvi. 9] give, or provide, or benefit, or aid, but make a friend. And friendship springs, not from a single act of giving, but from invariable relief vouchsafed and from long intercourse" (ou me oud' eiten ho kurios, Dos, e IIarasches, e Euergeteson, e Boethesan; philon de poiesai; ho de philos ouk ek mias doseos ginetai, all' ex holes anapauseos kai sunousias makras). __________________________________________________________________

[735] Cp. Jas. ii. 23 with the editors notes. The prophets occasionally shared this title, cp. Hippolyt., Philos., x. 33: dikaioi andres gegenentai philoi theou; houtoi prophetai keklentai ("Just men have become friends of God, and these are named prophets"). Justin gives the name of Christou philoi ("Christ's friends") to the prophets who wrote the Old Testament (Dial. viii.). John the Baptist is philos Iesou (John iii. 29). Cp. Eus., Demonstr., i. 5.

[736] Later, of course, it was applied pre-eminently to martyrs and confessors:--Ephes. ii. 19: ouketi este xenoi kai paroikoi, all' este sumpolitai ton hagion kai oikeioi tou theou; Valentinus (in Clem., Strom., vi. 6. 52): laos ho egapemenou, ho philoumenos kai philon auton; Clem., Protrept., xii. 122: ei koina ta philon, theophiles de ho anthropor to Theo--kai gar oun philos mesiteuontos tou logou--ginetai de oun ta panta tou anthropou, hoti ta panta tou theou, kai koina amphoin toin philoin ta panta, tou pheou kai tou anthropou; Pædag., i. 3: philos ho anthropos to theo (for the sake of the way in which he was created; so that all human beings are friends of God); Origen, de Princ., I. 6. 4: "amici dei"; Tertullian, de Pænit. ix. (the martyrs, cari dei'); Cyprian, ad Demetr. xii. ("cari deo"), and pseudo-Clem., Recogn., i. 24: "Ex prima voluntate iterum voluntas; post haec mundus; ex mundo tempus; ex hoc hominum multitudo; ex multitudine electio amicorum, ex quorum unanimitate pacificum construitur dei regnum"; pseudo-Cypr., de Sing. Cler. 27: "amici dei."

[737] Luke xii. 4: lego umin, tois philois mou; John xv. 13 f.: umeis philoi mou este, ean poiete ha entellomai humin. ouketi lego humas doulous . . . . humas de eireka philous, hoti panta ha ekousa para tou patros mou egnorisa humin. Hence the disciples are gnorimoi of Jesus (Clem., Paed., i. 5, beginning; Iren., iv. 13. 4 "In eo quod amicos dicit suos discipulos, manifeste ostendit se esse verbum Dei, quem et Abraham . . . . sequens amicus factus est dei . . . . quoniam amicitia dei sunchoretike esti tes athanasias tois epilabousin auten"). Perhaps the words quoted by Clement (Quis Dives, xxxiii.: doso ou monon tois philois, alla kai tois philois ton philon) are an apocryphal saying of Jesus, but their origin is uncertain (cp. Jülicher in Theol. Lit. Zeitung, 1894, No. 1). An inscription has been found in Isaura Nova with the legend philtatos o makarios o theou philos (cp. A. M. Ramsay in Journal of Hellenic Studies, xxiv., 1904, p. 264, "The Early Christian Art of Isaura Nova"). __________________________________________________________________

EXCURSUS II
CHRISTIAN NAMES

Does the use of Christian names taken from the Bible go back to the first three centuries? In answering this question, we come upon several instructive data.

Upon consulting the earliest synodical Acts in our possession, those of the North African synod in 256 A.D. (preserved in Cyprian's works), we find that while the names of the eighty seven bishops who voted there are for the most part Latin, though a considerable number are Greek, not one Old Testament name occurs. Only two are from the New Testament, viz., Peter (No. 72) and Paul (No. 47). Thus, by the middle of the third century pagan names were still employed quite freely throughout Northern Africa, and the necessity of employing Christian names had hardly as yet arisen. The same holds true of all the other regions of Christendom. As inscriptions and writings testify, Christians in East and West alike made an exclusive or almost exclusive use of the old pagan names in their environment till after the middle of the third century, employing, indeed, very often names from pagan mythology and soothsaying. We find Christians called Apollinaris, Apollonius, Heraclius, Saturninus, Mercurius, Bacchylus, Bacchylides, Serapion, Satyrus, Aphrodisius, Dionysius, Hermas, Origen, etc., besides Faustus, Felix, and Felicissimus. "The martyrs perished because they declined to sacrifice to the gods whose names they bore"!

Now this is remarkable! Here was the primitive church exterminating every vestige of polytheism in her midst, tabooing pagan mythology as devilish, living with the great personalities of the Bible and upon their words, and yet freely employing the pagan names which had been hitherto in vogue! The problem becomes even harder when one recollects that the Bible itself contains examples of fresh names being given,
[738] that surnames and alterations of a name were of frequent occurrence in the Roman empire (the practice, in fact, being legalized by the emperor Caracalla in 212 for all free men), and that a man's name in antiquity was by no means regarded by most people as a matter of indifference.

We may be inclined to seek various reasons for this indifference displayed by the primitive Christians towards names. We may point to the fact that a whole series of pagan names must have been rendered sacred from the outset by the mere fact of distinguished Christians having borne them. We may further recollect how soon Christians got the length of strenuously asserting that there was nothing in a name. Why, from the days of Trajan onwards they were condemned on account of the mere name of "Christian" without anyone thinking it necessary to inquire if they had actually committed any crime! On the other hand, Justin, Athenagoras, and Tertullian, as apologists of Christianity, emphasize the fact that the name is a hollow vessel, that there can be no rational "charge brought against words,"--"except, of course," adds Tertullian, "when a name sounds barbarian or ill-omened, or when it contains some insult or impropriety!" "Ill-omened"! But had "dæmonic" names like Saturninus, Serapion, and Apollonius no evil connotation upon the lips of Christians, and did not Christians, again, attach a healing virtue to the very language of certain formulas (e.g., the utterance of the name of Jesus in exorcisms), just as the heathen did? No; surely this does not serve to explain the indifference felt by Christians towards mythological titles. But if not, then how are we to explain it?

Hardly any other answer can be given to the question than this, that the general custom of the world in which people were living proved stronger than any reflections of their own. At all times, new names have encountered a powerful resistance in the plea, "There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name" (Luke i. 61). The result was that people retained the old names, just as they had to endorse or to endure much that was of the world,--so long as they were in the world. It was not worth while to alter the name which one found oneself bearing. Why, everyone, be he called Apollonius or Serapion, had already got a second, distinctive, and abiding name in baptism, the name of "Christian." Each individual believer bore that as a proper name. In the Acts of Carpus (during the reign of Marcus Aurelius) the magistrate asked the accused, "What is thy name?" The answer was, "My first and foremost name is that of Christian'; but if thou demandest my wordly name as well, I am called Carpus.'" The "worldly" name was kept up, but it did not count, so to speak, as the real name. In the account of the martyrs at Lyons, Sanctus the Christian is said to have withheld his proper name from the magistrate, contenting himself with the one reply, "I am a Christian!" [739]

This one name satisfied people till about the middle of the third century; along with it they were content to bear the ordinary names of this world "as though they bore them not." Even surnames with a Christian meaning are extremely rare. It is the exception, not the rule, to find a man like Bishop Ignatius calling himself by the additional Christian title of Theophorus at the opening of the second century. [740] The change first came a little before the middle of the third century. And the surprising thing is that the change, for which the way had been slowly paved, came, not in an epoch of religious elevation, but rather in the very period during which the church was corning to terms with the world on a larger scale than she had previously done. In the days when Christians bore pagan names and nothing more, the dividing line between Christianity and the world was drawn much more sharply than in the days when they began to call themselves Peter and Paul! As so often is the case, the forms made their appearance just when the spirit was undermined. The principle of "nomen est omen" was not violated. It remained extraordinarily significant. For the name indicates that one has to take certain measures in order to keep hold of something that is in danger of disappearing.

In many cases people may not have been conscious of this. On the contrary, three reasons were operative. One of these I have already mentioned, viz., the frequent occurrence throughout the empire (even among pagans) of alteration in a name, and also of surnames being added, after the edict of Caracalla (in 212 A.D.). The second lay in the practice of infant baptism, which was now becoming quite current. As a name was conferred upon the child at this solemn act, it naturally seemed good to choose a specifically Christian name. Thirdly and lastly, and--we may add--chiefly, the more the church entered the world, the more the world also entered the church. And with the wofd there entered more and snore of the old pagan superstition that "nomen est omen," the dread felt for words, and, moreover, the old propensity for securing deliverers, angels, and spiritual heroes upon one's side, together with the "pious" belief that one inclined a saint to be one's protector and patron by taking his name. Such a form of superstition has never been quite absent from Christianity, for even the primitive Christians were not merely Christians but also Jews, Syrians, Asiatics, Greeks, or Romans. But then it was controlled by other moods or movements of the Spirit. During the third century, however, the local strain again rose to the surface. People no longer called their children Bacchylus or Arphrodisius with the same readiness, it is true. But they began to call themselves Peter and Paul in the same sense as the pagans called their children Dionysius and Serapion.

The process of displacing mythological by Christian names was carried out very slowly. It was never quite completed, for not a few of the former gradually became Christian, thanks to some glorious characters who had borne them; in this way, they entirely lost their original meaning. One or two items from the history of this process may be adduced at this point in our discussion.

At the very time when we find only two biblical names (those of Peter and Paul) in a list of eighty-seven episcopal names, bishop Dionysius of Alexandria writes that Christians prefer to call their children Peter and Paul. [741] It was then also that Christian changes [742] of name began to be common. It is noted (in Eus., H.E., vi. 30) that Gregory Thaumaturgus exchanged the name of Theodore for Gregory, but this instance is not quite clear. [743] We are told that a certain Sabina, during the reign of Decius (in 250 A.D.) called herself Theodota when she was asked at her trial what was her name. [744] In the Acta of a certain martyr called Balsamus (311 A.D.), the accused cries "According to my paternal name I am Balsamus, but according to the spiritual, name which I received at baptism, I am Peter." [745] Interesting, too, is the account given by Eusebius (Mart. Pal., xi. 7 f.) of five Egyptian Christians who were martyred during the Diocletian persecution. They all bore Egyptian names. But when the first of them was questioned by the magistrate, he replied not with his own name but with that of an Old Testament prophet. Whereupon Eusebius observes, "This was because, they had assumed such names instead of the names given them by their parents, names probably derived from idols; so that one could hear them calling themselves Elijih, [746] Jeremiah, Isaiah, Samuel, and Daniel, thus giving themselves out to be Jews in the spiritual sense, even the true and genuine Israel of God, not merely by their deeds, but by the names they bore."

Obviously, the ruling idea here is not yet that of patron saints; the prophets are selected as models, not as patrons. Even the change of name itself is still a novelty. This is borne out by the festal epistles of Athanasius in the fourth century, which contain an extraordinary number of Christian names, almost all of which are the familiar pagan names (Greek or Egyptian). Biblical names are still infrequent, although in one passage, writing.of a certain Gelous Hierakatnmon, Athanasius does remark that "out of shame he took the name of Eulogius in addition to his own name." [747]

It is very remarkable that down to the middle of the fourth century Peter and Paul are about the only New Testament names to be met with, while Old Testament names again are so rare that the above case of the five Egyptians who had assumed prophetic names must be considered an exception to the rule. Even the name of John, so far as I know, only began to appear within the fourth century, and that slowly. On the other hand, we must not here adduce a passage from Dionysius of Alexandria, which has been already under review. He certainly writes: "In my opinion, many persons [in the apostolic] had the same name as John, for out of love for him, admiring and emulating him, and desirous of being loved by the Lord even as he was, many assumed the same surname, just as many of the children of the faithful are also called Peter and Paul." But what Dionysius says here about the name of John is simply a conjecture with regard to the apostolic age, while indirectly, though plainly enough, he testifies that Christians in his own day were called Peter and Paul, but not John. [748] This preference assigned to the name of the two apostolic leaders throughout the East and West alike is significant, [749] and it is endorsed by a passage from Eustathius, the bishop of Antioch, who was a contemporary of Athanasius. "Many Jews," he writes, "call themselves after the patriarchs and prophets, and yet are guilty of wickedness. Many [Christian] Greeks call themselves Peter and Paul, and yet behave in a most disgraceful fashion." Evidently the Old Testament names were left as a rule to the Jews, while Peter and Paul continue apparently to be the only New Testament names which are actually in use. This state of matters lasted till the second half of the fourth century. [750] As the saints, prophets, patriarchs, angels, etc., henceforth took the place of the dethroned gods of paganism, and as the stories of these gods were transformed into stories of the saints, the supersession of mythological names now commenced in real earnest. [751] Now, for the first time, do we often light upon names like John, James, Andrew, Simon, and Mary, besides--though much more rarely is the West--names from the Old Testament, At the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom, e.g. (cp. Hom. 52, in Matth. Migne, vol. lx. 365), exhorts the believers to call their children after the saints, so that the saints may serve them as examples of virtue. But in giving this counsel he does not mention its, most powerful motive, a motive disclosed by Theodoret, bishop of Cyprus in Syria, thirty years afterwards. It is this: that people are to give their children the names of saints and martyrs, in order to win them the protection and patronage of these heroes. [752] Then and thereafter this was the object which determined the choice of names. The result was a selection of names varying with the different countries and provinces; for the calendar of the provincial saints and the names of famous local bishops who were dead were taken into account together with the Bible. As early as the close of the fourth century, e.g., people in Antioch liked to call their children after the great bishop Meletius. Withal, haphazard and freedom of choice always played some part in the choice of a name, nor was it every ear that could grow accustomed to the sound of barbarian Semitic names. As has been observed already, the Western church was very backward in adopting Old Testament names, and this continued till the days of Calvinism. __________________________________________________________________

[738] Thus in the gospels we read of Jesus calling Simon "Kephas" and the sons of Zebedee "Boanerges" In Acts iv. 36 we are told that the Apostles named a man called Joseph "Barnabas" (Saulus Paulus does not come under this class).

[739] Similarly Eusebius (Mart. Pal., p. 82, ed. Violet): "The confessors, when asked by the judge where they came from, forbore to speak of their home on earth, but gave their true heavenly home, saying, We belong to the Jerusalem which is above" (cp. also, in Eugipii epist. ad Pascasium, 9, how St Severin describes his origin). Augustine also is evidence for the use of "Christianus" as a proper name. Looking back on his childhood (though lie was not baptized till he was a man), he writes: "In ecclesia mihi nomen Christi infanti est inditum" (Confess., vi. 4. 5).

[740] Other surnames (which were not Christian) also occur among Christians; cp. Tertull., ad Scapulam, iv.: "Proculus Christianus, qui Torpacion cognominabatur." Similar cases were not unusual at that time, The Christian soldier Tarachus (Acta Tarachi in Ruinart's Acta Martyr., Ratisbon 1859, p. 452) says: "My parents called me Tarachus, and when I became a soldier I was called Victor" ("a parentibus dicor Tarachus, et cum militarem nominatus sum Victor"). Cyprian (according to Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. xlviii.) called himself Cæcilius after the priest who was the means of his conversion; besides that he bore the surname of Thascius, so that his full name ran, "Cæcilius Cyprianus qui et Thascius" (Ep. lxii., an epistle which is written to a Christian called "Florentius qui et Puppianus"). Cumont (Les Inscr. chrét. de l'Asie mineure, p. 22) has collected a series of examples from the inscriptions, some of which are undoubtedly Christian Geron ho kai Kuriakos, Attalos epiklen Hesaias, Optatina Resticia Pascasia, M. Cæcilius Saturninus qui et Eusebius, Valentina ancilla quae et Stephana, Ascia vel Maria. Of the forty martyrs of Sebaste two bear double names of this kind, viz., Leontios ho kai Theoktistos Bikratios ho kai Bibianos. In The Martyrdom of St Conon we find a Naodoros ho kai Apelles. The martyr Achatius says, "I am called Agathos-angelus" ("vocor Agathos-angelus").

[741] In Eus., H.E., vii. 25.14: hosper kai ho Paulos polus kai de kai ho Petros en tois ton piston paisin anomazetai ("Even as the children of the faithful are often called after Paul and also after Peter"). This is corroborated by an inscription from the third century (de Rossi, in Bullett. di archæol. crist., 1867, p. 6): DMM. ANNEO. PAVLO. PETRO. M. ANNEVS. PAVLVS: FILIO. CARISSIMO. The inscription is additionally interesting on account of the fact that Seneca came from this gens.

[742] It has been asserted that Pomponia Græcina retained or assumed the name of Lucina as a Christian (de Rossi, Roma Sotterr., I. p. 319, II. pp. 362, etc.), but this is extremely doubtful.--Changes of name were common among the Jews as well as in the Diaspora (see C.I.G., vol. iv. No. 9905: "Beturia Paula--que bixit ann. LXXXVI. meses VI. proselyta ann. XVI. nomine Sara mater synagogarum Campi et Bolumni").

[743] Did he call himself Gregory as an "awakened" man?

[744] Cp. Acta Pionii, ix.; this instance, however, is hardly relevant to our purpose, as Pionius instructed Sabina to call herself Theodota, in order to prevent herself from being identified.

[745] Three martyrs at Lampsacus are called Peter, Paul, and Andrew (cp. Ruinart's Acta Martyr., 1850, pp. 205 f.).

[746] See Mart. Pal., x. 1, for a martyr of this name.

[747] Festal Epistles, ed. by Larsow (p. 80).

[748] No older evidence is available. It is no proof to the contrary of what we have said, that the father of the Roman bishop Anicetus is said to have been called "John"; for, apart from the untrustworthiness of the notice (in the Liber Pontif.), he must have been a Syrian, and certainly he was not called after the apostle. According to the Acta Johannis (Prochorus), Basilius and Charis called the child given them by means of John, after the apostle's name, but these Acts belong to the post-Constantine age.

[749] It is not certain that where "Paul" is found as a Christian name it must be referred to the great apostle. But "Paul" was rather more common than "Peter" even yet. We find it first of all as the name of a gnostic Christian of Antioch, who stayed with young Origen at the house of a wealthy lady in Alexandria (Eus., H.E., vi. 2. 14). Then there is Paul of Samosata, and the martyr Paul (Mart. Pal., p. 65), besides another martyr of the same name at Jamnia (op. cit., p. 86).

[750] The bishops who attended the council of Nicæa got their names between 250 and 290. Of the 237 names which have come down to us, six-sevenths are common pagan names; there are even some like Aphrodisius, Orion, etc. About 18 names are "pious," but neutral as regards any distinctively Christian value, e.g., Eusebius (five times), Hosius, Theodorus, Theodotus, Diodorus, Theophilus; of these, however, Pistus (twice, both times from the Balkan peninsula) may be regarded with a certain probability as Christian. The other 19 names show Paul six times (Palestine, Coele-Syria, proconsular Asia, Phrygia, Isauria, and Cappadocia) Peter four times (Palestine twice, Coele-Syria, Egypt: it is interesting to notice the absence of Asia), Mark three times (Lydia, Calabria, Achaia--but it is extremely questionable, at least, if the name was taken from the evangelist), John once (Persia) and James once (Nisibis),--though in both cases it is doubtful if the apostles were taken as the originals, since Jewish names would be common in the far East,--Moses once (in Cilicia, perhaps a Jew by birth), Stephen twice (Cappadocia and Isauria--very doubtful if any reference to the biblical Stephen), and Polycarp once (Pisidia). It is quite possible that the last-named may have been called after the great bishop of Smyrna, but there was also a Polycarp among the 87 bishops of the Synod of Carthage. As for the Old Testament names, the earliest instances, which are still very rare (in the second half of the third century), are almost all from Egypt. A list may be appended here, at Lietzmann's suggestion. Hilary, in the extant fragments of his collection of documents relating to the Roman controversy (II. and III.), gives 134 episcopal names for the council of Sardica (61 orthodox and 73 semi-Arian), while Athanasius gives 284 orthodox names for the same synod (Apol. c. Arian. 50), though he has unfortunately omitted the episcopal sees. All these bishops must have got their names between 270 and 310 A.D. Among Hilary's 134, there is a Moses, an Isaac, a Jonah (?), and a Paul (the Moses in Thessalian Thebes, the Isaac in Luetum [= Loueitha, Arab, Petr.?]). All the rest bear current and in part purely pagan names (the latter may have been quite probably Jews by birth). As for the 284 names of Athanasius, the same holds true of 270. The other 14 (i.e., only 5 per cent.) include Paul (five times), Peter (once), Andrew (once; in Egypt, possibly after the apostle), Elijah (three times, in Egypt), Isaiah, Isaac, Joseph, Jonah (just once)--all in Egypt, except Jonah. This confirms what we have just said. The pagan names have remained untouched. Only "Paul" and "Peter" (to a slight extent) have slipped in. The Old Testament names are still confined to Egypt, and even there they are not yet common.

[751] The thirtieth of the Arabic canons of Nicæa is unauthentic and late: "Fideles nomina gentilium filiis suis non imponant; sed potius omnis natio Christianorum suit nominibus utatur, ut gentiles suis utuntur, imponanturque nomina Christianorum secundum scripturam in baptismo" ("Let not the faithful give pagan names to their children, Rather let the whole Christian people use its own names, as pagans use theirs, giving children at baptism the names of Christians according to the Scripture").

[752] Græc. affect. curat., viii. p. 923, ed. Schulze. __________________________________________________________________