Eusebius of Caesarea, Onomasticon (1971) Introduction. pp. i-xl.
COMPARED WITH THE VERSION OF JEROME AND ANNOTATED
BY
C. Umhau Wolf
(1914 - 2004)
1971
Digitised 2006.
ONOMASTICON OF EUSEBIUS
Foreword. viii
Translator’s Preface. ix
Digitizer’s Note. x
Bibliographical
Sketch of Author. xii
EUSEBIUS
OF CAESAREA AND THE
ONOMASTICON. xvi
Introduction. xvi
Life of Eusebius. xvii
Caesarea. xviii
The Onomasticon. xix
Method and Sources. xxi
Manuscripts,
Editions and Translations. xxiv
Pilgrims. xxvi
The Madaba Map. xxvii
Critical
Study of the Onomasticon. xxviii
The
Onomasticon and Biblical Topography. xxxii
Summary. xxxvii
Introduction
- Footnotes. xxxix
CONCERNING THE PLACE NAMES IN SACRED SCRIPTURE. 1
Latin Preface by Jerome. 1
SECTION A.. 2
GENESIS. 2
EXODUS. 3
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 4
JOSHUE. 6
JUDGES. 12
KINGS. 13
THE GOSPELS. 16SECTION B.. 16
GENESIS. 16
EXODUS. 17
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 17
JOSUE. 18
JUDGES. 21
KINGS. 22
THE GOSPELS. 23SECTION G.. 23
GENESIS. 23
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 24
JOSUE. 25
KINGS. 28
THE GOSPELS. 29SECTION D.. 29
GENESIS. 29
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 30
JOSUE. 30
JUDGES. 31
KINGS. 31
THE GOSPELS. 32SECTION E. 32
GENESIS. 32
EXODUS. 33
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 33
JOSUE (of Naue) 34
KINGS. 36
THE GOSPELS. 36SECTION Z. 37
GENESIS. 37
JOSUE. 37
KINGS. 37SECTION E. 38
GENESIS. 38
JOSUE. 38
JUDGES. 38
KINGS. 39SECTION TH.. 39
GENESIS. 39
DEUTERONOMY.. 39
JOSUE. 39
JUDGES. 40
KINGS. 41SECTION I..42
GENESIS. 42
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 42
JOSUE. 43
KINGS. 45
THE GOSPELS. 45SECTION K.. 46
GENESIS. 46
JOSUE. 47
JUDGES. 48
KINGS. 48SECTION L. 49
GENESIS. 49
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 49
JOSUE. 49
JUDGES. 50
KINGS. 50SECTION M.. 51
GENESIS. 51
EXODUS. 51
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 52
JOSUE. 52
JUDGES. 54
KINGS. 54SECTION N.. 56
GENESIS. 56
JOSUE. 56
JUDGES. 57
KINGS. 57
THE GOSPELS. 57SECTION X.. 58
JOSHUE. 58SECTION O.. 58
GENESIS. 58
EXODUS. 58
JOSUE. 58SECTION P. 59
THE PENTATEUCH.. 59SECTION R.. 59
THE PENTATEUCH.. 59
JOSUE. 60
KINGS. 60SECTION S. 61
GENESIS. 62
EXODUS. 63
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 63
JOSUE. 64
JUDGES. 66
KINGS. 66SECTION T. 68
GENESIS. 68
JOSUE. 69
JUDGES. 69
THE GOSPELS. 69SECTION PH.. 69
GENESIS. 69
EXODUS. 70
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 70
JUDGES. 71
KINGS. 71SECTION X.. 72
GENESIS. 72
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 72
JOSUE. 72
KINGS. 73SECTION O.. 74
THE PENTATEUCH.. 74
JOSUE and KINGS. 74
NOTES. 76
Latin Preface By Jerome. 76
SECTION A.. 76
GENESIS. 76
EXODUS. 81
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 81
JOSHUA (of Naue)90
JUDGES. 107
KINGS. 109
THE GOSPELS. 117SECTION B.. 118
GENESIS. 118
EXODUS. 121
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 121
JOSUE. 124
JUDGES. 132
KINGS. 134
THE GOSPELS. 137SECTION G.. 139
GENESIS. 139
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 141
JOSUE. 144
KINGS. 150
THE GOSPELS. 153SECTION D.. 154
GENESIS. 154
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 156
JOSUE. 156
JUDGES. 158
KINGS. 158
THE GOSPELS. 159SECTION E. 159
GENESIS. 160
EXODUS. 161
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 161
JOSUE (of Naue)162
KINGS. 166
THE GOSPELS. 168SECTION Z. 168
GENESIS. 168
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 168
JOSUE. 169
KINGS. 170SECTION E. 170
GENESIS. 170
JOSUE. 171
JUDGES. 172
KINGS. 172SECTION TH.. 172
GENESIS. 173
DEUTERONOMY.. 173
JOSUE. 174
JUDGES. 176
KINGS. 176SECTION I..178
GENESIS. 178
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 179
JOSUE. 180
KINGS. 187
THE GOSPELS. 188SECTION K.. 188
GENESIS. 188
JOSUE. 190
JUDGES. 192
KINGS. 193SECTION L. 195
GENESIS. 195
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 196
JUDGES. 198
KINGS. 198SECTION M.. 199
GENESIS. 199
EXODUS. 200
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 201
JOSUE. 202
JUDGES. 206
KINGS. 207SECTION N.. 210
GENESIS. 210
JOSUE. 212
JUDGES. 213
THE GOSPELS. 215SECTION X.. 215
GENESIS. 216
EXODUS. 216
JOSUE. 217SECTION P. 217
THE PENTATEUCH.. 217SECTION R.. 217
THE PENTATEUCH.. 218
JOSUE. 219
KINGS. 221SECTION S. 224
GENESIS. 224
EXODUS. 227
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 227
JOSUE. 229
JUDGES. 234
KINGS. 235SECTION T. 239
GENESIS. 240
JOSUE. 240
JUDGES. 240
THE GOSPELS. 241SECTION PH.. 241
GENESIS. 241TH.. 241
PH.. 242
EXODUS. 243
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 243
JUDGES. 245
KINGS. 245SECTION X.. 246
GENESIS. 246
NUMBERS AND DEUTERONOMY.. 247
JOSUE. 248
KINGS. 249
APPENDIX I - Lists of Latin Variants and Special Terms. 253
APPENDIX II - Idols, Jewish & Christian Towns, Greek polichne & Jerusalem Sites. 254
APPENDIX III - Biblical Lists and Sources. 255
APPENDIX IV - Tribal Allotment and Continued Habitation. 256
APPENDIX V - Methods for Localization of Sites. 257
APPENDIX VI - Summary of Data in Appendix. 265
APPENDIX VII - Significant Reference Points for Location. 266
APPENDIX VIII - Regions of Onomasticon. 267
APPENDIX IX - Latin Equivalents of Some Greek Words. 277
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of many scholars, living and dead, and friends, not all of whom can be mentioned. First he is indebted to Moses Bailey and Alexander Sperber who introduced him to the labyrinth of the Onomastica of the Bible before World War II. Thanks to Ernest Wright who in his concern for the non-classically trained seminarians and neophyte archaeologists suggested this English translation of the Onomasticon reputed to be Eusebius' as a sabbatical project. Thanks to Edward Campbell for his insistence on an article for the Biblical Archaeologist (Sept. 1964, xxvii, 3) which forms the basis for the introductory critical remarks in this edition and are used by permission of the American Schools of Oriental Research whose Jerusalem building was the seat for much of the research.
Thanks to the trustees of Harvard University for permission to quote from the Thackeray translation of Josephus’ Antiquities in the Loeb Classical Library. A special thanks to the host of geographers who have labored over the Onomasticon including among many Conder, Buhl, Thomsen, Abel, Albright, Avi-Yonah, Glueck, O’Callaghan, Kallai, Melamed, and Mittmann. The basic text of Klostermann, published in 1904, with reference to Lagarde, has been used in this translation.
C. Umhau Wolf, December 24, 1971
This English edition of the Onomasticon is the first in the Western languages. It is a fairly literal translation of the Greek text and is not intended for the classics scholar but for those who are not versed in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, but are interested in the geography and archaeology of the Holy Land. It is not intended for textual critics of the Bible or of the Onomasticon although some of the notes and appendices include variants and textual materials.
To avoid a double translation, the Greek and Latin have been conflated except for the final editor’s Introduction which varies greatly in the two languages. Parentheses ( ) are used to indicate minor variations in the Latin from the presumed earlier Greek text. Brackets [ ] are used to indicate either a lacuna in the Greek text which has been emended from the Latin or an addition of significance made by the Latin editors. The notes on individual entries also indicate which of these occur in any given section.
The notes that follow the translation are not an attempt at a biblical geography for which the reader has access to many good volumes. They do not attempt an archaeological survey of the Holy Land. The notes emphasize late Roman and Byzantine sites and sources especially when the Onomasticon's text makes some attempt to locate and identify a place or where the text is confused. Not all Old Testament or New Testament sites are mentioned in the Onomasticon and many of those which are have not been located in the Greek and Latin texts so are not located or identified in these notes. Again reference to a biblical atlas or geography is to be had for this detailed study.
New theories of identification and new archaeological discoveries are appearing with great frequency. Some updating of the Onomasticon locations is to be continuously in the works. The most recent studies are by Avi-Yonah, Melamed and Mittmann with single studies appearing in Israeli journals (Israel Exploration Journal, Eretz-Israel, and Tarbiz) and others (Biblical Archaeologist, Revue Biblique, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Deutsche Palästina-Verein, etc.).
I decided to proof and edit this manuscript soon after my father’s death. My father, Dr. C(arl). Umhau Wolf, had spent more than four years of research, translation, and writing on this Onomasticon project.
Originally the Catholic University of America Press had requested the translation but when the draft of the manuscript was sent to the press they decided that the translation was too scholarly for their planned use in their Fathers of the Church series.
Even though he referred to the Onomasticon's translation as "just a laundry list," I wanted the translation to be more accessible than just gathering dust in a file drawer. The aged manuscript has faded making some entries difficult to read and this has caused difficulty with the output from the optical scanner. I have spent almost a year correcting the scanned manuscript and hope that the final version has few errors. The manuscript should be considered a draft manuscript and not a final draft for publication.
I did very few editorial changes since my background in electronics and library science leaves me quite ignorant of this subject. I have added the Onomasticon’s translation’s Sections to the End notes. I have used diacritical marks only where indicated in the original manuscript since there are some places that the name differs only due to a diacritical mark. This causes a double entry in the index for those places and names that have been used with and without the diacritical marks. The endnote numbers were abandoned shortly after the beginning of the translation for reasons unknown to me. I have completed the endnote numbers to the translation. I have not changed the text where there is a question mark (?) indicating that the text required additional research.
The Klostermann citations were handwritten in the margins. I have included the Klostermann citations in all end notes and have substituted the complete Lagarde citation for the Lagarde section numbers located also as handwritten additions in the margins. Each end note consists of the following elements: the end note number; the place or name; the biblical chapter and verse from the Greek text; the Klostermann text page and line number of the Greek text; and the Legarde text page number and line number of the Greek text. After end note number one, the citations are abbreviated using "K" for Klostermann and "L" for Legarde. Where a place or name is not found in the Legarde text, I have indicated "n/a; Lacuna in Greek Text."
The index includes Greek variants of places and names found in the end notes. Also included are the Arabic places and names that were italicized in the body, but I have decided for ease of sorting alphabetically to eliminate the italics throughout the index. I did not use the Latin textual variants for places and names in the index.
Abbreviations of books are expanded to full titles only when the full title is known to the digitizer. I took the liberty of changing the journals listed at the end of the Translator’s Preface from initials to complete titles.
In 1964, my father spent his sabbatical leave in the Middle East. He, my stepmother, and my youngest sister were residents at the American School of Oriental Research (ASOR) most of that year while he did research for the translation of the Onomasticon. During this time, I was |xi stationed at Asmara, Ethiopia with the U. S. Army’s Signal Corps. I was able to travel to Jordan to visit my family and I had the pleasure of a short stay at the ASOR.
I would like to thank Roger Pearse, Ipswich, United Kingdom, for his encouragement to digitize the manuscript, his suggestion to add a biography of the author, his word processing editing, and for placing the final digitized manuscript on his web site’s pages about Eusebius of Caesarea, http://www.tertullian.org/fathers. I thank David J. McGonagle, Director, The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.), for assuring me that I had the most recent draft copy of the Onomasticon's translation’s manuscript. Thanks to Mike Robinson, Reference Librarian, Bryan Wildenthal Memorial Library, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas, for obtaining, through interlibrary loans, the many books that I requested during the digitization process.
I realize that there are many excellent translations of the Onomasticon in print today. I hope this translation may be a minor supplement to these available translations.
Noel C. WOLF, November 18, 2005
Dr. Wolf was born, in Baltimore, Maryland, a third generation German-American on both sides of his father and mother. His paternal grandfather came to the United States from Alsace in 1871. His father was a Lutheran minister with a Ph.D. in Classical Archaeology. He had to be known by his second name, Umhau (his mother’s maiden name) because his father was named Carl also.
His knowledge of languages began with four years of Latin, two years of French, and two years of German in high school followed by Biblical Hebrew in Seminary and continued with Arabic, Aramaic, Greek, Medieval Hebrew, Syriac, and Yiddish in graduate school.
He received a B.A. from John Hopkins University (1934), a B.D. from Capital University (1938), an M.S.D. from Capital University, an M.A. from Ohio State University (1936), and a Ph.D. from Hartford Seminary (1942), dissertation title, The pre-Masoretic Pronunciation of Hebrew According to the Septuagint. He was ordained as a Lutheran minister at his father’s church, Grace Lutheran, Baltimore, Maryland (1937).
After ordination and marrying Dorothy Rising, Dr. Wolf was called to be the pastor at a dual Lutheran parish Zion, Jelloway, Knox County, Ohio and St. John, Kaylor Ridge, Holmes County, Ohio. It wasn’t until 1990, while doing research for his grandfather’s biography, that he discovered that his grandfather’s first congregation, also as a newly married, was close by at Fryburg, Holmes County, Ohio. He remained here until he was awarded the Jacobus Fellowship at Hartford Seminary, Hartford, Connecticut to complete his doctoral thesis at the seminary.
Dr. Wolf was called up to active service in May 1941and was commissioned a First Lieutenant Infantry Chaplain assigned to the First Infantry Division (The Big Red One), 16th Regiment. He completed, in absentia, his Ph.D. while stationed with the U. S. Army at Camp Blanding, Gainsville, Florida. The oral exam was waved and substituted with a written exam. The First Infantry Division participated in the invasion of Africa from Morocco to Algeria. Chaplain Wolf wrote and had mimeographed a short "salaam" note in Arabic to be scattered over the landing zone by aircraft and handed out by soldiers. He spent the rest of his war service in the Allies’ African campaign directed against Field Marshal Rommel’s German troops. He wrote a memoir of his army experience, African Asides, which had to be submitted to the U. S. Army Censors before publication. When it was returned to him, the censors had one entire chapter crossed out and each page stamped "Unauthorized for publication." Other chapters had entire pages and many paragraphs crossed out. The uncensored bound typescript was donated, along with other items, to the newly dedicated Chaplain’s Archival Museum and Library, Fort Jackson, South Carolina. |xiii
Dr. Wolf was the Executive Secretary of the Johns Hopkins Student YMCA after the war. He became a special student, postdoctoral courtesy, under Dr. W. F. Albright at the Near Eastern Seminary.
In 1947, he accepted the Old Testament professor position at the Chicago Lutheran Divinity School, Maywood, Illinois. Most of his first students were World War II veterans. He was later promoted to the Dean of Graduate Studies of the school. During his years at the Divinity School, he founded the Biblical Colloquium and was secretary of the venerable Chicago Society of Biblical Research. He became a member of the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and later became Vice President of the branch. He published a children’s book on race relations called Freddie.
In 1948, Dr. Wolf spent the summer at an archaeological site in South Dakota doing what is known as salvage archaeology. Salvage archaeology is a dig required by law to check out possible ancient Native American sites before a bridge, large dam, or other new construction projects can get authorization to begin construction. This dig was where a new dam was to be constructed on the Missouri River just north of the state capital, Jefferson City. Native American remains and minor artifacts were uncovered by the team and were turned over to the South Dakota State Museum. One time during a storm the team had to take refuge in a large stone horse trough as a tornado came through the dig site.
Dr. Wolf was awarded the Thayer Fellowship at the American School of Oriental Research (ASOR) (now The W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research (AIAR)) to study in Jerusalem (1950). He traveled alone to Jerusalem. His wife arrived a few months later. She had the misfortune of being mugged in Cairo, Egypt while in transit to Jerusalem. John Badeau, President, American University of Cairo, took her in and assisted her in obtaining a replacement ticket to travel to Jerusalem, as well as clothes and luggage.
During his year at the ASOR he participated in the excavation of Herod’s Jericho Palace and assisted with the Library of Congress cataloging of various monasteries’ collections. The Wolf’s were specifically assigned to the Syrian Monastery.
My father was one of Dr. W. F. Albright’s "men" until he was forced to turn down a Fulbright Research Grant to compare Iron Age pottery in Egypt due to his wife, my mother, having been diagnosed with a fatal brain cancer in 1952. Dr. Albright never understood why my father had to turn down the scholarship. After that, Dr. Albright never spoke to him.
In 1952 with Dr. Albright no longer a sponsor or a friend, Dr. Wolf had little hope of archaeological professional advancement. He accepted the position of head pastor of the congregation at St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, Northwestern Ohio of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Toledo, Ohio. His wife died during the first year of the family’s arrival at Toledo.
Dr. Wolf remarried in 1954 to Betty Hartman, a third generation member of St. Paul and a well-accepted radio and television personality. He served as head pastor from 1953-1965. |xiv Some highlights of this Toledo period are the establishment of an ecumenical project, the Annual Lecture at St. Paul, featuring leading Catholic and Protestant scholars; a speaker at the dedication of the National Islamic Center (now the Islamic Mosque and Cultural Center), Washington, District of Columbia (D.C.); and active involvement with the small Muslim congregation in Toledo which later became the Islamic Center of Greater Toledo. In 1962 he was granted a sabbatical year.
Dr. Wolf took his sabbatical leave in 1964. He, his wife, and his youngest daughter traveled in their Volkswagen bus from Hamburg, Germany to Jerusalem. They were residents at the American School of Oriental Research (ASOR), Jerusalem, most of that year. My father used this time to verify Eusebius’ Onomasticon’s places’ locations as well as assist with an archeological excavation just outside of Jerusalem. He and his wife traveled throughout the Middle East for several months. One trip through Iraq and Iran included time in jail in Kurdistan while the Kurdistan officials decided whether they were spies. My stepmother wrote a well-received book, Journey Through the Holy Land, Doubleday Press, 1967, reprinted in 1968, about living and traveling in the Middle East. She also reassembled pottery items using the shards from the excavation site.
In 1965 Dr. Wolf accepted an invitation to become the Director of the Lutheran Institute for Religious Studies (LIFRS), a new continuing education program for clergy and laity at Texas Lutheran College (now Texas Lutheran University), Seguin, Texas. The program covered the area of three Lutheran synods which served Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico. Many of the programs were ecumenical seminars and weekend conferences for opening dialogues between the many racial, ethnic, and social groups of the four states. Some of these meetings became very confrontational. He was a member of the Board of the Hispanic American Institute. From 1972-1974 Dr. Wolf was active in the Texas Conference of Churches on Aging.
Dr. Wolf returned to Toledo, Ohio in 1975 as pastor at Hope Lutheran church. In 1977 he and his wife published a text and leader’s guide on retirement, Ten to Get Ready, and the accompanying guide, Leader’s Guide. In 1980, Dr. Wolf retired from Hope Lutheran Church. For the next twenty years, whenever he was in Toledo, he served as interim pastor of Washington Congregation of the United Church, a "Transdenominational" church.
During retirement Dr. Wolf and his wife spent the cooler months in Austin, Texas and the warmer months in Toledo. In 1990 he completed a biography of his grandfather, George Wolf, who was an ordained minister who had served in Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, and California. Dr. Wolf was active in aging and retirement issues. He taught many ten-week courses in the Austin and Toledo senior centers as well as the Austin Lifelong Learning Institute. He also was active in the Gray Panthers and participated in picketing the United States President Reagan’s White House Conference on Aging at Washington, D.C. In 1999 they sold the Austin house and began permanent residence in Toledo. He and his wife became the only non-black members of Ascension Lutheran church where they worshiped the remainder of their lives. His wife died in 2001 and Dr. Wolf died in 2004. |xv
Dr. Wolf enjoyed research, writing, and publishing. His publications including articles, book reviews, and sermons have appeared in many Lutheran papers and journals. He published articles (popular and learned) in many non-Lutheran and sectarian journals. These include, but are not limited to: The Moslem World (now Muslim World), The Jewish Quarterly Review, The Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, The Journal of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, Biblical Archaeology, Interpretation, Adult Leadership, American Sociological Review, Christian Century, and The Christian Advocate. He also contributed articles in the books The Interpreter’s Dictionary to the Bible, Supplement to the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Studies, and The Making of Ministers.
Dr. Wolf’s books include a three-volume series, Nineteenth Century Lutherans in Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan; Biography of Rev. George Wolf, H.P.; Biography of Nathaniel Carter: First Joint Synod Negro Pastor; Biography of Marmaduke Carter, the son of Nathaniel Carter who was also a Lutheran Pastor; Freddie, a children’s book; and The Onomasticon of Eusebius Pamphili: Compared with the Version of Jerome and Annotated. |xvi
Eusebius Pamphili, better known as Eusebius of Caesarea, had the encyclopedic interests of ancient scholars. Although popularly known as "The Father of Church History" because of his ten volumes on the history of the Christian Church from New Testament times to just before the Council of Nicea, Eusebius was an omnibus writer. "His erudition would be remarkable in any age; the versatility of his studies is amazing and posterity owes him a heavy debt." 2 His works are used by students in many disciplines. At least twenty-nine or thirty works are known by name, of which about twenty are extant or preserved almost fully in some translation.
Even the classification of these works is difficult. Foakes-Jackson calls Eusebius a chronologer, a theologian, a biblical student, a topographer of Palestine, an historian, and an apologist. The editor of the newest translation of the Church History, Deferrari has six classifications: historical, exegetical, apologetic, doctrinal, letters, and homilies. Lake gives no classification except a possible chronological division of four periods in Eusebius’ life: early period, 303-313, 313-325, and after Nicea.
Of the early period only Adversus Hieroclem is extent, but other apologeti, and historical works belonged to this period. Of the second, the same two types of writings dominate. The Chronicon or World History survives in an Armenian and a Latin translation. The Preparatio Evangelica is fully extant, while the Demonstratio Evangelica is about half complete in our present texts. During the last great period of persecution of the Christians by Rome there must have been a devastating burning of Christian books, and the library of Caesarea would have been a principal target although no literary reference to this tragedy remains.
The renowned Church History or Ecclesiastical History (Historia Ecclesiastica), originally with only eight books, belongs to the period between the Edict of Milan and the Council of Nicea. The study of Palestinian Martyrs also comes from this period of improved church-state relations. After Nicea there are many writings on Emperor Constantine, Eusebius’ commentaries on Old and New Testament, his geographical works and some theological and apologetic works. Except for the first three parts of his geographical writings, at least fragments of all the works from this last period survive, attesting the more favorable circumstances of the Church.
As an historian Eusebius bridges the gap in our history from the Book of Acts to the Council of Nicea. Foakes-Jackson compares his importance to that of Josephus who does the same for the inter-testamental history of the Jews.3 Both were wide readers and often used their sources uncritically. As scholars, favored with patronage from Roman rulers, they had access to books and other political and military sources not open to all. Although called "historians" both wrote their histories as apologies for their faith. Neither is as complete as modern scholarship would desire, but despite the many faults and lacunae they remain our only written sources for the history of their respective periods. The historical writings of both are not only similar in origin, nature and purpose, but are approximately equal in length. |xvii
Neither Josephus nor Eusebius was a fanatic defender of the faith. They can hardly be claimed by one sect or party, yet their influence on their respective rulers and on their co-religionists can not be ignored or minimized. Josephus was considered a traitor or "Quisling," while Eusebius was called "heretic." He was involved in the Arian struggle. He was sympathetic to Arius and some of his best friends were Arians even if he himself were not theologically an Arian. In an attempt to mediate the difficulties and to hold to a middle of the road theology himself, he lost his opportunity for sainthood. His contemporaries could not agree on his orthodoxy. The controversy over his theological position continued after his death among other church historians and theologians, even though he signed the Nicene Creed and the anathema decreed upon Arius.4 At the Council of Tyre in 335 he was accused not merely of heresy but of apostasy since he apparently had escaped the persecutions of the first decade of the fourth century unscathed. His later writings seem to be orthodox, but the Arians still used him. He suffered even a greater loss of reputation when the Iconoclasts quoted him at the second Council of Nicea and forced the more orthodox to attack him severely. His reputation in the East never recovered after the Photius schism, but St. Jerome in the West admired him and is greatly responsible for the survival of his writings. Details of the controversy as well as summaries of his many writings are not pertinent in this Introduction, but the classic Smith’s Dictionary of Christian a Biography is still a good survey.
The name Eusebius is a common one. At least forty contemporaries are called by this name. Another famous church father is Eusebius of Nicomedia. St. Jerome also occasionally used the name Eusebii. Therefore, the author of the Onomasticon is distinguished from the others by three epithets.
Because he was the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine for a number of years he is often called Eusebius of Caesarea. Some authors call him Eusebius "the Palestinian" which may refer to this same fact of his bishopric or perhaps hint of his origin and birth. He himself chose and preferred the name Eusebius Pamphili after his teacher and friend, Pamphilius, the martyr.
No biography of Eusebius of Caesarea exists from contemporary times. It is believed that his successor Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, wrote one, but it is no longer extant. The place and the year of his birth are unknown. Earlier scholars suggested his birth was between 275 and 280. More careful recent scholarship places the date earlier, between 259 and 265.5 There is no evidence that he was not a Palestinian and perhaps even a native of Caesarea itself. His parents were not Jewish, but again all proof that they were Christian is lacking. Arius called him "brother" to Eusebius of Nicomedia but this probably reflects Christian usage or theological kinship rather than blood relationship.
Little is known of his youth and early training. But he soon became a student in the theological school of Caesarea founded by Origen. He studied under Pamphilius. Their relationship became more than that of student to teacher. They were friends and co-workers. Both were lovers of books and admirers of Origen. They probably added new books to the illustrious library gathered together at Caesarea by Origen during the last twenty years of his life. The theological, biblical |xviii and exegetical tradition of Origen was most influential on Eusebius. Apparently about 296 when still in Palestine as a student, Eusebius had his first glimpse of Constantine.
The action of Eusebius during the great persecution is a matter of debate and much speculation. There is no doubt that during part of the time he was absent from Caesarea. But he visited the imprisoned Pamphilius sometime during the period 307-310. There is a suggestion that he was arrested and held briefly himself in 309. He also reports that he witnessed the deaths of other martyrs in Tyre and elsewhere. After the death of Pamphilius in February 310, he fled to Egypt. It is suggested that he may have been arrested a second time (or for the first time). He was released when peace was restored in 313 and he returned to Caesarea. As noted above he was accused at the Council of Tyre in 335 of betraying the faith and of making the pagan sacrifice in order to survive. He did not suffer injury in the persecution it is true, but no evidence was produced in 335 or since to prove his supposed apostasy.
Shortly after 313 he became bishop of Caesarea. When he was ordained a deacon or priest is unknown. Some suggest he was not ordained at all until elected bishop. In 314 a brief persecution flared up under Licinius but it did not affect Palestine and Egypt. In 315 Eusebius is known as one who has been bishop for some time already. About 318 the Arian troubles began to come to a head. He was chairman of the Council of Nicea (the term president is deliberately avoided here) in 325. He and Constantine seem to have agreed on policy for the most part. As a moderate he felt the church could have room for both the followers of Arius and of Athanasius. He usually voted, however, with the majority. But after Nicea he spent much effort to prevent the complete alienation of the Arians from the mainstream of the Church. There is no record of his stand on the Easter controversy. Eusebius described some of the pomp of the Council in De Vita Constantini. He played a large role in all the proceedings and sat at Constantine’s right even though Rome, Alexandria and Antioch outranked Caesarea.
Eusebius was bishop of Caesarea for almost twenty-five years. In 330 he turned down the opportunity to become bishop of Antioch. He attended the Council of Antioch in 331 and the Council of Tyre in 335. Similarly he was active in the Synods of Jerusalem and Constantinople in the same year. He was the chief orator for the 30th anniversary of Constantine’s reign. This panegyric was later attached to his Life of Constantine. Eusebius remained high in the regard of Constantine and was a close advisor to him at least from 325 on, if not as early as 313. Constantine died in 337 and Eusebius shortly after in 339 or 340 at about eighty years of age. His successor as bishop of Caesarea was present at the Synod of Antioch in 341.
Caesarea Palestine was located on the coast of Palestine in the Sharon plain. Its ruins at Qeisariyeh are eight miles south of Dor and about thirty miles north of Jaffa. It had been the capital of Judea and the seat of Roman procurators after the time of Herod until 66 A.D. It was the metropolis of Christian and Byzantine Palestine and seemed to have served after 70 A.D. as the ecclesiastical capital.6 |xix
Herod the Great began to build a new Hellenistic city on the site of Strato’s Tower in 22 B.C. Strato’s Tower was a relatively insignificant town with its beginning perhaps in the Persian period. It is mentioned by Zenon in the middle of the 3rd century B.C. Caesarea Sebaste was at least twelve years in the building and was consecrated to Augustus in 13 B.C. Josephus gives us details of the glory and grandeur of Herod’s Caesarea in his Antiquities XV, 9, 6 and Wars I 21, 5-8. The public buildings were in the magnificent Hellenistic-Roman style. The whole area was well irrigated by aqueducts and drainage canals, and remained a garden spot for years, until neglect and economic reverses gave it back to the sand.
At the time of Jesus’ birth Caesarea was at its zenith. In 1961 an inscription with the name of Pontius Pilate was found in the theatre excavations.7 The Jews of Caesarea were among the first victims of the First Revolt’s suppression. Vespasian was acclaimed emperor at Caesarea in 69 A.D. and in 70 A.D. Titus brought the temple spoils to Caesarea.
The city was expanded further in the 2nd Century A.D. New aqueducts, new roads and monuments were erected and the city became a colonial capital and shortly thereafter a metropolis with the privilege of coining its own money. By the end of that century there was a Christian bishop in Caesarea along with a famous rabbinic school. In the third century a colony of Samaritans was established. In the Byzantine period, fourth to sixth centuries, Caesarea reached new heights rivaling that of Herod.
In 639 Arabs conquered the city and brought an end to Roman rule. For some 460 years the Moslems controlled the city and used its port for commercial and military expansion. The Crusaders and the Moslems battled over Caesarea many times and in 1291 its destruction was complete. Thereafter it was only a site for temporary habitation by squatters as the dust, sand and malaria took over.
In the nineteenth century Moslems from Bosnia were resettled by the Turks near the ruins of the Crusader city. Between 1937 and 1940 the Jewish colony Kibbutz Sedot Yam was established near the Roman ruins. The glory of ancient Caesarea intrigued the colonists and since that time many archaeological efforts have been exerted toward the recovery of Herodian, Byzantine and Crusader remains.
Already in 1932 a synagogue was reported near the sea. In 1945 and later it was excavated. It has a history from the Roman period to the Arab conquest. Italian archaeologists began digging in the Herodian area about 1959, with special attention to the theatre. In 1960 the Link expedition to the port was carried out. The large scale Israeli Department of Antiquities excavation began in 1960 in the Crusader area. Excavation continues apace.
The history of the city is being refined by these continuing archaeological endeavors. Perhaps the grand temple of Augustus has been found along with many other Herodian foundations. One large Byzantine establishment may even turn out to be Origen’s library. The Crusader fortress and cathedral have been cleared and it has been recognized that much of Byzantine Caesarea was obliterated by the rebuilding of the Crusaders. |xx
It was in the flourishing Roman-Byzantine city of Caesarea that bishop Eusebius wrote or compiled his four part geographical work, of which only the last, the Onomasticon, survived the exigencies of time. According to the preface, the three lost works were in some way preparatory for the Onomasticon if not fully incorporated into it. Wallace-Hadrill gives these high sounding titles to the first three works: 1) Interpretation of Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures, 2) Chorography of Ancient Judea with the Inheritance of the Tribes, 3) Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple with Memories relating to the Various Localities.8
The first was a translation or transliteration of Hebrew proper names into Greek. This does not seem to have been much more than a skeletal outline of proper names based on the Hexapla. Whether it included an etymology of the place-names (and perhaps some personal names) as in the more technical sense of an onomastical list cannot now be determined.9 Such a list is Jerome’s Interpretation of Hebrew Names which is based on Philo and Origen. Undoubtedly Eusebius had their lists and those of others, both Jewish and Christian.
The second was a list or description of ancient Judea arranged by tribes. This was of course based on the tribal lists of Numbers and Joshua. It is reasonable to suspect that almost all of this has been incorporated bodily into the final work since one of the things the Onomasticon treats most thoroughly is the tribal designation of each place based on the Greek text of the tribal divisions. There is some inconclusive discussion as to whether this description accompanied a map or was only a map. There is a map attached to the 12th century Latin manuscript of Jerome’s Onomasticon in the British Museum which could be derived from Eusebius’ map, if such a map existed.10
The third was a descriptive plan of Jerusalem and the Temple area. In the Onomasticon many proper names of areas in and around Jerusalem are separately identified and described, especially some with New Testament significance. Probably this information was closely related to the original plan for the complete work. The rediscovery of the HolyCity by Constantine and St Helena was responsible for this renewed interest.
The fourth part is the Onomasticon itself, which was completed about 330 A.D. or shortly before. Several facts pertain to the problem of settling the date. It is dedicated, as is the Church History, to Paulinus, who retired as bishop of Tyre before the Council of Nicea (325), and died in 330. That gives the latest possible date. On the other hand, the Greek text notes none of the Constantinian churches, of which Eusebius knew and about which he wrote in other works (so that architects and archaeologists use his works as primary sources for the Constantinian foundation). Jerome, however, places the Onomasticon late in Eusebius’ career. Taken together, these facts suggest that Eusebius dedicated it to Paulinus after his retirement as bishop of Tyre.
In the Greek Vatican Manuscript the Onomasticon is entitled "Concerning the Place-names in Sacred Scripture." The Latin does not contain such a precise title. In general, the book is a geographical bible dictionary within certain stated limitations. (These were breached by later editorial additions and marginal glosses.) With a few exceptions the text confines itself to the Holy Land as proposed in the preface. This of course counters the plan to give all place-names of |xxi Holy Scripture, since among others the cities which Paul visited are missing. The preface also proposes that cities and villages are to be noted, but the present Greek and Latin texts include also wadies, deserts, mountains, districts and even an occasional personal and idol name. Almost 1000 items, largely from the Old Testament and from the first 6 books, are recorded, of which about 400 are sufficiently described to warrant an attempt at localization.11 Already in the time of the Survey of Western Palestine, Conder claimed to have identified 300.12
The arrangement of the book is according to the Greek alphabet from Alpha to Omega. Since the Greek letters do not follow the Semitic alphabet there are some doublets as well as some transcriptional errors, some of which were from the Septuagint LXX (hereafter LXX). Jerome in the Latin had to indicate some of the places where the three alphabets diverge. In the present text - A - takes up almost one quarter of the entire length of the book. Judah is the primary area detailed, especially in sections -A- and -B-.
Within each alphabetic division, the place-names are arranged according to the order of the biblical books in the Septuagint, beginning with Genesis. Numbers and Deuteronomy are often linked together as one subdivision. In smaller alphabetic sections the Pentateuch is made the first heading. The book of Leviticus is not referred to (see Appendix III). The other major divisions are Joshua, Judges, Kings and the Gospels. I Chronicles, Job, Maccabees and the Prophets are usually subsumed under Kings.
II Chronicles is rare and some of the place-names of I Chronicles are omitted, but most of these were paralleled in earlier lists. Esther and Daniel are not involved, probably because the majority of place-names in them are outside of the proposed territorial scope of the column. The greatest geographic lacuna seems to be Ezra-Nehemiah. In addition, Rabbakkuk, Haggai, Malachi, Ruth, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations are omitted although none of these has a strong topographical orientation. There are only one or two, sometimes questionable, items from Psalms, Job, Song of Solomon, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Zephaniah and the Acts. The New Testament Epistles and the Book of Revelation are almost completely ignored. Except for Maccabees none of the apocrypha or pseudepigrapha appears (see Appendix III).
The treatment of each place name almost seems whimsical, varying from one or two words to a whole page. The simplest entries are "tribe of..." or "lot of..." and "station (camp) in the desert." Other simple notations are the listing of the variant readings from one of the columns of the Hexapla. Significantly for textual criticism (see below) the two longest entries are both out of the supposed geographical limits, namely Ararat and Babel. Both are padded with direct quotations from Josephus’ Antiquities. The longest legitimate entry is Beersheba.
Seven or eight items appear with more or less regularity in the Onomasticon usually in the same artificial order. This arrangement is not at all conducive to great literary style and the translation does not attempt to smooth things out. Eusebius is not noted for style even in his Church History. In the present work, as we seem to have it, it is the work of an archivist who accumulated |xxii miscellaneous facts. There may be also in these items material for literary criticism. The items that occur are as follows:
1. A word for word quotation of the biblical text of the Hexapla with some allusion to variant readings.
2. A generalized location of the place in tribal or provincial area which may or may not be contemporary to the editor.
3. A summary of the events or event associated with the place, with any Gospel allusion usually coming at the end as an addendum.
4. A quotation of or reference to other authorities such as Josephus.
5. A specific location in reference to the fourth (?) century towns and roads, with or without indication of distance and direction.
6. A modern name of the place and whether still inhabited or in ruins along with reference to present memorials or tombs.
7. Notations about the present inhabitants (pagan, Christian, Jewish, Samaritan) and some of their activities.
8. Reference to similarly sounding names in "other" regions.
9. Reference to Roman garrisons and forts.
There can be little doubt that Eusebius based his work on the text of the Hexapla,13 that great compilation in six columns of the current variant Greek texts which brought them into conformity with the Hebrew (which appears as column 1). Caesarea was the place in which Origen produced the Hexapla. The text of the Onomasticon uses the transcriptions of the Hebrew into Greek letters (Col. 2) more often than any other Greek forms. Reference to Aquila (Col. 3), Symmachus (Col. 4), Theodotion (Col. 6), and Origen (Col. 5) in the text may also be wholly from the Hexapla, although Col. 5 would represent other Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. A few of the Hexaplaric annotations are marginal glosses later than the 4th century.
If Eusebius knew Hebrew he did not utilize the Masoretic text, and unlike Jerome, was dependent upon the Hexapla. Some think there is use of simple Hebrew by Eusebius in the Demonstratio Evangelica but this Hebrew could also be derived from Philo and Origen. The few references in the Greek version of the Onomasticon to "in Hebrew" could all be references to Col. 1 or 2 of the Hexapla and require no great knowledge of either Hebrew language or texts. As noted above they could be glosses or a later editorial addition. The occasional etymological notations and the frequent quotations of the interpretations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion could also be accounted for in the same ways. Some of the etymologies found in the Masoretic text in Hebrew are not utilized by the Onomasticon.
Additional information based on the Bible includes the lists of Levitical cities and the cities of refuge, as well as the stations of the desert. Occasionally there is added reference to the capture of the place by Joshua and the subsequent killing of its king, or the fact that the tribe to whom the place was allotted was unable to dispossess the original inhabitants and so take possession of their territory. Three times the Samaritan founding of a city by those transported by the Babylonians is noted. |xxiii
Often the generalized location of the place is solely the biblical location. The tribal allotments are fairly completely recorded. Of course, Eusebius is confused as much as modern scholars about the real status of border towns or other towns listed in different tribal territories according to diverse texts. For much of this localization Eusebius must have had first hand and personal knowledge of the country, although certainly not as thorough as that of Jerome. The Greek text is more detailed and accurate in the location of sites in the central hill country than elsewhere. Perhaps this was because Eusebius, as bishop of Caesarea, frequently traveled to Jerusalem and also because his earlier sources were produced there in Jewish circles.
Topographic references are found in his other works. So we find in Demonstratio Evangelica Bethlehem (I, 1; vii, 2), Mt. of Olives (iv, 18); in De Vita Constantini Bethlehem (iii, 41f), Mt. of Olives (iii, 41), Jerusalem (iii, 25-40), Mamrē (iii, 51); in De Laudibus Constantini Bethlehem (ix, 17), Mt. of Olives (ix, 17), and in Theophania Jerusalem (iv, 18). These are but a small sample. In his Church History allusions to topography and geography are especially frequent in the first two books. Brief topographical notes are recorded also in some of his commentaries.
The famous library at Caesarea and the library of Bishop Alexander in Jerusalem were treasure houses of source materials for Eusebius, especially in his Church History and Demonstratio Evangelica.14 Anonymous sources seem to be referred to with "it is said" or "they affirm" but whether these were written records or local oral traditions cannot be determined. Josephus is quoted twelve times. The commentaries of Origen and the writings of Paulinus were also referred to. Roman administrative lists, maps, charts and military documents have also influenced the final recension of the text, but at what date is unclear. The two early fourth century itineraries, the Antoninus and the Bordeaux, are very close to Onomasticon and all three may depend on a common source. Paula and Jerome, of course, used the Onomasticon as one of several sources for their travels.
The Roman road system was well organized and charted.15 Many of the milestones of the first three centuries must have survived into the fourth even though it was the custom of each emperor to install new markers as a kind of memorial to his reign. For the most part distances seem to be according to mileposts. The slight divergence between Jerome and Eusebius, which is often only one mile, can be largely accounted for by the fact that a site is seldom so small as to be only at one milestone and also that in seventy-five (or more) years the roads and starting points normally would change slightly.
The Tabula Peutinger, a kind of road map of the Roman Empire, is perhaps contemporary with Eusebius (possibly a little earlier) even though all our extant manuscripts are medieval. A check of some of the roads suggests that it or its forerunner was a source for the Onomasticon. For example, on the coastal road, Eusebius notes every point from Sidon to Ostracine except Apollonia. From Damascus to Petra on the "King’s Highway" he has all except three non-biblical stops, but adds the three biblical towns Madaba, Dibon and Heshbon. From Caesarea to Jerusalem nothing is missing. There is no doubt that the twenty-eight places located by means of two fixed points and a milestone, as affirmed by Martin Noth, are on the Roman roads.16 The formula is either "in the border of city a x miles from city y" or "going from city z toward city b |xxiv at sign x." Sometimes a compass direction is added. Occasionally the distance is not in terms of miles, but of the number of days needed for the journey (see Appendix V).
Another method of localization is from a fixed point, with a distance and sometimes a direction but with no definite road outlined. The city is usually the datum point for location both by distance and by region. There are 226 common distances of which 190 are based on a city and only thirty-six on some other locality. Similarly ninety-three directions appear of which seventy-four are oriented on a city and only nineteen on some other fixed point.17 The four major cities of reference are Eleutheropolis, Jerusalem, Legeon, and Hesbon.18 In addition there are ten city regions in which villages are located, the more important being Eleutheropolis, Jerusalem, Diospolis, Diocaesarea, Sebaste 19 and Neapolis (see Appendix VIII).
In addition to the use of the Roman road system and the city regions, localization is also made by the use of the expressions "near," "around," "not far from," "extending up to," "between x and y," "along side," "midway between a and y" (see Appendix IX). Distance is also variously recorded as "separated from," "distant from," "going up to," "going into," "going down," "along the road between" (see Appendix V). There is a possibility that different sources were used and so reflect themselves in the various methods of localization. It is quite possible that each editor had his own style for locating a contemporary site or tradition. When the Onomasticon has been programmed through a computer it may be possible to isolate clearly these editorial additions. This would also be true of Latin translation of various Greek terms (see Appendices I and IX).
It must be remembered that Eusebius was writing for his contemporaries and some knowledge of the country and its oral traditions of the time could be assumed even though modern scholars might wish for more specific information. The different editors may have utilized other oral traditions and travelers’ information as well as their own personal experiences and additional written sources. Priests and bishops from other areas of the Holy Land would naturally exchange road information in the 4th century just as tourists and pilgrims do today.
Most important is the data indicating the fourth century status of the site. (This assumes Eusebius is the major redactor, but the variety of terms used may reflect different traditions and strata.) Several Greek words are used for "exists," "remains," "is still," as well as several synonyms for "called," or "named," and "pointed out" or "shown." There is also the reference to present inhabitants and importance which can be checked out in other literature and by archaeological excavation. At least two hundred items have a notation of fourth century existence of which three quarters are fairly well localized and identified. A few sites are indicated as abandoned or in ruins. It is possible that at times topos as well as eremos represents a ruined site (cp. Galgala 66:4 where both words are used together).
Among the incidental facts given is the religious constituency of a town. Anaia (26:9, 14), a double village, is a Jewish village which has a companion Christian settlement. There are eleven wholly Jewish villages; three Christian, one Samaritan and one Ebionite recorded in the text (see Appendix II). Heathen shrines are reported in at least three places. Idols are mentioned at least ten times. A special interest is shown in tombs and memorials without any critical analysis of contradictory items such as the various traditions for the location of the tomb of Habakkuk |xxv (70:22, 88:26, and 114:15). Tombs of the Maccabees, Mary, Abraham, Haran, Rachel, Joseph, Joshua, Jesse, and David are mentioned. Again these traditions may be from several editors' hands. Jerome remarks on five churches built in the 4th century (see Appendix I).20
Usually the last item to be noted is the presence of a fort or Roman garrison. There is a very close parallel to much of the material gathered in the Notitia Dignitatum which dates from slightly later than Jerome’s translation of the Onomasticon. The Notitia Dignitatum or a similar work must have been used for the final recension.
The basic manuscript for the Onomasticon is Codex Vaticanus, Gr. 1456 which dates from the 11th or 12th century. For the most part the hand is clear but there are still many errors, corruptions and lacunae. According to a notation it once was in the Library at Sinai. It seems to be in a direct line from the original Greek. Lagarde and Klostermann used this as their textus receptus.
I was privileged to check this manuscript in the Vatican Library. It is contained in a volume of onomastica and is on pages 2 - 53. The ink is dark and clear except for two faded pages 9 and 18. All the pages are single columned except for the recto and verso of 19 which is a palimpsest and has the text in two columns. The scribal hand seems to be the same throughout, although some of the alphabetic divisions and biblical sections have been added later by different hand and different ink. Alphabetic and biblical headings are usually on the same line. Occasionally they are in red ink. The point is regularly used after the place name and usually at the end of the phrase or sentence entry. Prepositions and articles are usually not separated from the following word.
Dependent upon this manuscript is Codex Parisinus Gr 464 which dates from the 16th century. These two manuscripts were edited and published by Lagarde in 1870. The second, Codex 464, was the sole source used by Bonfrere in 1631 and 1659 for his edition of the Onomasticon of Eusebius.
The translation of Jerome was made about 390 A.D. He recognized errors in Eusebius and used his knowledge of Hebrew to correct the transliterations and some of the etymology. He also corrected some of the place descriptions and locations. Already in 389 Jerome has used some of this material in his Hebrew Questions, which we have utilized from time to time in the notes. The reference to this volume in the Latin was probably not original with Jerome but cross reference by a scribe in the 5th century or later. Jerome has more etymologies than Eusebius’ Greek text, but this information was ready at hand from his Interpretation of Hebrew Names, which is incorporated in the notes of this present volume. As noted above Jerome was familiar with the Constantinian and post-Constantinian church foundations. By various counts between forty-five and fifty-five additional names appear in Latin even when allowing for obvious scribal lacunae of Vaticanus 1456. |xxvi
It was through Jerome’s Latin version that European scholars and pilgrims became acquainted with the Onomasticon. According to the Latin preface there had already been at least one earlier translation into Latin. Several 8th and 9th century Latin manuscripts have survived which were used rather freely by Klostermann to emend Vaticanus. These are the Monacensis Lat. 6228, Codex Sangallensis 133 and 130, and Bambergensis B iv 19. The Latin is really not an exact translation and Klostermann was a bit overly optimistic with his emendations of the Greek. Latin editions of the Onomasticon have been prepared by Martinainay in 1699 and by Vallarsi in 1735 and 1767.
Syriac translations of Eusebius’ works were made very early and often Syriac writers added new important information to the text. One early geographic work called, "The Book of the Figure of the World" included the Onomasticon as its fourth part. Unfortunately this is lost and known only by literary sources, but could it possibly be the four geographic works of Eusebius noted in the Greek preface? A manuscript of the 14th century was discovered and partially edited in the early 1920's.21 This is a rather slavishly literal work following the Greek word order and rendering every article, and will be valuable for textual criticism if and when a new Greek edition is published.
Procopius of Gaza in his Commentary on the Octateuch frequently quotes the Onomasticon's Greek text. These quotations often confirm or correct the Vaticanus text. Already in 1716 Reland had recognized the usefulness of Procopius in the study of the ancient monuments of Palestine. Thomsen and Klostermann rely heavily on an eleventh century Procopius manuscript. The Madaba Map is sometimes appealed to for emending transcriptions but this is a dubious procedure.
The earliest critical edition of the Onomasticon was that of 1862 by Larsow and Parthey, followed in 1870 by Lagarde (second edition 1887). Klostermann’s text appeared in 1904. So far the Onomasticon has not appeared in the Migne series of Greek Church fathers although much of Eusebius has been published there. It is about time for a new critical edition of the Greek and Latin texts to appear.
In 1931-1933 Melamed published his important critical study of the Onomasticon in a Hebrew journal Tarbiz. He also translated the Onomasticon into Hebrew. The present volume is the first modern translation of the Onomasticon into a western European language, the first ever in English.
Already before Constantine, interest in the places of the prophets and the sites of the Savior’s deeds had been aroused (Historia Ecclesiastica iv, 26, 14). Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen showed scholarly interest in the Holy Land and they as much as Constantine and St. Helena are responsible for the knowledge of Palestine in the 4th and 5th centuries. Other pilgrims in the third century followed Origen (Historia Ecclesiastica vi, 11, 2). Constantine’s mother and mother-in-law began the series of Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land which have never ceased even in time of hostilities. |xxvii
Of first rank is the Pilgrim of Bordeaux (ca. 332-333). This is so nearly contemporaneous with the Onomasticon that one hesitates to posit any dependent relationship, but there are many parallels. Both had the Bible as a common source and both probably utilized an earlier Roman itinerary and perhaps some lists. It is quite possible that the earlier "map" of Eusebius was known by the Pilgrim. Later scribes probably corrected reciprocally these two works.
Paula (ca. 382) and Silvia (ca. 385) came in the time of Jerome and could easily have known and used the Greek Onomasticon. From their time on there is no reasonable doubt that the pilgrims were dependent upon the Onomasticon. There is real evidence of such dependence by Aetheria, who may be the same as Silvia, on the Onomasticon for places as well as forms of names.22 Even allowing for the Bible as a common source, the Greek text was primary also. The earlier Latin translation noted in Jerome’s preface and that of Jerome could also have been in the hands of this pilgrim.
After the turn of the 5th century, the rise of monasticism, the end of the Christological controversies, together with the peace and security of the realm, brought many pilgrims to the Holy Land. Some followed the example of Jerome and remained, while others returned to their homelands. But a high percentage of them valued highly the Onomasticon in one of its several versions. Next to the Bible, it was their basic guide and companion. It "remained the vade-mecum of the pilgrims to the time of the crusaders."23
The Madaba Map has been adequately studied by Avi-Yonah and by O’Callaghan.24 Their general conclusions do not disagree with those of the first students of this mosaic map of sixth century biblical lands found east of the Jordan. There is a very close relationship of the Map legends to the Onomasticon. The map also parallels the so-called Jerome map of medieval times which may have been derived from an earlier Eusebius map or plan.
The area of the map and of the Onomasticon is approximately the same. Byblos is the most NW site for both. On the East the line is Damascus and Bozrah. The Egyptian cities such as On and Memphis form the SW limit. A very high proportion of the sites on the map are directly from the text of the Greek Onomasticon, according to some estimates two thirds. This is even more significant a figure than at first appears since the mosaic is a Christian map depicting Gospel sites. Less than one fourth of the Old Testament sites in the area appear on the Madaba Map. The division of tribal territory and the boundaries of the Philistines also agree with the Greek text.
In a few instances the map even seems to follow the errors of the Greek text: for Akrabbim, Anob, Thamna, Gedour, Bethaun, Adiathim, etc. In still fewer the mosaicist follows an independent tradition: Emmaus, Geba, Ainon, Bethabara, and Dalah. He also has a more detailed knowledge of post-Constantinian Jerusalem and Palestina Secunda than the Onomasticon could be expected to reveal. Yet the absence of monasteries indicates that the source of the map was prior in time to the fantastic monastic tide.25 |xxviii
For Garisim and Gebal the map apparently records both traditions: the Jewish near Jericho and the Samaritan near Nablus, which later the Greek Onomasticon emphatically denies as correct. In the few instances where transcription only, not location, disagrees with the Greek of the Onomasticon, it may be that the map reflects not a separate tradition but a Semitic designer who did not always understand his Greek source. In addition to the Onomasticon and its "map" (?) the mosaicists probably had access to one or more pilgrim itineraries and to diocesan lists. This would be one explanation for the non-biblical names appearing on the map, some of which are not entries in our text, but serve as reference points only.
The Madaba Map, as the Onomasticon, has varied types of entries. Avi-Yonah notes four classes, three of which probably derive directly from the Greek Onomasticon: 1) A simple place name with no additions but properly located in tribal boundaries, 2) the sixth century name and the biblical name, which parallels "there is now" or "it is a village now called," 3) reference to churches and other monuments, 4) eleven texts which refer to scriptural events. In groups 2 and 4 the correlation with the Greek Onomasticon is almost 90%.
All the large walled cities with towers behind on the Madaba Map are called "city," "large city," "famous city," "metropolis" by Eusebius. For the smaller cities with only a front wall and four or five towers and for the larger villages with three or four towers connected by a wall, there is no consistent correlation with the Onomasticon’s terminology. (Nor is there any consistency in the various strata of the Onomasticon that can be checked out in the present state of textual criticism and archaeological research.) Both Beersheba and Ekron are called "large town" but are different as depicted on the map. Does this imply Ekron had declined in the intervening centuries? Bethzur and Bethel are both simply villages in Eusebius, but Bethzur is a large town on the map while Bethel is small, having only two towers and the connecting wall. Does this accurately record the changed fortunes?
Textual criticism of the Onomasticon began with Jerome. In his Hebrew Questions he corrected not only the text but the facts of Eusebius. In the Latin version, Jerome not only improved on the earlier anonymous Latin translation, but also reviewed Eusebius and his own former conclusions. In correspondence and commentaries over a twenty-year period Jerome corrected Eusebius as well as checked the Greek text. Modern students must use these works of Jerome: Latin versions of the Onomasticon, Hebrew Questions, Epistles 46 and 108 and miscellaneous commentaries. The notes in this present volume include most of the relevant materials from these texts. The Interpretation of Hebrew Names is sometimes useful for checking transcriptions and/or transliterations and the occasional etymology of the Greek text. The texts of many items from this are also included in the notes to follow.
Whether Procopius of Gaza consciously emends and corrects the Greek text of the Onomasticon or not, cannot be determined. But from the very beginning of modern scholarship, his quotations of Eusebius have been used, e.g., by Roland, Lagarde, Thomsen, and Klostermann. As noted above, the Madaba Map is not to be considered a critical source. |xxix
On the other hand, literary or source criticism has seldom appeared regarding the Onomasticon. In antiquity the authorship even of such a prosaic agglomeration of materials was taken for granted. The witness of Procopius and Jerome, as well as that of others less directly concerned, and the notations on ancient manuscripts were considered sufficient proof of authorship. Not until Thomsen and Kubitschek in 1905 and 1906 began their argument over the streets and road network behind the Onomasticon was any higher criticism applied, suggesting additions, glosses etc.26 Kubitschek made much of the inconsistencies in distance, the apparent placing of two different sites at the same milestone, assuming a roadway. He is agnostic about Eusebius’ use of itineraries, pilgrim reports (oral or written) and suggests, although not directly, that these inconsistencies may reflect an unscholarly card file system of recording all available information, contradictory, reduplicative or not. In the reply Thomsen for the first time admits possible glosses. He suggests that some of the Greek Onomasticon may have been personal marginal notes on Eusebius’ own manuscript (of onomastical lists, his Onomasticon, Greek Bible manuscript and/or Hexapla) and never intended any separate publication of the final redaction. According to this theory, as they became unwieldy he arranged them in an alphabetic order (if an onomastical list, this order may have been already established) and according to the books of the Bible (or this arrangement could have been primary as in the Hexapla or some onomastical lists and the alphabetic order thus secondary). After Eusebius’ death all such notes would be treasured by his students and although revered as from his hand, nevertheless recognize as incomplete. One or more of his admirers would try to complete it, correct it and make it worthy of the bishop of Caesarea. The preface could be added in those days with no thought of intellectual dishonesty.
This revolutionary explanation for the contradictions, doublets and inequities of treatment, as well as stylistic inconsistencies, was forgotten for years and even the German school ignored it for a generation. As late as 1943 Noth speaks as if one author and one date is to be accepted and that Eusebius is the genuine author, not merely one of the last redactors.
The detailed and precise work of criticism by the Jewish scholar Melamed 27 in the early 1930's has been neglected, probably because it was written and published in Modern Hebrew long before Israel had become a state and modern Hebrew a necessary language for biblical scholars. Published separately as an offprint it made no new impact. The recent monumental biblical encyclopaedia published in Israel has Melamed’s own summary concerning the Onomasticon, but this too is in Modern Hebrew.
In the first part of his criticism Melamed notes that the Torah and the Prophets are the source for the basic text rather than all the books of the Bible as proposed in the preface. In the New Testament only the Four Gospels are primary. He concludes that all other references to places cited in other books, i.e., the writings and Acts are from a second hand, as probably also the rare annotations from Maccabees. He notes some could well be omitted because in Hebrew there is little typographical material in such books. But the absence of reference to Ezra-Nehemiah, Leviticus (except Levitical cities) Daniel’s sites are probably considered outside the Holy Land as delimited in the preface (see Appendix III).
In the second part Melamed treats of doublets, of improper entries (e.g., personal names, idols, etc.), of confusions and lacunae and notes that not even all the place-names of Torah, Prophets |xxx and Gospels are recorded. He emphasizes the obvious confusion of traditions, the conflation of transliterations. Part three concerns the use of the Hexapla and the fifth column of Origen. Curiously the annotations from the Former Prophets have many references to Aquila.
In the fourth part his criticism begins to take form. Noting that not all the alphabetic sections are divided by the same biblical divisions, he lists certain Old Testament texts which have been given exhaustive treatment, e.g., Joshua 21, Numbers 33, I Kings 9:15, and Isaiah 60. He concludes that originally only cities and villages were listed with some biblical information but without any contemporary geographical details. All mountains, which are not announced in the Greek preface, appear in the Greek Onomasticon out of their proper biblical order. So also all stones and rocks are not in their proper place. The Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee appear to be appendages at the end of their respective sections. The idol Chemosh is out of place. Further, when two similar entries appear with the second usually having "another" after the name, the first is almost always where it should be in the biblical order, while the second or "another" is properly entered only six times. This suggests editorial additions.
In the commentary on places which include among other things, etymology, history, topographical identification (both biblical and contemporary), allusion to versions, distances, roads and other names, Melamed notes many variants and inconsistencies. Sometimes more than one historical event is recorded in a single entry. Occasionally a reference is given to Josephus but no event of history is recorded. There is a stereotyped formula for many events in Joshua, such as "and killed its king" or "did not drive out the former inhabitants (foreigners)." The notation "whence David fled" appears almost as an afterthought. The lot of Benjamin is much confused. Not all the cities of refuge are called such and they are variously labeled. There is also no single formula by which fourth century [sic] existence is indicated. As noted before the same distance from the same fixed point is given for more than one place. (This could be accounted for by the quadrant use of directions, but not if on the same road between the same two reference points.) On the other hand, there are double entries for the same place giving divergent localizations. Etymologies are rare, and as noted above, the obvious ones in the Masoretic text, such as Bethlehem, Melchizedek, etc. are ignored.
In the Onomasticon only one place is from Mark and it appears also in Matthew. There is only one extensive New Testament quotation, that from John. In all of the Gospel entries some history is recorded. But many of the Old Testament names with Gospel associations do not have any reference to the later history. When they do it seems to be from a secondary hand. In twenty out of twenty-three New Testament references there is still a clear tradition of the site at the time of the editor’s addition (or final redaction?). Therefore, only once is direction given. Usually distance is also lacking. This of course could indicate that the tradition of the Gospel sites was still too much alive to require more precise localization and identification. The use of the formula "our Lord and God Jesus Christ" and other Christological formulations reflects the fourth and fifth century Christology. The name Jesus does not occur alone.
In his conclusion, Melamed sees the Onomasticon as basically a Jewish work from several Jewish hands. In all he notes four stages of editorial work. In Tarbiz 28 he was agnostic as to which was Eusebius’ own contribution, suggesting perhaps he was merely the final redactor who |xxxi Christianized an originally Jewish book by adding Gospel details. A generation later in the Encyclopaedia 29 he allows more to Eusebius as author and editor, at least giving him credit for more topographical details, which of course were derived from itineraries, maps and administrative lists, and all re-edited by his pupils and Jerome.
Above we have noted nine items that occur with more or less regularity and in approximately that same order in many entries. Some lines seem obviously not original, such as the extensive quotations of Josephus on Ararat and Babel. At best such references would have been noted "Josephus affirms" or "of which we read in Josephus." These quotations are infrequent and lengthy quotations rare. It is therefore not too radical to assume these quotations are secondary editorial and scribal additions.
The infrequent references to Gospel events in Old Testament entries are usually tacked on as if an afterthought. This suggests that they are also secondary, but at this point we cannot prejudge Eusebian authorship. Similarly the notation about Roman garrisons most frequently occurs at the end of an entry and could readily be considered an editorial addition if not a marginal gloss.
As for the rest, there is the same dilemma faced by biblical scholars. There is the same problem of authorship and sources. Is a man, even bishop and scholar, who annotated and re-edits an older book, or who conflates, even poorly, two or more sources, an author? Is he still the author even if he is re-edited by his pupils? Both Amos and I Isaiah have been worked over by their disciples, but nevertheless are usually considered to be the authors of the major portion of their books. Is only the final redactor of the Pentateuch ultimately the inspired author or is the author to be considered the composer of the primary and longer source? Is the source Q or any other behind the Synoptics the real author even though tradition calls Matthew, Mark and Luke Gospel writers? Because there is no real literary style to the Onomasticon and even his Church History is no masterpiece, it would be vain to attempt a Wellhausenist literary analysis of sentences or paragraphs. It remains for a programmed computer to read out traditional, conventional, phrased or words that may be utilized to indicate separate hands.
No doubt the basic schema or framework of the Onomasticon was originally a Jewish compilation of place-names in the Torah (and possibly also the Prophets). This probably was centered in Jerusalem area. It may have been mediated to Eusebius through Origen and his school with added textual information from the Hexapla. Whether the biblical information on Old Testament places was in such a pre-Eusebian source or not cannot be determined as yet. It is quite possible that Eusebius himself added the Gospel items at the end of each alphabetic section of his source. A student or later editors may have added the Gospel notes to the Old Testament place-names in order to complete the Christianization of the book. Since the topographical details seem to agree well with fourth century records and archaeology, and since Christian tradition regards Eusebius as the father of Palestinian geography, it seems reasonable to assume that he is responsible for the topographical and historical statements in the majority of entries even though he used, almost slavishly, certain Roman itineraries. The interest in shrines and tombs could be from an earlier Jewish hand or from an earlier distinct source available to our "author"-"editor." |xxxii
One must agree with Melamed that items out of their proper biblical order are secondary. But at this point Thomsen may be more nearly correct than Melamed. These could be marginal glosses, even from the hand of Eusebius, which pupils or disciples incorporated, perhaps a bit carelessly into their copies in such a manner as marginal glosses were included in New Testament manuscripts by medieval scribed. Eusebius’ study notes, questionings, etc. could thus have gained validation which he would not have given them. Obviously by the time the Greek copy and the early Latin version reached Jerome, the Onomasticon had been to all intents and purposes complete as found in the Greek Vatican Manuscript 1456. Jerome corrected it on the basis of new sources and his personal knowledge of Hebrew and of the land, and brought it up to date regarding fourth century Christian churches.
The Onomasticon as we now have it has a history of development covering several centuries. It began as an onomastical list (perhaps first only Levitical cities, cities of refuge and tribal allotments) as early as Philo of Alexandria. In still Jewish hands it was expanded to include major sites of the Torah and then of the Major Prophets. It is further enlarged by the school of Origen with major additions of text, interpretations and variant transliterations from what is now called the Hexapla. This is made into a pilgrim’s guide book to the Holy Land in the early fourth century by the friend of Constantine and bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius’ pupils incorporate minor additions and are responsible for some of the doublets, perhaps from Eusebius’ own marginal notes. Jerome brought it up to date for the last quarter of the fourth century A.D. Medieval copyists and scribes occasionally incorporated other marginal notes, more Hexaplaric date and fleshed out the Josephus quotations.
The average reader of the Bible assumes that a place referred to in the Old or New Testaments still exists somewhere in one of the countries of the Near or Middle East under the same name and in approximately the same location. In his fancies, he is sure he could go there promptly and find the precise place. One of the biggest disappointments of the modern tourist-pilgrim is the conflicting opinions, the indeterminable and even lost sites in Palestine. The scholar is likewise frustrated in his search.
The scientific student of biblical geography and topography is forced to face up to many problems, to choose among many possibilities and claimants, and at times to be honestly agnostic. Thus at least two or three sites are championed by different persons for the authentic Emmaus. Many are the problems, sites and arguments for (and even excavations of) Gilgal. Scholars are hard pressed to determine if the seven references to Aphek represent six or seven different sites with the same name or only one. In the most simple topographical name, the historical geographer can have at least ten variant traditions about its location, each with sub variants.
1. There is the biblical site as it was during biblical times. This may sound simple enough to define, but the biblical texts may refer the same name to more than one location. Likewise even within biblical times the settlement as well as the name could wander from the original location. An explicit of this is Bethnimra. The Early Bronze age city was at Tell Mustah. Across the road and beyond the wadi to the north is the Iron Age Israelite site, Tell Bleibel. Down the valley |xxxiii a short distance to the West is Tell Nimrin, the Byzantine and medieval Arab site which retains the name. The present town of Shunat Nimrin is adjacent to this tell toward the Jordan. In modern Israel this movement of names is happening allover again. New settlements and kibbutzim are taking biblical names, sometimes from a nearby tell, sometimes on the basis of a biblical atlas or geography of the 30's, 50's or later, and other times sentimentally chosen, but most frequently not exactly on the original site. The exiles returning from Babylon confused the topographers in a similar manner.
2. The biblical site as Jewish tradition reported it is also multiple. Even the rabbis quoted in the Talmud do not always agree.30 The Targum, Philo and Josephus complicate the tradition enough, let along what happens to it in medieval Jewish scholarship.
3. The first known Christian topographer, Eusebius, sought to identify the biblical site as it was in biblical times. But it is already obvious that his text is not always clear and that there are contradictory localizations for the same place. The roads are not always clear, directions may involve the entire quadrant of the compass, and spellings are confused. On top of that, the tradition reported by Eusebius reflects at best a post-Old Testament, perhaps even post-biblical, and therefore late decision.
4. The site as Jerome found it in the Jewish tradition is usually cited under "The Hebrews affirm." This would be a fourth stream which might have been utilized by Eusebius and still other early Christian topographers. This is not always the same as the fifth.
5. This is the site as Jerome interpreted the text of the Scripture and the text and traditions of the Onomasticon.
6. Both 4 and 5 may be quite distinct from the site as Jerome determined it by his own personal experience and study. But even this sixth stream is complicated since Jerome does not always agree with himself (or at least various Latin editors did not agree). As even a good scholar in the 20th century should, Jerome reserved the right to change his mind. His commentaries, Epistles 48 and 108, as well as Hebrew Questions do not always agree with the Latin Onomasticon's text.
7. Because of our problems with the third through sixth possibilities there is then a seventh to be accounted for. This is the site as Jewish (later Israeli) and German (rarely French, English and American) scholars in the last two centuries interpreted the data in Eusebius and Jerome. The ZDPV is full of debates on this subject.31
8. After Eusebius came the full surge of pious pilgrims. Their reports of shrines, tombs, churches, pagan remnants, and sites in general are often in conflict with one another. Because of the exigencies of the times, names and even whole districts were shifted (cf. Onomasticon on Garizin and Gaibel).
9. The crusaders developed a whole new Palestinian topography which is a study in itself. For the most part they tended to concentrate all the important sites within the small territory held by |xxxiv the Latins and so compressed one tradition into another for the convenience of the pious as well as for their safety.
10. Finally, the site in Moslem tradition and among Arab geographers marks the first revival of scholarly study after the 4th century. Saarisalo 32 and others suggest that Arab tradition of Old Testament sites is more reliable than Christian tradition of New Testament sites.
The site then as the first western and European scholars determined it could be any of the preceding ten, depending on the weight and worth given to each respective tradition by the investigators. Unfortunately it is also fairly certain that they added new traditions as they were misled by over helpful but ignorant guides who answered happily, but erroneously, misleading questions in "pidgin-Arabic." This is perhaps an eleventh claim with which we must reckon.
The Onomasticon concerns primarily the third through the seventh levels above. It is only a secondary source for the first two, but still valuable. It is the first scientific work on biblical topography extant, accumulating perhaps four to five centuries of tradition, oral and written, into one complex, confusing and exasperating manuscript. Despite its errors, lacunae and obscurities it must be used and has been used by scholars since the time of Reland.
One reason for valuing this secondary source is simply chronology. Conder stated it plainly: it is "a witness to survival of Hebrew nomenclature of the country in the fourth century, even more perfectly preserved than now." 33 This same argument is presently used for the textual value of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the ones from other nearby caves. Yet, even Conder recognized that in the Onomasticon "we see tradition not made but in the process of making." 34 Actually it is both. Eusebius has preserved for us Jewish traditions that may go back beyond New Testament times, but he also has added his own fourth century fact and fiction (plus later additions of editors and scribes) to the corpus of topographical tradition which in not always reconcilable to the Bible. The Onomasticon is more exact than the Bible itself, since the Scriptures do not pretend to be geographical documents and do not attempt to make any specific localizations on the basis of directions (the only exceptions being the tribal boundary lists and such vague terms as "east of," "opposite" etc.).
It is most probable that the Onomasticon can be taken as a primary source for the fourth century, although with further literary criticism and archaeological comparison it may become a primary source for earlier centuries. "The Onomasticon in any case seems to be an introduction to the knowledge of the occupation of the land in the fourth Christian century. For his own time, and only for this has the Onomasticon the value of an original important source for us, since the situation made it possible for him to be exact on the places of his own time" 35 The Deutschen Palestina Vereins has therefore taken Eusebius seriously and for his own sake.36 Avi-Yonah based much of his study of the Roman Map of Palestine (ca. 300) on the information in the Onomasticon and more recently used it to develop the economic history of the Byzantine period.37 Those interested in New Testament sites and early Christian churches also have utilized the Greek and Latin texts of the Onomasticon.38 |xxxv
Since according to Lapp, less than 2% of the ancient sites in Palestine are excavated and none of these completely,39 surface sherding is requisite. Glueck pioneered this work in Transjordan and the Negev. Others in Israel have intensively surveyed smaller areas. Mittmann has outlined in his thesis the East Jordan territory to the North. Besides the DPV others schools such as the École Biblique, the ASOR (now the Albright Institute), the Franciscans and the Department of Antiquity of Jordan and Israel have conducted sherding trips. However, only ZDPV consistently publishes the results and no school, museum or other agency coordinates or files the reports of the others, so much is lost and not available to this study.
The work of Glueck, Avi-Yonah, Mittmann and others indicates that the late Roman and Byzantine periods were most prosperous. Unfortunately Glueck aid not include a Byzantine map similar to that of Early Bronze and Iron sites in Transjordan, but the count is almost astronomical for sites that should be on such a map for Transjordan alone as a reading of Glueck’s volumes and the narrow territory of Mittmann’s thesis indicate. These surveys and others personally made or heard about by the author corroborate the high number of sites reported in the Onomasticon as still inhabited in the 4th century even if density of population figures are still not scientifically precise.
The area of Eusebius’ competence seems to end at a line east and west through the Northern tip of the Dead Sea and then going north along the ridge of the Ammonite plateau. In south Judea, Moab and Edam he is less knowledgeable even in his own topographical information of contemporary towns and garrisons. He knows the hill country around Jerusalem best. The coastal plain and the Jordan valley are adequately reported. Samaria and Galilee are fairly well described.
The area encompassed by the Onomasticon (even as outlined in the Greek preface) is basically the Old Testament idealized boundary "from Don to Beersheba." When Eusebius uses the term "Palestine" it is frequently non-historical. It may even be anachronistic, as it has been since 1948 with the establishment of the new state of Israel. The terms Samaria, Perea (called by Jerome Transjordan after the biblical phrase), Galilee and Idumea all have indefinable limits. Palestine Prima, Secunda, Tertia may at times be referred to and if so will be noted in the separate entry’s notes to follow. Part of the confusion is the conglomeration of sources from various dates.
As noted above the city and its district are the basis for topography and these are more important than the provincial descriptions. Melamed finds six Transjordanian areas centered around cities: Susita, Pella, Amman, Heshbon, Kerak and Petra. In the west there are twelve such centers according to him: Sepphoris, Tabor, Bethshan, Acco, Caesarea, Sebaste, Diospolis, Jericho, Jerusalem, Eleutheropolis, Hebron and Beersheba. Not all of these are important to the Onomasticon as Appendices V, VI and VIII indicate.
Villages are well located by Eusebius in these city-districts. If our finding them today is difficult, it is not so much the fault of the ancient writers as of other factors. As in the 20th century, so in the 4th, a village was not a single tell and a city was not a narrow spot at a milestone as some scholars seem to assume. Tell Deir ‘Alla, Franken points out, is only a small section of the total location of Deir ‘Alla as known to the natives today. To limit Livias (Julius) to Tell er-Rameh |xxxvi even if it fits Eusebius closely is to be unrealistic. Similarly Gadara is not merely the tell of Umm Qeis still inhabited and bordered north and south by Roman theatres. Even though names may have shifted they may often remain within the general district. Many of the towns are listed on the border, not only in biblical tribal allotments but also in the municipalities of the Onomasticon. Avi-Yonah in his map of Roman Palestine notes the region of a city or town properly on the basis of; first, all the inhabited places mentioned as belonging to it, second, all places whose localization is determined by measurement from it, and third all territory watered by the aqueduct (see Appendix V).40
Another difficulty in studying Eusebian topography has been the false assumption that distance always indicates a town on a Roman road. However, important villages and tells today are often indicated by mileage but are not on the main road. There is no necessity to limit Eusebius’ site to known Roman roads. Even when he is measuring from and along a Roman road, the site may be indicated by noting the point at which one takes off over the hills with or without benefit of track or path to find that village (e.g., Bethel). Although the debate about roads and Eusebius continues we must remember he was not writing a book about Roman highways but at best utilizing a Roman map or garrison list to help him locate biblical sites as best he could.
Text and archaeology will soon be able to check one another. Most of Eusebius’ fixed points of reference were important cities in the 4th century according to other written sources and archaeology. But it is still not possible to check his terminology or classification of towns and villages archaeologically. The use of nouns and adjectives in Greek or Latin may reflect just as much an editor’s style or propensity as a change in fortune. After all, size is relative without area and population measurements. Jerome is not at all consistent in the translation of the Greek (any more than he is or should be in the Vulgate - see Appendix IX). If Jerome were trying to indicate a change in significance by a change in terminology, we may soon be able to check the facts archaeologically. The corpus of Palestinian pottery is gradually being extended into the 4th century through Caesarea, Araq al Emir and other pottery now that the Byzantine levels are not considered dump to be bulldozed away to get down to Israelite levels. But as far as possible the existence of fourth century settlements has been checked in the present study. Details of the results will be in the notes on individual entries to follow. |xxxvii
It is obvious that the author, whoever that may be, did not fulfill completely the purpose as stated in the preface. The Onomasticon is not a complete topography of Palestine of the Old and New Testaments (see Appendix III). It is not an historical geography to the Holy Land since not all the biblical or post-biblical facts have been summarized despite the numerous editorial additions layer on layer. The Onomasticon does provide us an extant list of Greek transliterations of Hebrew place-names based largely on the no longer extant Hexapla. Incidentally that makes it a valuable source for textual study of the Hexapla. The quotations of the Greek Bible and the references to the six columns of Origen are important critical resources.
The Onomasticon in its present form has provided an almost complete tribal division for the allotments in Joshua. Judah is most complete. Unfortunately not all the sites were located or identified in the 4th century. There is no evidence that all this information was in the lost description of Judea, part two of Eusebius’ geographical opus, but that may have been incorporated into this work and could account for the Jerusalem-Eleutheropolis-Chebron triangle being so well done. If, however, the Onomasticon was accompanied by a map the location of minor border towns could have been left to the map alone and the curt notation "tribe of..." which is valueless for our purposes would have been sufficient for the ancient reader.
The Onomasticon provides us with a contemporary knowledge of fourth century Palestine and Transjordan. Some two hundred sites were positively inhabited in that time and as such Eusebius’ work is a primary source for geography of the holy Land as seen in the 4th century.
The stated purpose of the fourth and final geographical work attributed to Eusebius was to identify biblical place-names and to associate them with known places in the fourth century. "The special work of Eusebius is the positive identification of biblical places with those which were known in the country in his day and herein lies the immeasurable value of his work all." 41 This was done on the basis of many sources as noted above: Jewish, Roman, Christian, as well as oral tradition. The methodology has been followed by many scholars of the last two centuries when they based many identifications on real or imagined survivals of the name in similarly sounding names. Of course, this principle is open to attack especially when applied by persons with little linguistic or philological knowledge and left unchecked by archaeological research.
Adapting the conclusions of both Reland and Conder 42 we may sum up the value of the Onomasticon. Its worth is highest where Greek and Latin texts agree. The orthography of biblical names, especially in the Hexapla, can be restored by the use of the Onomasticon. The similar sounding names reflect a source and a survival fifteen hundred years older than any today, and record some which are otherwise lost today. The defects are largely matters of precision and lacunae. The principal cities are not defined as to their relative position and there is no sure, fixed point from which the mileage is known to have been taken. The description of locations are too often vague and even when compass directions are given they are limited to the four cardinal points and so are ambiguous, at least a quadrant being involved, and at times contradictory between Greek and Latin texts. The text as preserved to us in final redaction is often a heterogeneous agglomerate of unrelated materials assembled by many hands over several centuries. The principle of similar sounding names is tenuous at best. |xxxviii
Nevertheless, even though Abel has been criticized for too much reliance on the similarity of sounds, his judgment of the Onomasticon stands: "The Onomasticon despite its errors and its faults is of great help for knowledge of Palestine of biblical times and of the Byzantine period." 43 It is hoped that this volume will make some small contribution to biblical and Byzantine topography (limited to Onomasticon's localizations and identifications) as well as permit English speaking students and Bible readers to reassess Eusebius as a geographer. |xxxix
1. The substance of this Introduction was published in the Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. XXVII (Sept. 1964), p.3 and is used by permission of the editor Edward F. Campbell and the American Schools of Oriental Research.
2. Foakes-Jackson, F. J. Eusebius Pamphili (1933), p. xiv.
4. On Eusebius’ theology, see Berkhof, L. Die Theology des Eusebius von Caesarea (1939) and Deferrari, E. J. Church History in the Fathers of the Church Series, Vol. I. Introduction.
5. For additional material on his life, see Lake, K. in the introductory volume to Ecclesiastical History (1953 Loeb Classics); Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. Eusebius of Caesarea (1960); Altaner, B. Patrologie (1958), pp. 206ff., and the various dictionaries and encyclopedias.
6. For the history of Caesarea see Reifenbera, A. Israel Exploration Journal, I (1951), p. 20ff, Kadman, L. The Coins of Caesarea Maritima (1957), p. 16ff. popular summary in Illustrated London News, Oct.26, 1963, pp. 684ff. cf. Negav, Avraham. Caesarea (1967).
7. For archaeological study of the first campaign report Caesarea Maritima (1959), Fritsch, C.T. and Ben-Dor, I. Biblical Archaeologist XXIV (1961), Barag, D. Bulletin of Israel Exploration Society (in Hebrew), XXV, (1961), p. 231ff, Avi-Yonah, M. Rabinovitz Synagogue Fund Bulletin, I (Dec. 1949), p. 17f; II (June 1951), p. 28, III (Summer 1956, p. 44f. Negev, Avraham. Op. cit. (1967). Also see notes and reports in Revue Biblique, Israel Exploration Journal, Bulletin of Israel Exploration Society, Biblica, and Newsletter ASOR July 1971.
8. Wallace-Hadrill. Op. cit., p. 203.
9. Cp. Wutz, F. Onomastica Sacrums, 2 Vols. 1914-1915.
10. Avi-Yonah. M. The Madaba Map, (1954), p. 30. O’Callaghan, R. "Madaba (Carte de)" Supplement to Dictionnaire de la Bible. V (1957), Col. 636 cp. Fischer, H. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins, (hereafter ZDPV), XII (1939), p. 169ff.
11. Avi-Yonah, M. Madaba Map, p. 28 counts 983. Melamed. E. Z. Tarbiz, IV (1933), p. 248, counts 990.
12. Conder, C.R. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly (1896), p. 244. Cp. Thomsen, Peter. Loca Sancta, Vol. I (1907) passim.
13. Klostermann, E. Das Onomasticon der biblischen Ortsnamen (1904) = Eusebius Werke, Vol. III, Part I, p. xvi f. cf. Melamed, E. Z., op. cit., III (1932), p. 409, and Encyclopaedia Biblica, I (1950), p. 151f. Also cp. Klostermann, E. Texte und Untersuchungen, VIII 2 (1902), p. 9f.
14. In his lost Life of Pamphilius, Eusebius had listed the contents of the library in Caesarea; cf. Church History, VI 32:2.
15. Avi-Yonah, M. Map of Roman Palestine (1940, 1962); Miller, Konrad. Itineraria Romana (1916).
16. Noth, M. ZDPV, LXVI (1943), p. 34f; cf. Thomsen, P. ZDPV, XXVI (1903), p. 169ff.
17. Beyer, C. ZDPV, LTV (1931), p. 215, note 2.
18. Kubitschek, W. Jahrhefte des Osterreichischen Archaeologischen Institut in Wien, VIII (1905), p. 124.
19. Cf. Beyer, C. Op. cit., p. 213 note 1. Noth, M. Op. cit., p. 32 and Tarbiz, IV (1933), p. 260.
20. Armstrong, G. T. Imperial Church Building in the Holy Land in the Fourth Century, p. 90ff, cf. Armstrong in Gesta VI (1967), p. 1ff. Avi-Yonah, M. Studi di Antichita Cristiana, XXII (1957), p. 117ff. Kopp, C. The Holy Places of the Gospels (1963), and Baldi, P.D. Enchiridion Locorum Sanctorum (1935). |xl
21. Rahmani. Tisserant, Devreese, and Power. Revue de l’Orient Chrétienne, 3rd series, III - XXIII (1922-23), p. 225ff.
22. Ziegler. J. Biblica, XII (1931), p. 70ff. for other pilgrim texts see Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society volumes, especially Vol. I (1896) and Geyer, P. Itinera Heirosolymitana, Vol. XXXIX (1898) in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum.
23. Lemaire, P, and Baldi, D. Atlante Storico Della Bibbia (1955), p. 2.
24. Cf. Note 10 above and popular summary by Gold, V. R., Biblical Archaeologist , XXI (1958), p. 50ff.
25. Avi-Yonah, M. Madaba Map, p. 32.
26. Cf. Notes 12 and 18 above. Also Thomsen, P. ZDPV, XXIX (1906), p. 130f.
27. Melamed, E. Z. Tarbiz, III (1932), pp. 314-27, 393-409; IV (1933), pp. 78-96, 249-84 (in Hebrew).
28. Ibid., IV (1933), p. 269f.
29. Encyclopaedia Biblica, I (1950), cols. 152f. (in Hebrew).
30. Neubauer, A. La Geographie du Talmud (1868), cp. Romanoff, Pail. Onomasticon ofPalestine (1937). Avi-Yonah, M. The Holy Land (1965).
31. The annual Holy Land trips are reported regularly. More specifically Mittmann, S. articles regularly since Volume 79 (1963).
32. Saarisalo, A. Studia Orientalia, XVII (1952), p. 3.
33. Conder, C. R. Op. cit., p. 245.
34. Conder, C.R. Survey of Western Palestine, IV (1881), p. 234.
35. Noth, M. ZDPV, LXVI (1943), p. 32.
36. Mittmann, S. Beiträge zur Siedlungs und Territorialgeschichte des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes(1970) and notes 10, 16, 17, 26, 31, and 35 above.
37. Avi-Yonah, M. Map of Roman Palestine (1940, 1962) cf. Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), p. 39f.
38. See Note 20 above and various geographies, atlases beginning with Bernard, J. H., "The Churches of Constantine at Jerusalem," Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, I.
39. Lapp, P. Biblical Archaeologist, XXVI (1963), p. 122f.
40. Avi-Yonah, M. Map of Roman Palestine, p. 3.
41. Thomsen, P. ZDPV, XXVI (1903), p. 141.
42. Conder, C. R. Survey of Western Palestine, IV (1881), p. 247f.
43. Abel, F.M. Geographie de la Palestine, I (1933), p. XV.
This text was transcribed by Noel Wolf, 2005. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.
| Early Church Fathers - Additional Texts |