Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-13T09:41:46.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Acts of Phileas and Philoromus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2011

John R. Knipfing
John R. Knipfing
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Acts of Phileas and Philoromus are often cited among the more authentic documents which we possess for the persecution of Diocletian. As such they are included in Ruinart's “Acta martyrum sincera” and Knopf's “Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten.” Delehaye classes them with his third group of hagiographic sources, that is, with those accounts which are drawn either from the procès-verbaux or from the reports of eyewitnesses. Harnack, Tillemont, Allard, Le Blant, and Mason are likewise convinced of their historical credibility.

Type
Notes
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1923 , pp. 198 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1923

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Légendes hagiographiques, 2. ed., Bruxelles, 1906, p. 137.Google Scholar

2 Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, Leipzig, 1904, II. 2, p. 70.Google Scholar

3 Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, V, Bruxelles, 1732, p. 206.Google Scholar

4 La persécution de Dioclétien et le triomphe de l'église, II, Paris, 1908, p. 105, note 3.Google Scholar

5 Note sur les actes de Philéas, S., in Nuovo Bullettino di archeologia cristiana, II, 1896, pp. 27–33.Google Scholar

6 The Persecution of Diocletian, London, 1876, pp. 290–294Google Scholar; The Historic Martyrs of the Primitive Church, London, 1905, pp. 318–323.Google Scholar

7 Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F., V, p. 22.

8 Neue Jahrbücher f. d. klassische Altertum, 1914, pp. 537 f.

9 Nachrichten, Göttinger, phil.—hist. Klasse, 1905, p. 176, note 2.Google Scholar

10 Histoire ancienne de l'église, II, 4. ed., Paris, 1910, p. 46, note 3.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Delehaye, , Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, Bruxelles, 1921, p. 143, note 2.Google Scholar

12 Hist. eccles. (ed. Schwartz), viii, 9, 6–8.

13 Les passions des martyrs et les genres littéraires, pp. 435–437.

14 Cf. Hist. eccles., viii, 10, 2–10; reprinted in Knopf, , Ausgewählte Märtyrerakten, Tübingen, 1913, pp. 95–96.Google Scholar

15 Hist. eccles., viii, 9, 6–8.

16 Cf. Acts of Phileas and Philoromus, cc. 1–2; in Knopf, pp. 97–100.

17 The hypothesis of Allard, that we have here a play of words (soli deo, deo soli) to denote the cult of the Sol invictus appears to be too ingenious. Cf. Allard, La persécution de Dioclétien, II, p. 106, note 1. Knopf (p. 97, l. 15) capitalizes Soli, thus accepting Allard's view. I prefer, with Tillemont (Mémoires, V, p. 207) the simpler and more obvious sense. Note, too, but a few lines further on (Knopf, p. 97, l. 28) the same combination of words, “Deo soli in Jerosolyma.”

18 Cf. Acta, c. 1 (Knopf, p. 98, l. 20).

19 Ibid., c. 2 (Knopf, p. 99, ll. 22–25).

20 Ibid., p. 100.

21 Hist. ecles., viii, 9, 8.

22 Acta, c. 2 (Knopf, p. 100, ll. 15–18).

23 Cf. Tillemont, Mémoires, V, p. 208. Allard (La persécution de Dioclétien, II, p. 112, note 1) is assuredly wrong in holding that there was no interrogatoire of Philoromus, for that would have been contrary to all established usage. Cf. Geffcken in Hermes, 1910, p. 491.

24 Hist. eccles., viii, 9, 8; and Acta SS. Phileae et Philoromi, c. 3 (Knopf, pp. 100 f.).

25 Mémoires, V, pp. 196, 209.

26 Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, II, 2, p. 70.

27 Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F., V, 1901, p. 22.

28 Mémorie d. R. Accademia dei Lincei, XIV, 6, 1911, pp. 324 f.

29 Analecta Bollandiana, XL, 1922, p. 26.

30 Les Martyrs: le troisième siècle, Dioclétien, II, Paris, 1903, p. 290.Google Scholar

31 La persécution de Dioclétien, II, p. 105.

32 Cf. edition of De Rossi-Duchesne, , Martyrologium Hieronymianum (Bruxelles, 1894)Google Scholar, published as preface to vol. II, November, of the Acta Sanctorum.

33 Hist. eccles., loc. cit.

34 Acta SS. Phileae et Philoromi, cc. 1–3, Knopf, pp. 97–101.

35 Pap. Oxyrh. I, 1898, 71, p. 132; and Pap. Oxyrh. VI, 895; cf. Cantarelli, loc. cit.

36 Migne, Patrologia graeca, X, coll. 1565–68; Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, III, 1846. pp. 381 ff.

37 Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos, 59, in Migne, Patrologia graeca, XXV, 356.

38 Eusebius, De mart. Palest. (ed. Schwartz), 5, 2–3 (the shorter recension); and the longer recension (containing the Acta of Apphian and Aedesius) in Analecta Bollandiana, XVI, 1907, p. 127 (reprinted in Schwartz, op. cit., p. 919).

39 Analecta Bollandiana, XL, 1922, p.26.

40 ‘La serie dei Prefetti di Egitto,’ in Memorie d. R. Accad. dei Lincei, XIV, 6, 1911, pp. 324 f.Google Scholar

41 Ibid. p. 325.

42 Texte und Untersuchungen, XX, 4, 1901, p. 48. Cf. Cantarelli, op. cit, p. 326.

43 Synaxarium eccles. Constantinop. (ed. Delehaye, as Propylaeum to Acta Sanctorum, November), p. 712, l. 14.

44 This view I had already put in writing in July 1921. At that time Delehaye expressed himself to me as in full agreement with regard to the insufficiency of Cantarelli's proof for the establishment of Eustratius's prefecture in Egypt.