A regarding this opinion, Grabius opposes himself, on page 131, volume II of the *Spicilegium*, although approving of Cave; for he says it is altogether likely that Aristo uttered the words which Eusebius has there, in the disputation against Papiscus, just as Tertullian objected the same to the Jews in his own treatise against them (on account of the prophecies of the prophets being proven by their outcome), or perhaps he here transcribed Aristo, as is his custom. Furthermore, Cave himself seems to have renounced his former opinion, who, as I find from a collation of the first edition of the *Historia litteraria*, later left out the chapter on Aristo. But, if there were a suitable author, and one to be safely trusted, Moses of Chorene, the writer of the *Armenian History*—which history was indeed published by the two Whistons, the sons of that famous Gulielmus Whiston—the matter would seem to stand otherwise. For thus it would have to be believed, that Aristo had written a certain history, from which Eusebius had taken his own. B But what Moses wrote in chapter 57 of the second book, as they have been translated from the Armenian language by the editors, I have decided to transcribe here together with the whole Eusebian chapter, so that each passage may be compared with the other. For thus writes Moses of Chorene: “Aristo of Pella mentions the death of Artasis (the Armenian king) quite clearly. Since in those times the Jews fell away from Hadrian the Roman king, and engaged in conflict with Rufus the Hipparch, under the leadership of a certain robber whose name was Barchochebas, that is, ‘Son of the Star,’ who was indeed a criminal and a murderer in reality, but boasting in his name, he preached to those afflicted and captive that he was a Savior descended from heaven. The war ignited to such a degree that all the inhabitants of Syria and Mesopotamia and the Persians, looking upon this, ceased paying tribute. C For he had also heard that the disease of leprosy had invaded Hadrian. Our own Artases for his part is not moved by this matter. It happened, however, that during that time Hadrian came into Palestine, and destroyed the rebels who were besieged in a small town near Jerusalem, and for this reason ordered the whole race of the Jews to be driven from their native soil; so that they would not even look upon Jerusalem from a distance; and he himself restored Jerusalem, which had been devastated by Vespasian, Titus, and himself, and called it Aelia after his own name, since Hadrian himself had been called ‘the Sun,’ and he placed Gentiles there, and Christians, whose bishop was Marcus. During those times he sent a great army into the parts of Assyria, and ordered our Artasin to set out into Persia with his curators; whose scribe, as he was, having delivered this history to us, met Artasin in Media, in a place which is called Sohundus; Artasin, however, fell into illness, in Marindia, at the town of Bacuracerta, and from there he sent a certain Abelus, a prince of the Abelian family, an active and pleasant man, into the province of Ecelensis, to Eriza, to the temple of Diana, that he might seek health and long life from the idols; before whose return, Artasin departed from life. D Furthermore, he writes how great a crowd died with Artasin, his dear wives and concubines, etc., p. 174. Then successively the remaining pomp of the king's funeral is described.”
I shall now proceed to Eusebius, chapter 6, book IV, writing these things: “And indeed, as the revolt of the Jews had again progressed into something great and extensive, Rufus, the governor of Judea, having been sent military aid by the emperor, treated their madness without mercy, destroying myriads at once of both men and children and women, and by the law of war selling their lands into slavery. A certain Barchochebas, by name, which means ‘star,’ led the Jews at that time; he was indeed a murderous and brigandish man, yet regarding his appellation as if he were a messenger from heaven, he pretended to shine upon those who were suffering. In the eighteenth year of the reign of Hadrian, when the war had reached its peak at the city of Bithther, which was a very strong place, located not far from Jerusalem, the siege from without having lasted a long time, the authors of the innovation were driven to the ultimate destruction by famine and thirst. And as the author of their madness had paid the fitting penalty, the whole race from that time on is entirely kept from entering the territory around Jerusalem; by the decree of law and the regulations of Hadrian, who ordered that they should not even behold their native soil from a distance; Aristo of Pella reports. Thus the city having come to a desolation of the Jewish race, and a complete destruction of its former inhabitants, and having been repopulated by a race of foreigners, the Roman city that subsequently came into being, having changed its name, is called Aelia in honor of the ruler Aelius Hadrian. And indeed, the Church having been gathered there from the nations, Marcus is entrusted with the ministry there, the first after the bishops from the circumcision.”
Gallandius indeed, as I saw later, in the *Prolegomena* as above, p. lxxvi, although he did not bring forward those things of Moses, yet says he opines that, being induced by their authority, the fragment of Aristo was taken from the *Eastern History* written by him; nor does the learned Keilius dissent in his notes on the Harlesian edition of the *Bibliotheca Græca* of Fabricius, vol. VII, p. 157. But the suspicion has arisen in me that those things of Moses were not taken from any history of that kind, but only from the Eusebian (history), which had been well known to the author, while other things pertaining to Oriental matters were mixed in by Moses himself, or by some other person. And I shall bring forward an example of fraud, or vanity, in this same author, for the sake of confirming my suspicion; for in chapter 72 of the same book he attributes the work *On the Persecutions of the Church* to Firmilian, the celebrated bishop of the Cappadocians, in which work Firmilian is also said to have appended the acts of kings. In this history, however, hitherto unknown to all just as that of Aristo was, he was the author that Peter, the sixteenth bishop of Alexandria, suffered martyrdom in the ninth year of the persecution—provided you believe Moses—(this was) Firmilian. That it is most true, and indeed mentioned by Eusebius, that Peter underwent martyrdom in that year; but it is false that Firmilian wrote that, who, as Eusebius relates in the same book, book VII, chapter 30, had died forty years before. From this it is evident that Moses borrowed those things indeed regarding Peter of Alexandria from Eusebius, not from Firmilian, with things pertaining to the history of the East having been added at the same time by Moses himself, or by some other person.
Aristo of Pella reports. Scaliger in his *Animadversions on the Chronicle of Eusebius*, page 216, alleges not only this, but also the preceding (material) in the cited passage of Eusebius as being from those: “When the war had reached its peak,” as if they were the words of Aristo. But I conjecture that only those things which I have placed here, or rather these alone, which have been expressed in italic character, as they say (the very few words, to such an extent that... it was permitted, so Grabius had distinguished them), are the words of Aristo, because I find Tertullian, in his book *Against the Jews*, chapter 13, addressing them with the same things: “For your merits you are forbidden after the conquest of Jerusalem to enter into your land, to behold it from a distance only with your eyes.”
A ... in which (sc. in this book) it is written that a Christian, disputing with a Jew from the Jewish Scriptures, demonstrates that the prophecies concerning Christ apply to Jesus; and although he stands against the Jew, he does not do so in an ignoble or unbecoming manner, neither does the other stand against the argument in an unseemly way.
B ... concerning the heavens, see Irenaeus, lib. I, c. 1, § 9, and the Testament of Levi, § 3, in Vol. I of *Spicilegium*, p. 159. Add here the noteworthy passage from the book of Zephaniah, cited by Clement of Alexandria in *Stromata*, lib. V, p. 585: “Are these not similar to the things said by the prophet Zephaniah: ‘And the Spirit took me up, and brought me into the fifth heaven, and I was beholding the angels, who are called the Lords (Dominations, according to Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21), and their crown set upon them in the Holy Spirit; and the throne of each one of them was seven times greater than the light of the rising sun; dwelling in the temples of salvation, and praising God, the ineffable Most High.’” Which, since I do not find them in the Hebrew text, nor in the version of the Seventy Interpreters of the prophet Zephaniah, I conjecture were taken from his apocryphal book (concerning which see Vol. I of *Spicilegium*, p. 134 et seq.). GRAB. The passage of Irenaeus indicated here by Grabe deals only with the Valentinian opinion, not however with the catholic one. And whatever Victorinus Petavius may have trifled in *De fabrica mundi*, in Cave, *Hist. litt.*, Vol. I, p. 149, it is true what Origen wrote in lib. VI *contra Celsum*: “Seven heavens, or generally a limited number of them, the Scriptures which are carried about in the Churches of God do not declare,” ch. 21.
C As for the persons of the Dialogue, receive these things from the *Prolegomena* of the illustrious Gallandius, loc. cit.: “It pleased Grabe (previously) to conjecture that Jason the Hebrew Christian and Papiscus the Jewish Alexandrian, who were disputing with each other, were fictitious persons, as is customary in dialogues. To others, however, it seemed otherwise. Sixtus of Siena first, *Bibl. sanct.*, lib. II, p. 71, edition of Paris, 1610, and then Pamelius in his notes to the opusculum *De incredulitate Judæorum* among the works of Cyprian, whom Bartoloccius followed, loc. cit., opined that this Jason was the same as Jason of Thessalonica, of whom Luke makes mention in Acts 17:3, and Paul, Rom. 16:21; yet no testimony from any of the ancient writers is brought forward—so that, consequently, this conjecture is not approved by Spencer, *Adnot. ad lib. IV Origenis contra Celsum*, p. 57, by Tillemont, *Mém. eccl.*, Vol. II, p. 139, and X, p. 532, and by others. I would rather have thought him a bishop or at least a presbyter, with Maranus, *Vit. Cypr.*, p. cxxx. Since indeed we heard the interpreter just now telling us that Papiscus, having been admitted to the understanding of the truth, begged to receive the seal, and requested Jason.” Nor does the learned man doubt that he lived in that century. And rightly so: for this Disputation is found to have been known to Celsus the Epicurean; and thus we have judged that it was committed to writing around the middle of the same century, or to our way of reckoning, around the 136th year of Christ. P. lxxv. Nor does the illustrious man Keilius, in his note to Vol. VII of the new Fabrician edition of the *Bibl. Gr.*, p. 156, judge that these persons were fictitious. In mentioning Papiscus and Jason, he writes thus a little above: