Hello Don, I have some other translations to post.
CCEL has: 3.20.6
And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.
From Paul Meier's translation {1999, it's on Google Books}:
Still surviving of the Lord's family were the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be his brother according to the flesh, and they were informed on as being descendents of David. The Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar, who, like Herod, was afraid of the coming of Christ. Domitian asked them if they were descended from David, and they admitted it....
They were asked about Christ and his kingdom---its nature, origin, and time of appearance. They replied that it was not of this world or earthly but angelic and heavenly, and that it would be established at the end of the world when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and reward everyone according to his deeds. At this Domitian did not condemn them but, despising them as simple sorts, let them go free....
Cruse's Translation {I own a copy} has:
When asked respecting Christ and his kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they replied, "that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but celestial and angelic; that it would appear at the end of the world, when coming in glory he would judge the quick and the dead, and give to everyone according to his works."
You wrote:Rick, the translation "the end of time" would suggest amillenialism, all right. The only problem is, that such translation is an interpretation, not a translation. See the translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
What Eusebius actually wrote was "the end of the age", and thus the passage is quite consistent with historic premillenialism, the prevailing view of the church of the second century ---- "the end of the age" being the end of the church age when the fully-realized kingdom is to appear.
We've discussed why and/or how
aiwn {and derivatives} are translated as "end of the world," etc. I'm not sure who did the translation from my first post: I found it @Wikipedia. The idea, in either case, is "the end of the world [and/or time]"
as we now understand or know them. And I know how insistent you are on "end of the age." So not to contest that, etc., I can go with it also,
Btw, do you know where I get Eusebius in Greek, online?
Premillennialism and amillennialism date pretty far back: Both views were held from post-apostolic times. Some, incorrectly imo, think Origen and/or Augustine "invented" amillennialism. Augustine popularized it, no doubt. Origen based his "amillennialism" on the alleghorical method, thinking something like, "The plain meaning {of Rev 20} can't be literal so it has to be alleghorical." Augustine may have used the alleghorical method to a lesser degree, and seems to have used deductive reasoning to draw his conclusions.
You also wrote:It was not an "earthly kingdom", but a heavenly one. That's what Jesus Himself said about the Kingdom in the days in which He lived (that's why He would not command His servants to fight and defend Him). Yet, even though Christ said His Kingdom was "not of this world", nevertheless right in the days of Jesus, it was in the world in its early stage. It is not necessary that that which is not worldly must exist outside the world.
He told the Pharisees that the Kingdom was among them (He and His disciples). The Kingdom had already come in its nascent stage, but Christ's Kingdom parables speak of a growth, and a fully-formed Kingdom to come. (When all of the dough will be leavened; when the grain of mustard seed becomes a huge tree, etc.)
Of course, a full preterist would think of "the end of the age" as being the end of the "Jewish era", and Christ's coming being His coming to destroy the old Jewish system in 70 A.D.
On the Already/Not-Yet:
Premillennialists seem to focus on or emphasize the Not-Yet.
Amillennialists {and Postmillennialists}, the Realized-Already {or Being-Realized-Now}.
I realize this quote about Jesus' great-nephews could be interpreted as amill, premill, or postmill. I "see" amill in as far as the kingdom being said to already exist, "of what sort it was...it was not of this world {present tense}," "and would appear {exists though not seen by all}," etc. Many if not most premillennial dispensationalists believe
the kingdom of God is completely reserved for the future {earthly} reign of Christ. They'd have problems accepting Hegesippus: I presume full-preterists reject it as protocol.
I've looked further into this "Eusebius Report" and related Early Church "reports" the last few days. The more I look, the more legitimate it seems. Of course, what Hegesippus' recorded is "legendary." Yet legendary doesn't necessarily mean fictional....
Thanks, Don,
