A catena fragment of Eusebius on Psalm 29:7

John Literal has sent me a translation made for him by Peter Papoutsis of a catena fragment discussing Daniel, and attributed to our old friend Eusebius.  He has kindly allowed me to post it here.  The biblical passage being commented on is Psalm 29:7.

Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας ῥητοῦ προκειμένου, Φωνὴ Κυρίου διακόπτοντος φλόγα πυρός.

[00003] Διεκόπη μὲν ἐν τῇ Βαβυλῶνι ἡ φλὸξ τοῦ πυρὸς διακοπεῖσα τῷ προστάγματι τοῦ Θεοῦ· [00004] ἐδέξατο ἐν αὐτῇ ἡδίστην ἀναπνοὴν καὶ ἀναψυχὴν, ὥσπερ ἐν σκιᾷ τινι φυτῶν ἐν εἰρηνικῇ καταστάσει παρεχομένη τοῖς παισίν· [00005] ἐγένετο γὰρ, φησὶ, ὡσεὶ πνεῦμα δρόσου διασυρίζον. [00006] γʹ. [00007] Ὡσεὶ Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου. [00008] Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας. [00009] Σαφῶς ἡγοῦμαι δηλοῦσθαι τὴν καθόλου κρίσιν, ὅτε πάντες οἱ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἄνθρωποι παραστήσονται τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ· [00010] μετὰ δὲ τὴν τῶν τετελευτηκότων ἀναβίωσιν, καὶ μετὰ τὴν κατὰ πάντων κρίσιν, ὁ ἑωραμένος τῷ Δανιὴλ Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐπιστήσεται ἐπὶ νεφελῶν, τὴν κατὰ πάντων τῶν λαῶν καὶ φυλῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐξουσίαν, τὴν καὶ βασιλείαν ἀγήρω καὶ ἀτελεύτητον παραληψόμενος· [00011] ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ διδάσκει λέγων· [00012] Ὅτε δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ’ αὐτοῦ, τότε καθίσει ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης αὐτοῦ, καὶ συναχθήσεται ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· [00013] συνᾴδει γοῦν ταῦτα ταῖς ἐν χερσὶν μαρτυρίαις τῆς τοῦ Δανιὴλ προφητείας, καθ’ ἣν λέλεκται· [00014] Καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς Υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενος ἦν· [00015] καὶ, Ἕως τοῦ Παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ἔφθασεν· [00016] καὶ προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. [00017] δʹ. [00018] Αὐτῷ ἐδόθη ἡ ἀρχή. [00019] Εὐσεβίου. [00020] Οὐ μόνον τὴν τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου βασιλείαν ὁ προφήτης θεσπίζει, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονα, περὶ ὧν φησι. [00021] εʹ. [00022] Καὶ παραλήψονται τὴν βασιλείαν. [00023] Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας. [00024] Συμβασιλεύοντες δηλαδὴ καὶ αὐτοὶ τῷ Θεῷ. [00025] Τίνες δ’ ἂν εἶεν οὗτοι, ἢ οἱ κληρονόμοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ; [00026] οἷς καὶ ἐπήγγελται, τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, βασιλείαν ἐπιστησομένην τὴν μετὰ τέσσαρας βασιλείας, τὰς τῷ προφήτῃ ἑωραμένας, περὶ ὧν ὡς ἐν βραχέσιν ἀρτίως διειλήφαμεν. [00027] Ἐντεῦθεν οἶμαι τὸν ἀπόστολον Παῦλον [24.528] ὁρμᾶσθαι περὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἀφίξεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ γράφοντα τοιάδε· [00028] Ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι Θεοῦ καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. [00029] Ὁδ’ αὐτὸς ἀπόστολος καὶ τὴν ὑστάτην τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου ἄφιξιν τὴν καὶ ἀπώλειαν, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τὴν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἔνδοξον παρουσίαν ἀκολούθως τῇ προφητείᾳ παρίστησι λέγων· [00030] Μήτις ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατήσῃ κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον· [00031] ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ ἡ ἀποστασία πρῶτον, καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενα Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστι Θεός· [00032] οὐ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ἔτι ὢν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ταῦτα ἔλεγον ὑμῖν; [00033] καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. [00034] Τοσαῦτα ὁ θαυμάσιος Ἀπόστολος ἐν τοῖς περὶ συντελείας τοῦ βίου διεξῆλθε λόγοις, τὰ διὰ τοῦ προφήτου Δανιὴλ περὶ τοῦ Ἀντιχρίστου, καὶ τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐνδόξου βασιλείας τεθεσπισμένα πιστούμενος. [00035] ςὰʹ. [00036] Ἐξολοθρευθήσεται χρίσμα. [00037] Εὐσεβίου. [00038] Τὸ ἄκριτον καὶ παράνομον αὐτῶν διαβάλλουσα· [00039] οὕτως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας καὶ τῆς σπουδῆς συμβεβηκέναι φήσεις· [00040] ὀρθῶς μὲν καὶ κατὰ νόμον πρὸ τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐπιτελουμένης διὰ τὴν εἰς ἔτι τότε τὰ τῶν ἁγίων τόπων ἐφορῶσαν δύναμιν· [00041] περιαιρεθείσης δὲ αὐτίκα μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ τέλειαν καὶ θεοπρεπῆ θυσίαν, ἣν προσήνεγκεν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν· [00042] αὐτός τε ὢν ὁ Ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου εἰς θυσίαν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις· [00043] κατὰ τὰ καινὰ μυστήρια τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης [00044] Επιτρέπετα [00045] παραδοθείσης, τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς περιῄρετο· [00046] ὁμοῦ γὰρ τὸ πληροῦσθαι τὸ φάσκον λόγιον, Καὶ δυναμώσει διαθήκην πολλοῖς ἑβδομὰς μία, τὰ τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης περιῄρετο. [00047] Επιτρέπετα

Eusebius of Caesarea comments in regards to the following, The voice of the Lord dividing the flames of fire.

The fiery flame was rent in Babylon dividing at the very command of God. He received in her, most gladly, a new breath and rejuvenation, as in the shade of some kind of tree, in a state of tranquility as is given unto children; for as it came to pass, the wind blew, as a wind that blows and causes the dew to descend. Such is the Son of Man.

I suppose that this evidently pertains to the General Judgment where all men from the ages will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. And after the last resurrection, and after the judgment of all, the Son of Man as understood by Daniel, shall stand upon the clouds, having acquired power over all people and tribes from the Father, and His kingdom shall never grow old and shall have no end. And as our Savior taught concerning Himself, saying, When the Son of man comes in His glory, and all His angels with Him, then shall He sit upon His throne of glory, and all the nations shall be gathered before Him, and so on. In agreement with these events are the held testimonies of Daniel’s prophecy, over which he says, I saw One like the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, and when the Ancient of Days arrived, and He was presented before Him, and He was given dominion, honor and kingship, and these were given to Him and so on. To Him was given dominion.

The Prophet did not only foresee the kingship of the Son of man, but more as well, concerning which it is declared, And they will receive the kingship.

They will reign together with God. Who are these heirs of God, these co-heirs with Christ? And to whom was also promised the kingdom of heaven, a kingship conferred upon the four kingdoms, as perceived by the prophet, which we concern ourselves with briefly. Hence, alas the Apostle Paul, who relates it to the Second Coming of Christ, writes thus, For the Lord himself, with a command, and with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and so on. This reading and its concern with the ultimate coming of the Antichrist and his destruction, and the glorious appearance of the Savior, follows the parallel prophecy, that says, Let no one deceive you in any way! For unless the falling way from the faith comes first and the Man of Sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god, and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is God. Do you not recall that while I was with you, I said to you these things, and so on. On these matters the admirable Apostle was alarmed and went on with such words, in full belief about the end of life, in regards to the Prophet Daniel in reference to the Antichrist, and the kingdom of our glorious Savior. During this time there will be a loss of grace. The injustice and lawlessness of others will be decried. They moreover, and upon their destitute sacrifices and knowledge, will befall into desolation, it is declared. However, those who live rightly and according to the law, pursuant to the Passion of our Savior, as it was accomplished in the Holy Land, shall be clothed in power; Now, when He, our Lord, was removed forthwith after his perfect and God-worthy sacrifice, He offered up himself for the removal of our sins. For He, our Lord, is the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world, as a sacrifice for all men according to the new sacred teachings of the New Testament. Therefore, if I am allowed to say, that He was delivered up as our sacrifice under the precepts of the Old Testament. Therefore, together both testaments bring out the fullness of the sacred word, and He greatly strengthened the covenant in only one week, pursuant to the precepts of the Old Testament. If I am allowed to thus explain.

The Greek seems to contain Eusebius’ name at intervals: I wonder why.

A new Claudio Zamagni article on Eusebius’ Gospel problems and solutions

Claudio Zamagni has written to tell me that a new article of his is online at Academia.edu here.  It discusses the difficult question of the manuscripts of the fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Gospel problems and solutions (Quaestiones ad Stephanum et Marinum).  It’s excellent stuff, as ever with Dr Z., and highly recommended.

This holiday I’m going to look at the sales of the Eusebius book and see if we have reached the point at which we can start to place material on the web on open access.  I believe that sales have been dropping for some time, but I won’t know until I review the sales statistics.

Feldman, the Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius and the TLG

Last year Josephus scholar Louis Feldman wrote a tentative article in support of the hitherto fringe idea that Eusebius of Caesarea composed the so-called Testimonium Flavianum found in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, book 18.[1]  On p.26 we find the following statement:

There is one phrase in the Testimonium that, while it has been noted by several scholars, has not been sufficiently emphasized, namely, eis eti te nun (still to this day), referring to the fact that “still to this day,” “the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has not disappeared.”

This brief phrase, I would like to suggest, may–I repeat, may–give us the key to the whole puzzle as to the legitimacy of the Testimonium Flavianum. That key is now available to us because of the compilation during the past few decades of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the complete dictionary of all the Greek words in all the extant Greek literature. In such a thesaurus, one would expect such a phrase to appear not hundreds but thousands of times, and it does appear frequently; but the only writer in this entire collection of many thousands of Greek texts to use this phrase with the words in this order, aside from Josephus, is Eusebius, in whose writings it appears three times. This phrase thus appears to be a favorite of Eusebius and of no one else, at least of extant writers from that period.

Now this seems really rather impressive (to me, anyway). But we must always verify our facts.

Let us do a textual search on the TLG for eis eti te nun.  What do we get?

eis_eti_te_nun

We get precisely four results.  I’m not sure what search term produced “frequent” results.

1. The first result is Josephus himself.  So far so good.

2. The second result is … erm … Eusebius quoting Josephus in the Church History book 1, chapter 11, verse 8; English translation here.  This, of course, is neither here nor there as far as Feldman’s theory is concerned.

3. The third result is from book 2 of the Church History, chapter 1, verse 7; English here.[2]

4. The fourth result is from the Eclogae Propheticae, p.168, l.15.  This is part of Eusebius’ later work, the General Elementary Introduction (to Christianity): “Διὸ καὶ τότε θαυμάζεσθαι αὐτοὺς εἰκὸς ἦν παρὰ τοῖς ἔμφροσιν, καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτῶν ἀναγράπτους παρὰ τοῖς ἱερογραμματεῦσι φυλάττεσθαι, εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν παρ’ ὅλῳ τῷ ἔθνει προφήτας γεγονέναι τοῦ Θεοῦ πιστεύεσθαι·”

It is not obvious from this list of data just why this means that Eusebius composed the TF.  So at this point we may ask ourselves what Feldman’s argument was again.  It would be advisable to place the argument in our own words — to avoid the danger of being influenced by rhetoric —  and to make explicit any inferred arguments.

Feldman’s argument would seem to be as follows:

  1. If two writers both use the phrase eis eti te nun, and only two, then this must mean that one has read the other, and that one is copying the other or has composed both.
  2. Josephus uses this phrase once.
  3. Eusebius, who is later, uses it twice (ignoring the verbatim quotation of the TF).
  4. Therefore Josephus did not write it, but Eusebius did.

I think most of us will be perplexed a little at this logic.

The first part of the argument seems very risky in a number of ways.  The phrase is a simple one, and ought to appear, as Feldman acknowledges, all over the place.  But the TLG as it stands reports only 4 results.  It would seem possible, therefore, that the TLG database is not representative of Greek literature or speech.  Since only 1% of ancient literature is preserved, and the TLG contains only a portion of that 1%, it is not impossible that this supposition is correct.  But if the TLG is not comprehensive, then the presence of only 2 authors in the search means nothing; only that the TF is not comprehensive.  In regard of completeness, it is suspicious that no other quotations of the TF appear in the results.  Is it really the case that no later Greek author quotes the TF?

Likewise a phrase of 4 words is not much of a fingerprint.

Finally, arguments from parallels are always dangerous, because trivial parallels can be mistaken for significant fingerprints.  They can arise in a great number of ways, and do not necessarily involve connection, never mind derivation.  For instance literature derives from oral speech.  Phrases appear in multiple places in modern literature, not because the authors know each other but because of some other source.  The popularisation of the term “chillaxing” by British Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010 will undoubtedly have left its mark in the literary record; but woe betide any subsequent scholar who draws conclusions from comparing literature, rather than seeking its real origin.

The fourth part of the argument is a non-sequitur.  If we allow a connection, it may arise in a number of ways.

The first possibility is the simplest.  Let us suppose that Josephus wrote those words.  Let us suppose that Eusebius copied them for the HE I, liked the phrase, and, having it in mind, repeated it when he composed book II, and, later, in the GEI.  What could be more natural?  What need is there to suppose anything other than copying?

There is another, many-headed alternative.  For this we need to consider the second quotation of the TF by Eusebius, in the Demonstratio Evangelica, book 3, chapter 5.  This does not appear in the search because, simply, it has a different text: “ὅθεν εἰσέτι νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐκ ἐπέλειπεν τὸ φῦλον.”

Why are there two versions?  Is Eusebius quoting from memory and tripping up, or using different copies of the text? — for how else can the same quotation have two different wordings?

But if he is quoting from memory a favourite saying then why does he get it wrong?  This, surely, is evidence against the “favourite” argument.

If he has access to copies with two different versions, then of course there is a textual problem at this point with Josephus in transmission, which means that arguing from a parallel in the text is pointless because in this case we don’t know what the text is.

We might also consider the well-known phenomenon of harmonisation.  This is most familiar to us from the New Testament and the Lord’s Prayer where — I am told — the version in Luke tends to become assimilated to that in Matthew in the manuscripts, as the former was more familiar.

Now Eusebius HE is a common text.  Josephus’ Antiquities 11-20 is comparatively a rare one.  The TF was so well known by itself that it intrudes into Josephus Jewish War.  The conditions are right for assimilation in transmission.  Do we know for sure that, far from Eusebius composing the TF, the copyist of the 9th century ancestor of all our modern mss. of Antiquities 11-20 did not harmonise the text with the HE, conciously or otherwise?

We do have evidence that assimilation did occur in versions of the TF.  Jerome quotes in Latin in De viris illustribus a somewhat different version of the text.  But I am told that in the Greek translation of DVI, someone has “corrected” the TF to the version found in Eusebius HE and Josephus.

On the other hand, the DE is also a rare text.  Evidently harmonisation was not that commonplace.

But if we do assume a connection, and we allow for harmonisation, then it is equally likely that the Josephan TF is merely a scribal copy of the Eusebian version in the HE, itself probably corrupt, and that the real text is lost.  If Eusebius (or his literary assistants – we must remember that there are problems with the quotations in the HE) did write down the TF from memory, and did so differently in the HE and DE, then of course errors of memory are possible and Eusebian phrasing may be introduced by a normal text-critical path.

Some will also feel rather concerned at the tiny data volumes – 4 words, 2 quotations – involved.  Are these numbers large enough to be statistically significant?  Databases can tell us much, but they can also mislead if used without awareness of the pitfalls, and without devising a way to exclude false positives.

In short, the argument put forward by Prof. Feldman is interesting but unconvincing.  The data does not require the hypothesis of Eusebian composition in order to explain it.

UPDATE (17/2/17): In a new article, atheist Richard Carrier complains here that, for the purposes of the theory, I should have searched for eis eti nun instead of the exact phrase in the text of Josephus, eis eti te nun.  In fact I just searched for the “brief phrase” that Feldman gave, and I didn’t look further for ways to make it work.  But let us by all means discuss this in a separate post when I have had a chance to look at the TLG.

  1. [1]Louis H. Feldman, On the authenticity of the “Testimonium Flavianum” attributed to Josephus, in: E. Carlebach and J. Schacter (ed), New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations, Brill, 2012, 13-30.  Accessible on Google Books Preview here.
  2. [2]7 When he came to that place he healed Abgarus by the word of Christ; and after bringing all the people there into the right attitude of mind by means of his works, and leading them to adore the power of Christ, he made them disciples of the Saviour’s teaching. And from that time down to the present the whole city of the Edessenes has been devoted to the name of Christ, offering no common proof of the beneficence of our Saviour toward them also.

An extract from Eusebius, “Ecclesiastical Theology” III, 4-6

A portion of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical Theology, written against Marcellus of Ancyra, was edited and translated in John Mackett, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Theology of the Holy Spirit. Milwaukee, WI : Marquette University,  1990.  As it is not too long, I think it might be interesting to give the passage translated here.

Mackett goes on to discuss the meaning of the discussion – a very necessary thing! – but I have no access to that portion of his dissertation.

Marcellus of Ancyra had written a text against Asterius, a former sophist and one of the early Arians.  Eusebius responds to this work.

What strikes us, forcibly, is that this text is only meaningful to people with an interest in Trinitarian theology.  This explains why a translation has been so long in coming.  I am told that the usage of the terms in Eusebius differs from that of later writers, just to complicate things.

The term “hypostasis” means “being” or “substantive reality”, I think.  Later it comes to mean “person”, and the formula that God is three hypostases / persons in one ousia / being appears.  But that’s about as far as I can go.

Let us now hear from Eusebius.

*    *    *    *   *    *

How Marcellus, not under­standing the Scriptures, determined for himself that the hypostasis of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one.

And thus once again the statement that the three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are one is also Sabellian. Marcellus also expressed this same opinion and somewhere wrote: “For it is impossible for three existing hypostases to be united in a monad unless earlier the Triad should have its beginning from a monad. For St. Paul said that those things which in no way belong to the unity in God will be brought together in a monad; for only the Word and the Spirit belong to the unity in God.”

Next, as he tries to construct a log­ical argument for this, he goes on and says: “If, therefore, the Word clearly came forth out of the Father himself and has come to us, and the Holy Spirit (as even Asterius confessed) ‘proceeds from the Father,’ and if the Savior says concerning the Spirit: He will not speak on his own, but he will speak whatever he hears, and will an­nounce to you the things to come. He will glorify me, for he will receive from me and will announce it to you,’ is it not clearly evident that here the Monad appears in an ineffable word, expanding into a Triad but also not enduring in any way a dividing of itself?

‘For if the Word proceeds out of the Father, and the Spirit himself also is confessed to proceed out of the Father, and again, if the Savior says concerning the Spirit, He will receive from me and will announce it to you,’ is it not clear that some mystery which had been hidden is being revealed? For how, unless the undivided Monad should expand into a Triad, can he say at one time that the Spirit proceeds out of the Father and at another time: “He will receive from me and will announce it to you,’ and also, when he had breathed upon the disciples to have said, deceive the Holy Spirit?

‘For how, if he proceeds out of the Father, can it be proclaimed that he receives this ministry from the Son?

For if, as Asterius said, there are two distinct prosopa, it is necessary either that the Spirit, because he proceeds out of the Father, does not require the ministry of the Son (for everything which proceeds out of the Father is necessarily perfect and requires no assistance from another) or, if he should receive from the Son and by his power minister grace, he no longer proceeds out of the Father.”

After some other things he adds: “But if the Gospel says that, after he breathed upon his disciples he said: deceive the Holy Spirit,’ it is quite clear that the Spirit went forth out of the Word. How then, if the Spirit came out of the Word, is it again said that the same Spirit proceeds out of the Father?” And after some other things he adds: “Therefore he said (not once, but twice!) neither correctly nor fit­tingly, There are three hy­postases.'” Now through these ar­guments (and ones like them) the smart aleck tries to build his case that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, because three names are given to one hypostasis.

For in these words it is not clear how both the Son is said to proceed out of the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit.

Nor has it been possible to conceive how the Savior said about the Holy Spirit: “He will receive from me and will announce it to you.” Nor how, after he breathed upon the disciples, he said “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And this will have an easy solution for those who think orthodoxly if one should consider that the Son, since he always exists and is present with the Father, is in some place, as though he were in the innermost sanctuary and inaccessible part of the paternal kingdom, and then, because he was sent from the Fa­ther for the sake of the salvation of the race of men, said that he him­self came forth from the Father.

And surely he made this clear else­where when, speaking about himself through a parable, he said: “The sower came forth to sow.”For from where did he come forth other than out of the innermost kingdoms of the paternal Godhead?

And according to the same reason­ing the Holy Spirit is also always present at the throne of God since, according to Daniel, even “myriads upon myriads”stand before him. And this one himself was sent, at one time in the form of a dove upon the Son of Man, at another time upon each of the prophets and apostles. For this reason he also has been said to proceed from the Father.

And why are you amazed? For even of the Devil it has also been said: “And the Devil came forth from the Lord” and again, a sec­ond time it was said: “But the Devil came forth from the Lord.”You would even find the same concerning Ahab where the Scrip­ture adds: “And an evil spirit came forth and stood in front of the Lord and said: 1 will outwit him.'”But these are opposing spirits; now is not the time to be busy with try­ing to figure out how or in what sense this is said about them.

And the only-begotten Son of God teaches that he himself has come forth from the Father because he always co-exists with him; and likewise, the Holy Spirit exists as distinct from the Son.

Certainly the Savior himself clearly proves this by saying: “He will re­ceive from me and will announce it to you.” For this would clearly be indicative of the Son’s and the Holy Spirit7s not being one and the same. For what receives some­thing from another is recognized as distinct from that which gives.

And that the Holy Spirit is indeed distinct from the Son, our Lord and Savior himself explicitly and excel­lently taught in the clearest terms in which he said to his disciples: “If you love me you will keep my commands. And I will ask the Fa­ther and he will give to you an­other Paraclete so that he might be with you forever: the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot re­ceive.” You see how he says that the Spirit, who is the Paraclete, is distinct from and other than him­self. And if, after breathing he said to the disciples: “Receive the Holy Spirit,” one need not be ignorant that this breathing was somehow purgative of the souls of the apos­tles in order to make them fit for the reception of the Holy Spirit.

For he is not said to have breathed upon their face or that he breathed either the breath of life or the Holy Spirit as it was recorded about Adam: “God breathed upon his face the breath of life.” Rather, he is said first to breathe and then to say, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”But the giving of the Spirit himself showed again that he is distinct from what is given.

For he himself would not have been the giver and the gift, but the Savior was the one who gave, the one who was given was the Holy Spirit, and the apostles were the recipients; the breathing out was, as I said, purgative of the apostles or even productive of the imparting of the Holy Spirit (for it is possible to understand it both ways).

From these passages the Holy Spirit is shown to subsist distinctly from him, as even from the following, in which again it has been recorded that he said: “If someone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.”194

To these words he adds: “These things I have told you while I was with you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of everything that I told you.” You hear how he has used a plural form (“We will come to him and make our dwelling with him”) while speaking about the Father and himself. And when speaking about the Holy Spirit, he spoke as though he were speaking about another (“He will teach you everything”).

And the passage: “I will ask the Father and he will give to you an­other Paraclete so that he might be with you forever: the Spirit of truth” was also of this sort. Therefore, the Paraclete, con­cerning whom he was teaching such things, was distinct from himself. Naturally then he again added: “These things I have told you while I was with you.

But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom my Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of everything that I told you.”

He is saying: “For I have spoken these things to you up until this time. But the Spirit of truth, the very one whom my Father will send, will teach you everything, inasmuch as of now you have not learned because you have not made room.

“But, I say, when he, the Paraclete, comes, he will complete the teach­ing by also producing in you the remembrance of the words I am now speaking.” And again he says: “But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify concerning myself.”Through all of this he clearly shows that the one who is sent by him and is going to bear witness on his behalf is distinct from himself.

And he strengthens the argument even more by what he adds: “But I tell you the truth: it is better for you that I depart. For if I do not depart, the Paraclete will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.” By saying that he him­self was going he was indicating in these words his own passion and the ascension to the Father after this.

Who then, after so many words, is so stupid as to say that the one who says these things and the one about whom he was speaking are one and the same—after he hears him clearly determining to speak the truth? And what is the truth about the one who shows that, unless he departs, the Holy Spirit would never come?

But if at one time he determines that the Father sends the Holy Spirit and at another he himself, of course he is not teaching contradic­tions; for everything, whatever “he sees the Father doing … the Son does likewise” and “he judges just as he hears.”

Wherefore, by the judgment of the Father, when the Father also wills it, at that time the Son andthrough him, the Savior sends the Spirit of truth, that is, the Paraclete, to his disciples in order to comfort and encourage them in the things they suffered from those who persecuted them as they preached the Gospel.

But he said this not only to comfort them, but also to teach them the whole truth of the New Testament which they could not be taught by the Savior at the time he was in their company and teaching these things, because they were en­slaved to Jewish training.

He fulfilled these things by what he did after his resurrection from the dead; after when he said to Mary, “Do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my Father.” After saying these things, since he indeed had gone up to the Father, he appeared to the disciples.

When he also commands them to touch him, the Holy Spirit had been sent and was with him-being ready and present for the ministry to which he had been appointed.

For at that time “he breathed on them” and then he gave them a part of a certain gift of the Holy Spirit, which was to effect the for­giveness of sins. For “there are different gifts” which he partially gave them then, when he was with them and present to them. But after this he filled them with a greater and more perfect power. Concerning this he said to them, as recorded in the Acts of the Apos­tles: “But you will receive power from on high when the Holy Spirit comes down on you.” He also announced that they would be bap­tized with the Holy Spirit, which itself was fulfilled after his ascen­sion, on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent to them, in accordance with his words.

But now is not the time to go over in detail, with the exactness of a close examination, what here needs greater discussion and distinctness, since this is not what was set before us. But it was necessary to prove that the Son and the Paraclete Spirit are distinct. This was even pointed out in various ways through what the Savior himself taught and said to the others in these words: “I still have many things to tell you, but you are not yet able to bear them. But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will explain the whole truth to you for he will not speak on his own, but whatever he hears; and he will announce to you the things to come. He will glorify me because he will receive from me and will announce it to you.” Again in these words it is proclaimed that what he did not teach, this his dis­ciples will learn by the Holy Spirit, of whom it is said, as though speaking of someone else: “When he comes” and “he will not speak on his own” and “he will glorify me” and “because he will receive from me.. .”.

To assume that the Savior himself spoke all these things about himself is quite simple-minded and hard to cure.

But through these words the Sav­ior himself clearly taught that the Holy Spirit is distinct from himself in honor, glory, and privileges; being more excellent, stronger, and higher than all intelligent and rational being (wherefore he is also included in the holy and thrice- blessed Triad) but indeed lower than himself.

And this he clearly shows when he says: “He will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears.” And that he will hear from someone else he makes quite clear when he says: “He will re­ceive from me and will announce it to you”—which clearly means “from out of my treasure,” for in him “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Therefore, he himself, since he is only-begotten Son, receives from the Father and hears from the Father; but the Holy Spirit is provided from him. Hence he says: “He will receive it from me and will announce it to you.”

Now it is said that even the God over all is spirit, as the Savior himself taught when he said: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”; and truly himself will be the holy one of the saints and “resting in the saints.” But the Son of God also is spirit and him­self is even the holy spirit of the saints, if indeed he is the image of the invisible.

Therefore it was also said concern­ing him: “The Lord is the Spirit”and “the Lord Christ is spirit before our face.”

Certainly the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. The Savior pointed out his uniqueness and called him “the Paraclete,” distinguishing the common element of the equivocal word by the appellation “Paraclete,” since even the angelic powers are spirits. For it is said, “He makes his angels spirits.”  But it is impossible to equate any of these with the Paraclete Spirit.

Wherefore only this spirit has been included in the holy and thrice- blessed Triad. This is not different from the Savior’s explaining to his apostles his sacrament of rebirth for all those from the nations who believe in him. He commanded them to baptize “them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Of the Father because he has full authority and gives the grace. Of the Son because he ministers to this grace (for “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”). Of the Holy Spirit, that is, the Paraclete, who is him­self provided according to the di­versity of graces in himself: ‘Tor to one is given a word of wisdom through the Spirit, but to another a word of knowledge according to the same spirit. To another is given faith by the same Spirit” and likewise the things considered with these.

So then the Holy Spirit, who was provided through the Son to whomever the Father might choose, was fond of dwelling in the saints alone. And such would be his work: to sanctify all, to whom he might give some one or even many of the gifts in himself, so that prophets, apostles, and every God- loving soul, and likewise the stronger and divine powers, would participate in the holiness from him. But only the Son has been honored by the paternal Godhead, that he might be the maker and creator of all the geneta, both visi­ble and invisible, and even of the existence of the Paraclete Spirit.

For, “through him all things came into being, and apart from him not one thing came to be” and “in him everything in heaven and on earth was created, things visible and invisible.” But the God over all and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, since he is something ineffable, is good and more excellent than all reasoning ability and thought, and every expression and consideration, whatever their commonalities or distinctions are, also takes the lead over and above the Holy Spirit himself and even the only-begotten Son.

He alone is rightly called “the God over all and through all and in all” by the apostle who says: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God the Father of all, who is over all, through all, and is in all.”

And he alone might be called “one God and Father” “of our Lord Je­sus Christ.” The Son is “only- begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father.” But the Paraclete Spirit is neither God nor Son, since he does not get his origin from the Father like the Son, but is one of the things which came into being through the Son because: “Through him all things came into being, and apart from him not one thing came to be.”

Therefore these mysteries are handed over to the holy and catholic Church through the divine titles. But Marcellus confuses everything: sometimes he takes into himself the whole depth of Sabellius, another time he tries to revive the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and other times he is openly refuted as a Jew for he introduces one three-faced and, as it were, three-named hypostasis by saying God, the Word in him, and the Holy Spirit are the same.

Forthcoming: translation of Eusebius’ “Contra Marcellum” and “Ecclesiastical Theology”

We have English translations of a great deal of Patristic literature.  One of the most conspicuous absences, however, has been the five books that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote against Marcellus of Ancyra after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.  These are the Contra Marcellum and the Ecclesiastical Theology.

Today I heard from Dr Kelley E. Spoerl of Saint Anselm College, who writes:

I am happy to report that my collaborator, Dr. Markus Vinzent of King’s College, London, and I have signed a contract to have the translation published with the Fathers of the Church series from Catholic University of America Press sometime in 2015 or 2016. The manuscript is now with two expert scholars for review and we expect to make the final revisions and submit before the end of 2014.

Already I have heard from another correspondent, interested in seeing the manuscript.  But of course the publishers will try to prevent any circulation of that, and quite understandably.

It’s good news.  Admittedly the number of people who will be able to access the translation is not nearly what it would be; but at least the thing now exists.  My original correspondence with Dr Spoerl was in 2008 (!) so it has been a long time coming.  Very welcome all the same.

I ought to highlight that a small part of the Ecclesiastical Theology (III 4-6) is available in English in the dissertation of John Mackett, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Theology of the Holy Spirit. Milwaukee, WI : Marquette University,  1990.  This I have seen, and it is mind-boggling – pure theology!

In addition an Italian translation exists: Franzo Migliore, Eusebio di Cesarea: teologia ecclesiastica, Città Nuova, 1998.  Google books preview here.

E. Schwartz on the book titles and kephalaia of Eusebius’ Church History

They certainly knew how to write scholarly editions, those editors of the Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller series.  A handful of pages on “titles and kephalaia” in GCS 9.3, by the editor, Eduard Schwarz[1], has nevertheless remained unchallenged for a century.

Of course one reason for this may be that it is incredibly hard for any non-German to read.  Anyway, I have prepared a rough translation of the pages in question, p.clxvii-cliii, with a view to making them better known.  I have also added English translations of the Greek kephalaia given in the text, and overparagraphed at one or two points.

In order to follow the argument, it is necessary to know that Schwartz believed that Eusebius revised his work several times, mainly to remove people who had been executed or whatever in the meantime, and so produced four “editions”, the last in 325 AD.

In Schwartz, the “kephalaia” are the tables of contents that appear at the top of each book.  Each entry in that table is a kephalaion.

*    *     *     *

IV. Headings and Kephalaia.

[p.cxlvii] In chapter 2 we showed that Eusebius originally issued the 7 books of  the original Church History with a  single book as a sort of appendix, and how from this single book in the  penultimate edition 3 more books were produced.  There is substantial evidence that the final edition, present in BDMSA,  was divided into two τεύχη  [codices] of five books, if not by Eusebius himself, at least prior to the  translation into Syriac.  In BD at the  end of book 5 the manuscripts suddenly shorten in a noticeable way: see the  notes on p.504, ll.14-16, 19/20, 21, 21-25, 26 – p.506, 6, 13-15.  This would not normally happen, and can only  be explained because the copyist of the exemplar of BD felt that he was running out of space, and that could only happen if a particular size τεῦχος was  specified for the first 5 books; and therefore also for the last 5 books.  Furthermore BD also change the spelling of “Moses” in the first and last books (see chapter 6); in the first books it is always given in the form Μωυσῆς, – the form used throughout in ATER – but in the last books they agree with M which always reads Μωσῆς.  This is only conceivable if the two halves circulated separately.  That this is not just a peculiarity of BD but that BD, as so often, represents BDM, may be shown by two further indicators: that 1. in the latter books, the special readings of DM cease almost entirely, and that 2. the London manuscript of the Syriac translation never contained more than 5 books.  The latter is shown by the presence of a colophon, which, although it  was erased, we learn that it was indeed present.

[p.cxlviii] At first sight the headings and subscriptions of the individual books look like a confused mess.  However arbitrary additions by copyists can easily be identified.

The simplest and most regular set are the headings in T.  At the top stands the complete text, Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας A.  In all subsequent books there is merely the numeral of the book.  The subscriptions read: Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας A, Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας B, etc., for every book up to book 9.  For book 10 the subscription is Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμοι δέκα.

A and BD are next in order of simplicity.  In a, which must represent A here, the heading for the first book lacks name and title, consisting purely of λόγος A, and this runs through the manuscript, except that for the 8th and 10th books, instead of the numeral there is ὄγδοος and δέκατος respectively.  For subscriptions, the first two books are the same as T.  For books 3-5 they read, Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας λόγος Γ’ or Δ’ or E’.  For books 6, 8 and 9 they read τέλος τοῦ ϛ’ or H’ or Θ’ λόγου τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας.  For book 7 it reads τέλος τοῦ ἑβδόμου λόγου.  B and D differ in the title for book 1: Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας [= T] τόμος A’ B, while Εὐσεβίου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας βιβλίον B’  D.

In the following both name and title have been omitted, leaving only βιβλίον Γ’ [τρίτον B], βιβλίον Δ’, βιβλίον E’ [because of the gap in D] βιβλίον ἕκτον, βιβλίον ἕβδομον, βιβλίον H’ D, βιβλίον Θ’ D [in B the titles are missing from books 8 and 9] βιβλίον I’ D [δέκατον B].

The subscriptions display even more arbitrariness than in A. Uniformity is only seen in books 4 and 5: τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς  αστικῆς ἱστορίας βιβλίον Δ’ [τέταρτον D] or E.  For books 6-9 they are omitted completely from D.  B has τέλος τοῦ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας ἕκτου βιβλίον, τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας [in book 7 the word Εὐσεβίου appears here] βιβλίον ἕβδομον or H’ or Θ’, and τέλος added at the end.  T follows D only for book 3: Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Γ’, where B again gives a prolix version: τέλος βιβλίον τρίτου τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Εὐσεβίου.  At the end of book 1, BD have: τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου λόγος [= A] A’, and at the end of book 2: τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας [B adds Εὐσεβίου here] λόγος B’.

In B the subscription for the whole work does not appear at the end of book 10, but only beneath the attached excerpt from the Vita Constantini: τέλος σὺν τῆς ὅλης Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου ἤτοι τῶν δέκα τόμων: in D it has fallen out, together with the end of some excerpts [see above, p.xxii].

[p.cxlix] Leaving to one side all the one-off exceptions, it seems that firstly, the overall title, consisting of the name of the author and his distinctive title, the name of the work (without article), was only positioned over the start of book 1; then, that the individual books were provided only with numerals, as in the titles and colophons of T and the first two subscriptions in A: that the terms added in A and BD, λόγος or βιβλίον, cancel each other.  Now let us move onto the edition.  The subscriptions I shall not discuss further.

As with the kephalaia, the headings in ER are different.  M is influenced by this change.  In E, above book 1 is written: Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας [= TB] βιβλίον A’: M has the same heading and these run throughout all the books. For 4, 6 and 8 there is τέταρτον, ἕκτον, ὄγδοον instead of the numeral.  On the other hand in E the format is only gradually changed: for books 2-4 it reads Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμος B’ or Γ’ or Δ’, for 5 and 7-10 Εὐσεβίου ἐπισκόπου Καισαρείας τῆς Παλαιστίνης Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμος E’ or Z’ or H’ or Θ’ or I’; book 6 omits τῆς Παλαιστίνης.  R corresponds to E for books 3-5 and 7-10; for book 6 there is no article in Καισαρείας Παλαιστίνης; for book 2, the heading reads Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου ἐπισκόπου Καισαρείας Παλαιστίνης Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμος β’; there is no heading to book 1.

The subscriptions are missing in RM, against ancient usage; in E book 1 agrees with E; in book 2, the following is written with the letters descending the page vertically, Εὐσεβίου τόμος  B’; for books 3, 5, 8 and 9 it reads Εὐσεβίου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμος Γ’ oder βιβλίον ϛ’; oder βιβλίον H’ oder βιβλίον Θ’, for book 4 Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας λόγος Δ’, for book 5 Εὐσεβίου Καισαρείας Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας τόμος E’.  Immediately after book 10 is τέλος τοῦ ι  τόμου, but beneath the appendix from the Vita Constantini is Εὐσεβίου Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱστορίας βιβλίον δέκατον. The characteristic of this recension is that the complete title appears above each book, and the effort to insert Eusebius‘ title of bishop.

The original form of the kephalaia is only found in AT and the two ancient translations: the latter here in particular demonstrate their value as a control.  In BD they are abbreviated; in ER, at least from book 3 on, they have been thoroughly revised.  M offers its own recension for books 2-5 – the capitulatio for book 1 is missing –, which is similar to that for ER without being identical to it.  On the other hand the minor efforts in Tc in book 2 to correct the kephalaia agree with M; further evidence that Tc is not derived from E.

[p. cl] In the second τεῦχος, i.e. books 5-10, M agrees with AT and the translations; here also the division into two volumes makes itself felt: in the second one the corrector of the exemplar of M lost interest.

In all the manuscripts and translations, the kephalaia stand before each book.  They are designed to be read one after another; the various pronouns reveal this, which refer back to a preceding kephalaion, e.g. 2, 10. 12. 13*; 182, 8*. 18*; 294, 7*. 8 [τοὺς δηλουμένους, equivalent to a pronoun .]. 16; 296, 8; 396, 7; 510, 6; 512, 4. 10; 630, 3. 8; 798, 10, or the omission of common subjects, e.g. 182, 12*; 510, 5. 16; 512, 8. 9; 732, 9—13. 16 [where μαρτύρων is consistently added to Περὶ τῶν κτλ.] or verbs, e.g. 182, 18*; 184, 1. 15; 296, 7; 39, 12; also particles, which are only comprehensible if the kephalaia are collected together, e.g. 182, 17*; 396, 12.

From this it follows that the arrangement in AS, where the kephalaia are repeated within the text or in the margin or above the individual sections is not original, and is contrary to the intent of the author; these headings are indeed incomprehensible in isolation, to a great extent, and they had to be changed in Am and Σt, at the places indicated with an asterisk; although in Am the text of the kephalaia is treated in an entirely arbitrary manner, including those standing at the head of a book.  In some places it is almost impossible to turn the kephalaia directly into marginal notes or headings in the text.  The kephalaia 13-16 of book 3 read:

ΙΓ’    Ὡς δεύτερος Ἀλεχανδρέων ἡγεῖται Ἀβίλιος.
[XIII.  How Abilius was the second ruler of the Alexandrians.]
ΙΔ’    Ὡς καὶ Ῥωμαίων δεύτερος Ἀνέγκλητος ἐπισκοπεῖ.
[XIV.  And how Anencletus was the second bishop of the Romans.]
ΙΕ’    Ὡς τρίτος μετ’ αὐτὸν Κλήμης.
[XV. How, after him, Clement was the third.]
Iϛ’     Περὶ τῆς Κλήμεντος ἐπιστολῆς.
[XVI. On the epistle of Clement.]

This does not fit the text, because ΙΓ’ corresponds to 228, 17-19, ΙΔ’ 228, 12-15, IE’ to 228, 20-24, and Iϛ’ to 230, 1-7.  Eusebius has switched over the order of the first two, in order to collect together the notices referring to Rome.  In the main text it is different, because he recognises there that Anencletus lived in the time of Titus and Abilius under Domitian.  So if the kephalaia are broken up and inserted into the text, confusion must arise. Σ preserves the order of the kephalaia in the headings, and puts Kephalaion 13 over 228, 17, and 14 over 228, 20, where it does not belong, and 15 over 228, 21 [from ὂν συνεργὸν γενέσθαι on], where it also does not fit: because it is not in the 15th but in the 14th kephalaion that Clement followed Anencletus.

On the other hand Am makes a radical change; 13 and 14 are switched, and edited so that they can serve as headings:

[p. cli]

ΙΓ’     Ὡς δεύτερος Ῥωμαίων ἐπίσκοπος Ἀνέγκλητος.
[XIII.   How Anencletus was the second bishop of the Romans.]
ΙΔ’     Ὡς δεύτερος Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπος Ἀβίλιος.
[XIV. How Abilius was second bishop of the Alexandrians.]

A second case is book 6, kephalaia 26 and 27 [512, 10]:

Κϛ’   Ὅπως αὐτὸν [Origenes] ἑώρων οἱ ἐπίσκοποι.
[XXVI. How the bishops regarded him.]
ΚΖ’   Ὡς Ἡρακλᾶς τὴν Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐπισκοπὴν διεδέξατο.
[XXVII. How Heraclas succeeded to the episcopate of the Alexandrians.]

Κϛ’ corresponds to 580, 16-25; KZ’ to 580, 13-15: Eusebius reordered the kephalaia, in order to make 26 follow 23-25, the series dealing with Origen.  Here Am and Σarm give both, and in Σarm this interpolation has also entered the kephalaia at the start of the book; and further, while Am retains αὐτόν, although it has become meaningless, Σarm changes it in both places to αὑτούς, which does not fit Eusebius’ narrative.

In most of the manuscripts, and in the Syriac translation, the kephalaia are numbered, and thereby connected to the sections of the text itself, where the numbers are repeated in the margin.  Naturally there are great differences in the transmission.  But this is not an original feature; the same passages which indicate that the repetition of the kephalaia in the text is not original likewise disprove the repetition of the numerals.  Ms. T, in which the numerals are consistently missing – M omits them only in the last two books – here, as  in the headings, preserves the original.[2]

However I have nevertheless retained them and also placed them in the margin, so that the kephalaia can be more easily cited, and because the numerals, if one carefully locates their positions from the transmission, are an excellent means to identify the paragraphs intended by Eusebius: the numbered kephalaia also permit rapid orientation and finding of passages, so I have not replaced the numerals with modern numbers, and I hope this will be applauded and imitated in similar cases.

Existing opinion wrongly maintains that Eusebius did not compose these kephalaia.  All the same, they go back to the fourth century, as the translations show, and seem to be by Eusebius himself, because in several places he refers to himself as “we”.

On p.100, 19, in the notice which is at the bottom of the kephalaia of the second book, Συνῆκται ἡμῖν ἡ βίβλος ἀπὸ τῶν Κλήμεντος Τερτυλλιανοῦ Ἰωσήπου Φίλωνος. [Our book was compiled from those of Clement, Tertullian, Josephus and Philo.]

[p.clii]

[Note: it looks as if something here has dropped out of the printed text, as Schwartz does not explain his next quotation.  But plainly these are more ‘we’ examples. – RP]

p. 632, 18    [book 7, #30] Περὶ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς διαπρεψάντων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν  ἀνδρῶν…
[XXX.  On the distinguished churchmen of our own day…]
p. 732, 3     [book 8, #1] Περὶ τῶν πρὸ τοῦ καθ ἡμᾶς διωγμοῦ.
[I. On the events before the persecution in our day.]

The Eusebian formula τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ [2, 7] would hardly have been used at a later period; in 182, 21 the kephalaion Περὶ Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου καὶ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως is carefully phrased, so that nothing is suggested of an apostolic origin for the Apocalypse.  632, 10 Περὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου ἀποκαλύψεως does not contradict this, as neither Dionysius nor Eusebius doubted that it was written by someone named John; only that it was written by the apostle of that name.  It is decisive that the differences between the last two editions of the work continue in the kephalaia.  Certainty is impossible in book 10, because that part is missing in both A and Σ.  However a remnant of the penultimate edition is visible in book 9:

Θ’    Περὶ τῆς τῶν τυράννων καταστροφῆς τοῦ βίου, καὶ οἵαις ἐχρήσαντο πρὸ τῆς τελευτῆς φωναῖς = 826,20 – 848,8
[IX. On the close of the tyrants’ lives, and the expressions they made use of before the end.]
Ι’      Περὶ τῆς τῶν θεοφιλῶν βασιλέων νίκης = 826, 20- 840, 19
[X.  On the victory of the god-beloved emperors.]
ΙΑ’   Περὶ τῆς ὑστάτης ἀπωλείας τῶν τῆς θεοσεβείας ἐχθρῶν = 848, 9 – 852, 6.
[XI.  On the final destruction of the enemies of godliness.]

Kephalaion 10 is in the wrong place.  It should be moved before no. 9, and instead of τῶν τυράννων [of the tyrants’] we would expect τοῦ τυράννου [of the tyrant’s]: apparently this is a remnant of the penultimate edition, in which Licinius still played the role of the emperor beloved by God, and should be replaced by no. 9, but the correction has been done carelessly.  It is unthinkable that any 4th century redactor, that anyone other than Eusebius himself would have given both Constantine and Licinius the title θεοφιλὴς βασιλεύς.

The same applies to the kephalaia of the Vita Constantini [3]; only Eusebius himself could have named at 72, 18 the “bishop Eusebius (of Nicomedia), at 75, 8 Eustathius, and at 39, 3 the Melitians, none of which are named in the text.  He also provided the Preaching of Constantine, which he published as an appendix of the Vita, with a summary, and there is no reason to doubt that the capitulations of the Praeparatio and Demonstratio evangelica are genuine; it is a natural assumption that the continuators of Eusebius’ Church History took from him his manner of prefacing each book with capitulations.  The custom of prefacing with a table of contents was brought across from the genre of Ἱστορίαι, to which the Church History belongs, where there story may not be consecutive but material is accumulated [see Nachr. d. Gött. Ges. d. Wiss. Geschäftl. Mitthlg. 1908, p.111]: [p.cliii] precisely because the contents are disparate, the reader needs a way to orient himself.  Well-known examples are Pliny’s Naturalis historia and Gellius’ Noctes Atticae, also Diodorus’ Βιβλιοθήκη, which Pliny [praef. 25] rightly considers as a compilation [4].  The index with which Stobaeus prefixed his great work can be compared to the capitulation of the Praeparatio and Demonstratio.  Throughout the practice is the same, that the capitulation appears at the front of the text, and not in the text itself.

*    *     *     *

What a marvellous examination of a very thorny issue!

  1. [1]Eusebius Werke. Zweiter Band. Die Kirchengeschichte. Dritter Teil. Leipzig, 1909.  All GCS volumes here; vol. 9.3 here.
  2. [2]1) For Diodorus, and the newly discovered book by Didymus, Περὶ Δημοσθένους, Laqueur has shown [Hermes 43, p.222] that the kephalaia stood at the front of a book without numbers. — Schwartz.
  3. [3][1] So, correctly, Giorgio Pasquali, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 171 (1909), p.285. — Schwartz. Online here.
  4. [4][1] The Κεφάλαια of P.Oxy IV 665, from a history of Sicily, are hard to evaluate since we cannot guess to which work they belong.  Laqueur has shown that the Anonymus Argentoratensis published by Keil is nothing less than the capitulation of a book about Demosthenes’ Androtionea.

Buying images of pages from a manuscript in the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg – part 1

I need to look at some pages from a Syriac manuscript in the collection of the National Library of Russia in St Petersburg.   Rather than flying out there, paying for a hotel, it might be cheaper to just purchase a few digital photographs.  At least, one would hope so!

After a look at page on the website which talks about electronic copies, I have composed an email in English and sent it off.  It will be interesting to see whether they are cooperative or not.  Manuscript libraries can be very bolshy!

I will let you know.

The Syriac translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s “Church History”

Two very early manuscripts exist of a Syriac translation of the “Church History” of Eusebius.  One of these dates from 462 A.D. It was bought from the monks of the Nitrian desert in Egypt, and destined for the British Library; but the middleman, a certain Pacho, double-crossed his masters and instead sold it, together with three other books, to the Tsar for 2,500 roubles – a significant sum in those days.  Today it has the shelfmark, National Library of Russia, New Syriac mss. 1.

The Syriac version was first published in 1897 as Histoire ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe de Césarée; éditée pour la première fois par Paul Bedjan.   It is a curious fact that I have been quite unable to locate this book online.  A couple of years later another edition was made.

Can anyone point me to the Bedjan edition?

Nina Pingulevskaya, who catalogued the Syriac mss. of the library in St Petersburg, published an article about this ms, thankfully online here.[1]  Using Google translate, the sense is fairly obvious.

UPDATE: Adam McCollum points me to a copy online here.  If you page down, you will find a download link at the right.

  1. [1]Published in Vostochniy Sbornik I, Leningrad, 1926, p. 115-122.  My thanks to Grigory Kessell for this information.

Eusebius book – doing the money

A day that I have long dreaded has arrived – the day on which I have to work out just what it cost to make the translation of Eusebius of Caesarea’s, Gospel Problems and Solutions.

Why now?  Well, it’s the end of the financial year.  The company has been selling copies of the book for the last two years and, unless I want to pay tax on non-existent profits, I need to book the costs incurred in making the thing in the first place.

Trouble is, the payments went out in small lumps.  There was twenty pounds here, and fifty pounds there, over quite a long period.  I did keep track of a lot of it, initially, in a spreadsheet.  But then I succumbed and stopped being so meticulous.  Which meant, of course, that today I had to go back through emails looking for the ones where I said, “the cheque is on the way” and things like that.

Realistically I cannot hope to have covered them all.  I know that there are more costs that I have been unable to find.  But everything I have billed is certainly a real expenditure.

There are also costs connected with the Origen, Homilies on Ezekiel book, which still languishes unpublished but still cost a lot (I need to hire a typesetter and get it out there).  These I have included, since they are part of the expense.  But even so, I spent quite a bit more than I thought.

The bill for translating and reviewing and editing and transcribing is a little more than five thousand two hundred pounds; around $8,000 dollars.  That, to put it mildly, is quite a sum.  Revenues from sales, which exclude the physical cost of manufacture, have been only around 60% of that.  The cost of manufacture and postage drives that revenue figure down further – I have not calculated quite how, since I charged for those costs separately.  So it looks as if I will end up with a loss of around $4,000 on the project, assuming I don’t sell many more copies (which is likely).

I don’t complain, mind you!  The costs came in, little by little, so I hardly noticed them.  I can afford the loss, spread over four years as it was.  And, heck, it’s not a huge sum, really!  A foreign holiday would often cost more, and leave nothing behind.

The great positive is that the job is done!  For a small sum, as most people count these things, a translation of this highly interesting work now exists.  Once sales cease — there is still a trickle of these — I shall place the translation on the web, just as I promised.  We shall all be the better for it.

And I will bring out the Origen book too.  All the main costs are already paid, so why not?

Eusebius on the Psalms – some old quotations on the sabbath

A couple of years ago I discussed a quotation from Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms.  An incoming link alerts me to a discussion which gives a longer quotation, and a source for it.

The source given is Moses Stuart’s Commentary on the Apocalypse (vol. 2, p.9, p.40; Andover: Allen, Morrill, Wardwell, 1845).  But a quick look at the 1850 reprint suggests that something is awry.  A better source is Harmon Kingsbury, The Sabbath, 1840, p.218 f. As Eusebius’ Commentary on the Psalms does not exist in English, it seems useful to repeat what is said:

Professor Stuart says:

“The important testimony of Eusebius, (fl. 320,) in the time of Constantine has been unaccountably overlooked by all the patristical investigators whom I have yet been able to consult. It is contained in his commentary on the Psalms which is printed in Montfaucon’s Collectio Nova Patrum and some of it is exceedingly to our purpose and withal very explicit.

“In commenting on Ps. xxi. 30 (xxii. 29 in our English version) he says ‘On each day of our Savior’s resurrection [i.e. every first day of the week] which is called Lord’s day, we may see those who partake of the consecrated food and that body [of Christ] which has a saving efficacy after the eating of it bowing down to him.’ pp. 85, 86.

“Again on Ps. xlv. 6 (xlvi. 5) he says ‘I think that he [the Psalmist] describes the morning assemblies in which we are accustomed to convene throughout the world.’ p.195

“On Psalm lviii. 17 (lix. 16) he says ‘By this is prophetically signified the service which is performed very early and every morning of the resurrection day [i.e. the first day of the week throughout the whole world].’ p.272

“But by far the most important passage of all remains to be adduced. It is in his commentary on Ps. xci (xcii) which is entitled ‘A psalm or song for the Sabbath day’. He begins his commentary by stating that the patriarchs had not the legal Jewish Sabbath but still, ‘given to the contemplation of divine things and meditating day and night upon the divine word, they spent holy Sabbaths which were acceptable to God.’

“Then observing that the Psalm before him has reference to a Sabbath he refers it to the Lord’s day and says that ‘it exhorts to those things which are to be done on resurrection day.’ He then states the precept respecting the Sabbath as addressed originally to the Jews and that they often violated it. After which he thus proceeds: ‘Wherefore as they rejected it [the sabbatical command], the Word [Christ] by the New Covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz. the saving Lord’s day, the first [day] of the light in which the Savior of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six days creation.’ … ‘On this day which is the first day of light and of the true Sun, we assemble after an interval of six days and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by him throughout the world AND do those things according to the spiritual law which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath, for we make spiritual offerings and sacrifices which are called sacrifices of praise and rejoicing, we make incense of a good odor to ascend as it is said, Let my prayer come up before thee as incense. Yea we also present the shew bread, reviving the remembrance of our salvation, the blood of sprinkling, which is of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and which purifies our souls. … Moreover we are diligent to do zealously on that day the things enjoined in this Psalm, by word and work making confession to the Lord and singing in the name of the Most High. In the morning also with the first rising of our light we proclaim the mercy of God toward us also his truth, by night exhibiting a sober and chaste demeanor; and all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath [Jewish seventh day], these we have transferred to the Lord’s day as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath. For on that day, in making the world, God said Let there be light and there was light; and on the same day the Sun of righteousness arose upon our souls. Wherefore it is delivered to us [paradedotai, it is handed down by tradition] that we should meet together on this day and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in this Psalm.’

“After some interval he speaks again of the title to the Psalm and says that it does not so much respect the Jewish Sabbath for ‘it signifies the Lord’s day and the resurrection day as we have proved in other places.’ ‘This Scripture teaches that we are to spend the Lord’s day in leisure for religious exercises (twn qeiwn a)skse)wn) and in cessation and vacation from all bodily and mortal works which the Scripture calls Sabbath and rest.’

It is useful to have this material.  I wonder what else in the way of patristic material lies buried in elderly English bible commentaries?

How I love these forum arguments! I have gained so much from them over the years.  How sad it is that, today, it is simply impossible for me to even find the discussions online, since it became impossible to search only for forums online.