Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism [1 ed.] 9004096884, 9789004096882

Citation preview

EUSEBIUS, CHRISTIANITY, AND JUDAISM

STUDIA POST-BIBLICA GENERAL EDITOR

DAVIDS. KATZ (Tel Aviv) ADVISORY EDITORS

ITHAMAR GRUENWALD (Tel Aviv) FERGUS MILLAR (Oxford) VOLUME42

EUSEBIUS, CHRISTIANITY, AND JUDAISM EDITED BY

HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE AND

GOHEI HATA

E.J. BRILL

LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KOLN 1992

Copyright © 1992 by Yamamoto Shoten Publishing House, Tokyo. Published by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan 48202. All rights are reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without formal permission. Manufactured in the United States of America. Distributed in the United States and Canada by Wayne State University Press, Detroit, Michigan. Distributed in other countries of the world by E.J. Brill, Lei den.

96 95 94 93 92

5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Eusebius, Christianity, andjudaism I edited by Harold\\'. Attridge and Gohei Hata. p. em.- -(Studia post-Biblica, ISSN 0 169-9717; v. 42) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 9004096884 (alk. paper) I. Eusebius, of Caesarea, Bishop of Caesarea, ca. 260-ca. 340. Ecclesiastical history. 2. Church history~Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 3. Christianity and other religions~Judaism­ History. 4. Judaism--Relations~Christianity---History. I. Attridge, Harold \V. II. Hata, Gohei, 1942- . III. Series. BR l60.E55E97 l992b 270.1 '092~dc20 92-24048 CIP

Advisory Board

LOUIS H. FELDMAN Yeshiva University KIKUO MATSUNAGA Tokyo Union Theological Seminary MICHAEL STONE Hebrew University of Jerusalem ROBERT L. WILKEN University of Virginia

Contents

CONTRIBUTORS I 9 PREFACE I 15 ABBREVIATIONS I 19 INTRODUCTION, by Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata I 27

I. CHRISTIAN ORIGINS

1. Jesus and Judaism: Christian Perspectives, by Richard

Horsley I 53 2. Jesus and Judaism: Jewish Perspectives, by David Flusser I 80 3. Eusebius and the Gospels, by Philip Sel/ew I 110 4. Paul in Eusebius and Other Early Christian Literature, by Peter Gorday I 139 5. Legends of the Apostles, by Dennis R. MacDonald I 166

II. THE GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF CHRISTIANITY

6. The Development of Episcopal Order, by Charles A. Bobertz I 183 7. Eusebius and Syriac Christianity, by Sebastian Brock I 212 8. The Origins of Monasticism, by James E. Goehring I 235 9. Eusebius on Women in Early Church History, by Elizabeth Clark I 256 10. Early Christian and Jewish Art, by Joseph Gutmann I 270

III. ORTHODOXY AND HERESY

11. Eusebius and Gnosticism, by Birger A. Pearson I 291 12. Eusebius and the Paschal Controversy, by William L. Petersen I 311 13. Jewish Christianity, by Alan F. Segal I 326

CONTENTS

I

7

IV. THE FATE OF THE JEWS 14. Christian Self-Identification and the Twelfth Benediction, by Kikuo Matsunaga I 355 15. Jewish Proselytism, by Louis H. Feldman I 372 16. Judaism without the Temple: The Mishnah, by Alan J. Avery-Peck I 409

V. EUSEBIUS AS APOLOGIST 17. Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist, by Charles Kannengiesser I 435 18. Eusebius' Chronicle and Its Legacy, by William Adler I 467 19. The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History, by Arthur J. Droge I 492 20. Eusebius and the Posthumous Career of Apollonius of Tyana, by Alan Mendelson I 510 21. Eusebius on Jesus as Deceiver and Sorcerer, by Frederick W. Norris I 523

VI. EUSEBIUS AS EXEGETE 22. The Old Testament Text of Eusebius: The Heritage of Origen, by Eugene Ulrich I 543 23. "Spirit" and "Search": The Basis of Biblical Hermeneutics in Origen's On First Principles 4.1-3, by Wataru Mizugaki I 563 24. Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture, by Michael J. Hollerich I 585

VII. EUSEBIUS AND THE EMPIRE

25. Martyrdom and Apostasy, by Yoshiaki Sato I 619 26. The Constantinian Settlement, by Timothy D. Barnes I 635 27. Eusebius and Imperial Propaganda, by Robert M. Grant I 658

VIII. THE LEGACY OF EUSEBIUS 28. Eusebius, Augustine, Orosius, and the Later Patristic and Medieval Christian Historians, by Glenn F. Chesnut I 687 29. Early Western Church Law and the Jews, by Walter Pakter I 714 30. Eusebius and the Christian Holy Land, by Robert L. Wilken I 736

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY ON EUSEBIUS I 761 INDEX TO EUSEBIUS AND ANCIENT LITERATURE AUTHOR AND SUBJECT INDEX I 795 8

I

CONTENTS

I 781

Contributors

William Adler is currently in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at North Carolina State University. He completed doctoral studies at the University of Pennsylvania in 1982 and has continued to pursue research on Jewish and Christian historiographical traditions. Harold W. Attridge, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins and Dean of the College of Arts and Lettersat the University of Notre Dame, has made contributions to the study of Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism, and the New Testament. His publications include: The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (1976), Nag Hammadi Codex I (1985), and The Epistle to the Hebrews (1989). Alan ]. Avery-Peck is director of the Jewish Studies Program at Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. He completed his doctoral studies at Brown University under Jacob Neusner and continues to pursue research interests in the halakhic traditions of Rabbinic Judaism. His publications include: The Priestly Gift in the Mishnah: A Study of Tractate Terumot (1981), Mishnah's Division of Agriculture: The History and Theology of Seder Zeraim (1985), The Talmud of Babylonia, Vol. VII: Besah (1986), and The Talmud of the Land of Israel, Vol. VI: Terumot (1988). Timothy D. Barnes is Professor of Classics at the University of Toronto. He is widely recognized for his significant contributions to the study of early church and Roman imperial history, including his Tertullian (1971), Constantine and Eusebius (1981), The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (1982), and the collection of his essays, Early Christianity and the Roman Empire (1984). Charles A. Bobertz is Assistant Professor of Church History in the Department of Theology at Loyola College in Maryland. Since completing his doctoral studies at Yale University in 1988 he has pursued interests in the social history of early Christianity, particularly in the Latin West. CONTRIDliTORS

I

9

Sebastian Brock is Reader in Syriac Studies at Oxford University. He is widely recognized for his important contributions to the history of Syrian Christianity, including: The Harp of the Spirit: Eighteen Poems of St. Ephrem (1983), The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (1985), and The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (1987). Glenn F. Chesnut is Professor of History and Religious Studies at Indiana University (South Bend), with special interests in ancient and medi.eval historiography and the history of Christian thought. His publications include: The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius (2d ed., 1986) and Images of Christ: An Introduction to Christology (1984). Elizabeth Clark is John Carlisle Kilgo Professor of the History of Christianity in the Department of Religion at Duke University. She has made significant contributions to the history of early Christianity and has given particular attention to recovering the story of early Christian women. Her publications include: Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends (1979), Women in the Early Church (1983), The Life of Melania the Younger (1984), and Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith (1986). Arthur J. Droge is Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity His research has at the University of Chicago Divinity School. concentrated on early Christian apologetics and its debt to the Jewish and Greek traditions. His publications include: Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (1989) and A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom among Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (forthcoming). Louis H. Feldman, Professor of Classics at Yeshiva University, is an authority on Hellenistic Judaism, particularly on the Jewish historian Josephus. His Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (1984) is a standard reference work. He previously edited, with Gohei Hata, Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (1987) and Josephus, the Bible, and History (1988). David Flusser, Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has long been recognized for his contributions to understanding Judaism of the Second Temple period and the origins of Christianity. His publications include: The Josippon (1978), Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserziihler Jesus (1981), and Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (1988). James E. Goehring, currently on the faculty of Mary Washington College, is a specialist on early Christianity in Egypt. With Birger Pearson he edited The Roots of Egyptian Christianty (1986). His own work on ascetic and monastic traditions is exemplified in The Letter of Ammon and Pachomian Monasticism (1986).

10

I

CONTRffiUfORS

Peter Gorday, of the Episcopal diocese of Atlanta, is a specialist in the history of the interpretation of Paul in the early church. His publications include: Principles of Patristic Exegesis: Romans 9-11 in Origen, John Chrysostom, and Augustine (1983). Robert M. Grant is Professor Emeritus at the University of Chicago Divinity School. During his long and distinguished career he has made numerous contributions to the study of early Christian history, including: Augustus to Constantine (1971), Eusebius as Church Historian (1980), and, most recently, Greek Apologists of the Second Century (1988). Joseph Gutmann, on the faculty of Wayne State University, is a specialist in the history of ancient art and architecture. He has devoted particular attention to the development of ancient synagogues. His publications include: Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research (1981). He is also editor of The Image and the Word: Confrontations in Judaism, Christianity and Islam (1977). Gohei Hata, on the faculty of Tama Bijutsu University and lecturer at Tokyo Union Theological Seminary, has translated into Japanese the works of Josephus and the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. With Louis Feldman he edited Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (1987) and Josephus, the Bible, and History (1988). Michael J. Hollerich is Assistant Professor of the History of Christianity at the Univeristy of Santa Clara. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Chicago in 1986. His research has concentrated on the interpretation of scripture by Eusebius. Richard Horsley, in the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Massachusetts (Boston) has made significant contribution to the social history of the period of Jesus. His publications include: Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (1987). Charles Kannengiesser, the Huisking Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, is a specialist in the Greek patristic tradition who has made significant contributions to the study of early Christian literature and theology, including: Politique et Theologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie (1974), Holy Scripture and Hellenistic Hermeneutics in Alexandrian Christology (1982), Athanase d'Alexandrie, eveque et ecrivain (1984), and, with William Petersen, Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (1988). Dennis R. MacDonald, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Union Theological Seminary in New York, is a specialist in the traditions of the literature and oral lore of the early church. His publications include: The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (1983) and There Is No Male and Female: The Fate of a Dominica[ Saying in Paul and Gnosticism (1986) and a critical edition and translation of the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of Andrew and Matthiasw (1990).

CON1RffiUfORS

I

11

Kikuo Matsunaga is Professor of New Testament and President of Tokyo Union Theological Seminary. He is a specialist in New Testament studies and has pursued research on the fourth gospel and early christology. His publications include: "The '8E6s' Christology as the Ultimate Confession of the Fourth Gospel," Annual of the Japan Biblical Institute 7 (1981) 12445; "Is John Anti-Sacramental?" NTS 27 (1981) 516-24, and, in Japanese, Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God and Jesus in History. Alan Mendelson, in the Department of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Ontario, is a specialist in Hellenistic Judaism. His publications include: Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (1982) and Philo's Jewish Identity (1988). Along with E. P. Sanders and A. I. Baumgarten he edited Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: Vol. 2, Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period (1981). W ataru Mizugaki is Professor and Director of the Department of Christian Studies at Kyoto University. He is a specialist in early Christian literature and thought. His publications include: The Problem of Religious Quest in Early Christian Thought (in Japanese) and "Origen and Josephus," in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (1987). Frederick W. Norris, on the faculty of the Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson City, Tenn., is a specialist in the history of early Christian doctrine. He recently served as associate editor of the Garland Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (1990). Walter Pakter, on the faculty of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, is a specialist in legal history. His publications include: Medieval Canon Law and the Jews ( 1988). Birger A. Pearson, currently Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is a specialist in Christian origins and Gnosticism. His publications include: Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in I Corinthians (1973), Nag llammadi Codices IX and X (1981), Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity (1990), and, with James Goehring, The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (1986). William L. Petersen, currently in the Department of Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University, is a specialist in early Christian history, with particular interests in Tatian and his gospel harmony, the Diatessaron. His publications include: The Diatessaron and Ephrem Syrus as Sources of Romanos the Melodist (1985) and, with Charles Kannengiesser, Origen of Alexandria: 1/is World and /lis Legacy (1988). Yoshiaki Sato, Professor and Director of the Institute for World Affairs and Cultures at Kyoto Sangyou University, is a specialist in early Christian theology. His publications include: Die Biene: Eine Sachanalyse zum Naturverstiindnis des Klemens von Alexandrien (1970), and, in Japanese, God and Material: Hermogenes and Tertullian (1977), The Structure of the

12

I

CONlRffiUfORS

Symbol of the Martyr in Christian Thought (1986), and The Understanding of Nature in Clement of Alexandria (1989). Alan F. Segal, in the Department of Religious Studies at Barnard College, has made significant contributions to the study of Judaism and Christian origins, including: Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports of Christianity and Gnosticism (1977), Rebecca's Children: Judaism and Christianity in the Roman World (1986), The Other Judaisms of Late Antiquity (1988), and Paul the Convert (1990). Philip Sellew, Associate Professor of Classical and Near Eastern Studies at the University of Minnesota, completed his doctoral studies at Harvard in 1986. He is a specialist in the gospel traditions of the early church. Such traditions are the subject of a forthcoming monograph, Dominica! Discourses: Oral Clusters in the Jesus Saying Tradition. Eugene Ulrich, in the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, is a specialist in the text of the Old Testament and President of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. His textcritical studies include: The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (1978). He is the chief editor of the biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Robert L. Wilken is the William R. Kenan Professor in the Department of Religious Studies and History at the University of Virginia. He is the author of several important studies on early Christian history including: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984) and John Chrysostom and the Jews (1985). His forthcoming book is entitled Land Called Holy: The Palestine of Christian Memory.

CONTR!BliTORS

I

13

Preface

Study of the origins of Christianity and of the relations between early Christian communities currently flourishes in many parts of the world. Such interest is due in part to modern discoveries of intriguing new sources, such as the Nag Hammadi collection, and in part to the application of new methods of inquiry to familiar ancient materials. A crucially important source for the study of the first several centuries of the common era is the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea, a learned bishop active in the first four decades of the fourth century. Eusebius had interests and biases, and his history was designed to serve various apologetic ends. He also had his blind spots, ignoring or slighting vast segments of the early Christian world. Nonetheless, his work remains essential reading for any student of Christian origins. This collection of essays attempts to make a contribution to the contemporary exploration of Christian origins by focusing on the major historical work of Eusebius. The collection is the fruit of an international collaboration by scholars of early Christianity and Judaism. The project was initially conceived by Professor Gohei Hata on the model of his earlier work on the Jewish historian Josephus. To accompany his translation of Josephus into Japanese, Professor Hata, in collaboration with Professor Louis Feldman, compiled a collection of essays designed to illuminate central issues in the contemporary study of the first-century historian and his work. That collection of essays was published in Japanese translation. It simultaneously appeared in English in two volumes: Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) and Josephus, the Bible, and History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988). Having completed

PREFACE

I

15

his work on Josephus, Professor Hata moved on to another ambitious project, the translation into Japanese of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Professor Hata desired to produce a similar collection of essays as a companion to his translation. Harold W. Attridge, of the University of Notre Dame, agreed to collaborate on the project. Together they assembled an editorial advisory board consisting of Professors Louis Feldman of Yeshiva University, New York, Kikuo Matsunaga of Tokyo Union Theological Seminary, Michael Stone of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Robert Wilken of the University of Virginia, whose recommendations were invaluable in planning the collection. The collaborative effort of the editors and the advisory board produced a collection of essays, for the most part written specifically for this project, by scholars in North America, Europe, Israel, and Japan. The essays do not attempt to offer a comprehensive survey of all of the issues of early Christian history and of Jewish-Christian relations raised by the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. They do provide a suggestive window on many key issues and contemporary approaches to them. The editors hope that these contributions to the study of early Christianity and Judaism will enhance understanding among both Christians and Jews of a pivotal period of our common religious heritage. They also hope that this undertaking will help to forge cooperative links between the scholarly communities in Europe, North America, and Asia. There are several people whose assistance and support for this project we would like to acknowledge. The late Mr. Shichihei Yamamoto of Yamamoto Shoten, the publisher of the Japanese version of these essays, gave his warm encouragement and support to the project from its inception. It is regrettable that he did not live to see its completion. The directors and staff of Wayne State University Press, including Mr. Arthur Evans, Ms. Kathryn Wildfong, and Ms. Alice Nigoghosian, have offered useful guidance in the preparation of the English-language version of the essays. The translation into English of the essays originally written in Japanese was done by Professor Hata, with the assistance of Dr. Walter Bethel of Philadelphia and of Dr. David Reid, formerly on the faculty of Tokyo Union Theological Seminary. Ms. Margaret Jasiewicz and her staff at the University of Notre Dame ably converted many of the essays into electronic copy. Ms. Susan Myers, a doctoral candidate at the University of Notre Dame, served as the managing editor for the project, supervising the composition and indexing of the collection. Translations from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in the essays are, unless otherwise noted, taken from the Loeb edition. The source of other translations is indicated in the notes. Repeated references to modem

16

I

PREFACE

scholarly literature are given by means of short titles. The first citation of any item in a particular essay will have full bibliographical information. That information is repeated in the select bibliography at the end of the volume. June 1, 1991 Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata South Bend and Tokyo

PREFACE

I

17

Abbreviations

I. Ancient Sources 1. Biblical

Cant 1, 2 Chron Col 1, 2 Cor Deut Eph Exod Ezek Gal Gen Heb Hos Is a Jer Jos

Jud

1, 2 Kgs

Lev

1, 2 Mace Mal Matt Mf Nrun 1, 2 Pet Phil Ps(s) Rev Rom 1, 2 Sam Sir

Canticle (Song of Songs) 1, 2 Chronicles Colossians 1, 2 Corinthians Deuteronomy Ephesians Exodus Ezekiel Galatians Genesis Hebrews Hosea Isaiah Jeremiah Joshua Judges 1, 2 Kings Leviticus 1, 2 Maccabees Malachi Matthew Masoretic Text Numbers 1, 2 Peter Philippians Psalm(s) Revelation Romans 1, 2 Samuel Sirach (Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira) ABBREVIATIONS

I

19

1, 2 Thess 1, 2 Tim Tit Wis Zech

1, 2 Thessalonians 1, 2 Timothy Titus Wisdom of Solomon Zechariah

2. Post-Biblical Jewish and Rabbinic CD

1QH lQpNah lQS 4QFlor 'Abod. Zar. b. B. Bat. B. Me~. B. Qam. Ber. Bik. Cit. /fag. Hor. Josephus Ag. Ap. Ant. J.W. Ketub.

m.

Meg. Mek. Menaf.z. Midr. Ps. Miqw. Ned. Nid. Pes. Pesiq. R. Philo Det. pot. ins. Leg. all. Leg. Gai. Migr. Abr. Omn. prob. lib. Op. mun. Q. Exod. Q. Gen. Spec. leg. Virt. Vit. Mos.

Damascus Document (from Cairo Geniza) The Hodayot from Qumran, Cave 1 Pesher Nahum from Qumran, Cave 1 Serek HaYaJ.tad (Scroll of the Rule) from Qumran Florilegium from Qumran, Cave 4 'AbodaZara Babylonian Talmud BabaBatra BabaMe~i'a

BabaQamma Berakot Bikkurim Gittin lfagigah Horayot Against Apion Antiquities of the Jews Jewish War Ketubot Mishnah Meg ilia Mekilta Menaf.zot Midrash on Psalms MiqwaJot Nedarim Niddah Pesaf.zim Pesiqta Rabbati Quod deterius potiori insidiari so/eat Legum allegoriae Legatio ad Gaium De migratione Abrahami Quod omnis probus liber sit De opificio mundi Quaestiones in Exodum Quaestiones in Genesim De specialibus legibus De virtutibus De vita Mosis 20

I

ABBREVIATIONS

Qidd. Rab. Rosh. Hash. s. C0lam Sanh. Shab. Shebu. Sukk. t. Tacan. Tg.

y.

Yad. Yebam.

Qiddusin Rabbah (for the Midrash Rabbah collection) RosHassana Seder cotam Sanhedrin Sabbat SebuCot Sukka Tosephta TaCanit Targum Yerushalmi Yadayim Yebamot

3. Classical and Early Christian AV Act. Paul Act. Thorn. Ambrose Expositio Luc. Ob. Theod. Antr. nymph. Apollonius, Ep. Aristides, Apol. Asterius of Amasea, Hom. Athenagoras, Leg. Augustine Brev. Coli. De civ. Dei Ep. Aurelius Victor, De Caes. CJ 1 Clem. Ps.-Clement Hom. Rec. Clement of Alexandria Paed. Strom. Const. Ap. CTh

Cyprian of Carthage De unitate Ep. Cyril of Jerusalem Catech. Did. Didasc.

Acta Vercellenses Acts of Paul Acts of Thomas

Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam De obitu Theodosii De antro nympharum Epistula Apologia Homilies Legatio ad Graecos Breviculus Collationis cum Donatisti De civitate Dei Epistula De Caesaribus Codex Justinianus The First Epistle of Clement of Rome Homilies Recognitions Paedagogos Stromateis Constitutiones Apostolorum Codex Theodosianus De unitate ecclesiae catholicae Epistula Catecheses illuminandorum Didache Didascalia ABBREVIATIONS

I

21

Didymus the Blind Comm. in Eccl. Dig. Diodorus Siculus Bibl. Hist. Diogn. Epiphanius, Pan. Epit. Eunapius, Vit. phil. Eusebius

AH C. Marcellum Chron. Comm. /sa. Comm. in Ps. DE

FP HE Laud. Const.

MP PE Vita Const. Eutropius, Brev. Exc. Val. Gaius, Inst. George Syncellus Eel. Chron. Cos. Thom. Gregory I, Ep. Gregory of Nazianzus Orat. Herm. Sim. Vis. Hippolytus Ap. Trad. Ref. Ignatius Eph. Magn. Phld. Pol. Rom. Smyrn. Trail. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. Jerome Canons Comm. in Dan.

Commentary on Ecclesiastes Digesta of Justinian B ibliotheke His tor ike The Epistle to Diognetus Panarion Epitome de Caesaribus Vitae philosophorum Adversus Hieroclem Contra Marcellum Chronicle (Book 1) Commentary on Isaiah Commentary on the Psalms Demonstratio evangelica Eclogae propheticae Historia ecclesiastica De laudibus Constantiro (The Praise of Constantine = The Tricennial Oration) De martyribus Palaestinae Praeparatio evangelica Vita Constantini Breviarium ab urbe condita Excerpta Valesiana lnstitutionum Ecloga Chronographica Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Codex 11,2) Epistula Theological Orations The Shepherd of Hermas Similitudes Visions Apostolic Tradition Refutatio omnium haeresium Letter to the Ephesians Letter to the Magnesians Letter to the Philadelphians Letter to Polycarp Letter to the Romans Letter to the Smyrnaeans Letter to the Trallians Adversus haereses = Eusebius, Chronicle (Book 2) Commentary on Daniel 22

I ABBREVIATIONS

Comm. in Matth. Comm. /sa. De vir. ill. Ep. John Chrysostom Adv. Jud. Justin Martyr I Apol. Dial. Lactantius Div. /nst. Mort. pers. Melito, Hom. Pas. Nov. Th. Od. Sol. Origen C. Cels. Comm. in Jo. Comm. Ser.in Matt. Comm. in Rom. De princ. Hom. in /sa. Hom. in Lev. Hom. in Num. Orat. P. Coli. Youtie P.Ham. P. Heid. P. Oxy. Pan. Lat. PGM Phil aster, Haer. Philostorgius, II E Philostratus, VA Photius, B ibl. Pliny, Ep. Porphyry, Adv. Chr. Seneca, Ep. Mor. Sib. Or. Socrates, II E Sozomen, HE Tacitus, Jl ist. Tertullian Ad mart. Adv. Marc. Apol. De bapt. De praes. haer. Depud. Scorp.

Commentary on Matthew Commentary on Isaiah De viris illustribus Epistula Adversus Judaeos First Apology Dialogue with Trypho Divinae lnstitutiones De mortibus persecutorum Paschal Homily Novellae of Theodosius II Odes of Solomon Contra Celsum Commentary on John Commentary on Matthew Commentary on Romans De principiis Homilies on Isaiah Homilies on Leviticus Homilies on Numbers De oratione Youtie Collection Papyrus Hamburg Papyrus Heidelberg Papyrus Oxyrhynchus Papyrus Panegyrici Latini Papyri graeci magici Adversus haereses

1/istoria ecclesiastica

Vita Apolonii

B ibliotheke

Epistula Adversus Christianos Epistulae Morales Sibylline Oracles Historia ecclesiastica 1/istoria ecclesiastica Histories Ad martyras Adversus Marcionem Apologia De baptismo De praescriptione haereticorum De pudicitia Scorpiace ABBREVIATIONS

I

23

Theodoret, HE Theophilus, Autol. Tryphoninum, De disp. Ulpian, De adult. Victor, Aurelius, Caes. Virgil, Georg. Zosimus, Nov. Hist.

Historia ecclesiastica Ad Autolycum De disputationum De adulteriis De Caesaribus Georgics Nova Historia

II. Modern Scholarly Literature AAR AB

ACW ALGHJ AnBoll

ANF

AnGreg

ANRW ASTI BA BAR BCNH BG

BHT

Bib B!OSCS BZAW

BZNW

American Academy of Religion Anchor Bible Ancient Christian Writers Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums Analecta Bollandiana Ante-Nicene Fathers Analecta Gregoriana

Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bibliotheque copte de Nag Hammadi Berlin Gnostic Codex 8502 Beitrage zur historischen Theologie

Biblica Bulletin of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CH CJG

Church History Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Corpus inscriptionum iudaicarum Corpus inscriptionum latinarum Classical Quarterly

CBQMS CChrL

CJJ

CJL CQ

csco

CSEL CSHB

D-K

EncJud

FC FRLANT GCS

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina

Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, H. Diels, trans. W.

Kranz Encyclopedia J udaica

Fathers of the Church Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Griechische christliche Schriftsteller 24

I

ABBREVIATIONS

GRBS HIXJ HKNT HNr HR HSM ffi'KNT HTR HUCA ICC !DB Sup

lAC JACSup lAOS JBL lEG JEH JHS JJS JQR JRH JRS JSJ JSNT

JTS

LCC

LCL

MGH MGHS

NHC NHS NovT

NovTSup NRT NTS NITS OBO OrChr

OrSyr OTP PG PGM PL

PO PWRE

PWSup RAC

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte, ed. M. Schmaus, J. Gieselmann, A. Grillmeier Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Handbuch zum Neuen Testament History of Religions Harvard Semitic Monographs Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual International Critical Commentary Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume Jahrbuchfo.r Antike und Christentum Supplement to Jahrbuchfur Antike und Christentum Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal des etudes grecques Journal of Ecclesiastical History Journal of Heiienic Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman History Journal of Roman Studies Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies Library of Christian Classics Loeb Classical Library Monumenta Germaniae Historica Monumenta Germaniae Historica Scriptorum Nag Harnmadi Codex Nag Harnmadi Studies Novum Testamentum Novum Testamentum, Supplements La nouveiie revue theologique New Testament Studies New Testament Tools and Studies Orbis biblicus et orientalis Oriens christianus L'orient syrien Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Migne, Patrologia graeca K. Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri graecae magicae Migne, Patrologia latina Patrologia orientalis Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Supplement to PWRE Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum ABBREVIATIONS

I

25

RB

REG REI RelSRev RevQ RHE RHPhR RHR RivAC RSR SBLDS SBLMS SBLTI

sc

SHR

SJLA Str-B StudPatr TAPA TDNI TGl ThR TRE TS TSK

TU

TZ

vc

VD VTSup WUNf ZAW WPV ZKG ZNW ZPE ZTK ZWT

III. General frg.

LXX

MT parr. RSV

Revue biblique Revue des etudes grecques Revue des etudes juives Religious Studies Review Revue de Qumran Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de l'histoire des religions Rivista de Archeologia Cristiana Recherches de science religieuse Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature, Texts and Translations Sources chretiennes Studies in the History of Religions Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (6 vols.; Munich: Beck, 1922) Studia Patristica Transactions of the American Philological Association Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Theologie und Glaube Theologische Rundschau Theologische Realenzyklopiidie Theological Studies Theologische Studien und Kritiken Texte und Untersuchungen Theologische Zeitschrift Vigiliae Christianae Verbum Domini Vetus Testamentum, Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Paliistina-Vereins Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik Zeitschrift fur Theologie ·und Kirche Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie fragment Septuagint Massoretic Text parallels Revised Standard Version

26

I

ABBREVIATIONS

Introduction HAROLD W. ATTRIDGE AND GOHEI HATA

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius is a milestone in the development of western historiography. It is the first attempt by a Christian author to compose a general account of the Christian movement from its inception in the teaching of Jesus until its triumph in the early fourth century. The significance of the History depends neither on an attractive style nor on its author's sharp critical sense. Eusebius was not a Thucydides or Polybius and his work serves a number of apologetic and polemical aims, many of which are discussed in this collection of essays. Nonetheless, the History is certainly significant as a source of information about the early Christian movement. Eusebius was a careful collector, with access to good sources of information and he has preserved a considerable body of data in the form of citations from lost works and private correspondence. While the History is an indispensable resource for the study of early Christianity, it is also valuable as an expression of a Christian understanding of history and society at a point when church and civil authority had emerged from a period of conflict and had begun their long-lasting linkage. A brief outline of the man and his work may usefully serve as a preface to the collection of essays marking the introduction of the Ecclesiastical History to a new audience.

I. The Life of Eusebiusl Sources Data on the life of Eusebius is sparse. He himself did not write an autobiography. Acacius, his successor as bishop of Caesarea, is reported to have given an account of his life, 2 but that work has not survived. Scattered references in Eusebius' own voluminous writings provide some information. His successors in the art of ecclesiastical historiography, Socrates Scholasticus (380-450), Sozomen (376-ca. 450), and Theodoret (393-458), provide more data, which may be supplemented by references in ecclesiastical writers of the fourth century, particularly Athanasius (296373) and Jerome (347-419). INfRODUCfiON

I

27

General Outline Although the precise date of Eusebius' birth is unknown, he refers to Dionysius of Alexandria as bishop (ca. 248-265) "in our time" (HE 3.28.3) and to Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (260--272), as "our contemporary" (HE 5.28.1). Hence, he was probably born in the early 260s. His life spanned several distinct periods. During his youth and early middle age he was part of a church that enjoyed peace and continual growth. This situation followed a period of persecution in the middle of the third century which halted when, upon his accession to the throne, the emperor Gallienus (260-268) issued an edict of toleration for Christians (HE 7.13.1). The period of calm ended abruptly in 303 when the great persecution began. For much of the following decade, when Eusebius was in his prime, Christians, particularly in the Greek-speaking eastern half of the empire, experienced intense pressure. Constantine's victory over Maxentius in 312 secured in the western, Latin-speaking portion of the empire the position of an emperor favorable to the church. The final cessation of persecution in 313 inaugurated a period of peace for the church. The memory of the persecution would, however, long remain with Eusebius. Not long after the peace of the church, Eusebius was consecrated bishop of Caesarea. Until his death in 339, he enjoyed the status of a leading episcopal scholar and played an active role in the ecclesiastical politics of the east. Ecclesiastical history during this time revolved around two developments, the early stages of the Arian controversy and the final rise of Constantine to sole dominion over the Roman world, achieved by his victory over the eastern emperor Licinius in 324. Eusebius was embroiled in the former, while he celebrated the latter and what he believed it meant for the church. Caesarea, the See of Eusebius We know nothing of Eusebius' ancestry or birthplace. Marcellus of Ancyra called him "the Palestinian," perhaps to distinguish him from the Eusebius of Nicomedia (d. 341), a staunch supporter of Arianism (Eusebius, C. Marcellum 1.4), and from other churchmen who shared his name.3 The identification of Eusebius' birthplace itself is not as important as his association with Caesarea Maritima in Palestine. It was there that he was baptized and studied Christian doctrine (according to his famous letter to the church of Caesarea from Nicaea, preserved in Socrates, HE 1.8). It was in Caesarea that Eusebius first saw the future emperor Constantine "when he passed through Palestine with the senior emperor [i.e., Diocletian], at whose right hand he stood" (Vita Const. 1.19), most probably in 296. It was in Caesarea that Eusebius was ordained presbyter, perhaps under Theotecnus,4 and later consecrated bishop. It was in Caesarea, after the spring of 303, that 28

I

INTRODUCTION

Eusebius witnessed the heroic end of many of the martyrs. 5 It was in the library of Caesarea that Eusebius produced his voluminous literary corpus. Caesarea Maritima is known to Christians as a base for the mission to the Gentiles. 6 Originally called Strato's Tower,7 the city was added to the realm of Herod (37-4 BCE), 8 who rebuilt it as a port. Construction took twelve years, ending in 10/9 BCE, when Herod dedicated the city to Augustus.9 Most of the inhabitants were Greeks or Syrians, and there was constant friction between them and the Jews. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, such friction eventually led to the outbreak of war with the Romans in 66 CE.1° After the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70, Caesarea became a Roman colony and remained capital of Palestine until 375. Initially, Roman army veterans settled there and the town was exempt from tribute. 11 It is hardly surprising that the rabbis called it "Caesarea, daughter of Edom" (b. Meg. 6a), the conventional rabbinic cypher for Rome. The Hellenistic character of the town after the war is evident in archaeological finds. Tyche (=Astarte?), Sarapis, Dionysius, and Demeter all found devotees. 12 The city's cultural complexion, with its traditional Hellenistic core and Jewish and Christian communities, had changed little by the time of Eusebius. Such an environment evoked and colored Eusebius' apologetic activity, evidenced particularly in his Preparation for the Gospel, Demonstration of the Gospel, and Theophany. Eusebius' Mentor: Pamphilus Christian presbyters helped mold Eusebius' Christian faith and literary skills. "During Cyril's episcopate" (280-303), Eusebius carne to know Dorotheus, presbyter of the church of Antioch. He was one of the few who could read the "original Hebrew Scriptures" but was also versed in the "most liberal studies and Greek primary education" (HE 7.32.2-4). Eusebius probably met him when only in his teen years, perhaps in Antioch. Eusebius says that he had "heard him giving a measured exposition of the scriptures in the church" (HE 7.32.4). Such preaching may have inspired Eusebius' own style. Yet we know little of their relationship, and Eusebius' silence suggests that it was not close. More important was Pamphilus, a presbyter in Caesarea and Eusebius' acknowledged mentor. Eusebius mentions him frequently, 13 and certain facts about their relationship are clear. Eusebius came to know Pamphilus in the time of bishop Agapius (HE 7.32.24), possibly while the future historian was in his early 20s. Pamphilus had continued Origen's scholarly interests and methods, 14 copying "with his own hand" the manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as the works of Origen. 15 Pamphilus' devotion to scholarship and his zeal as a collector enhanced the fame of the Caesarean library. Eusebius reports that Pamphilus wrote a six-volume defense of INfRODUCilON

I

29

Origen (HE 6.36.4). That Eusebius assisted Pamphilus in writing this work is attested by Socrates (HE 3.7) and others. 16 Photius, the ninth-century bishop of Constantinople, reports that Pamphilus wrote the ftrst five books with the assistance of Eusebius while he was in prison and that Eusebius completed the last book after the death of his master (Bib/. cod. 118). Book 6 of the History is largely devoted to recounting the life of Origen and much of what Eusebius had learned of the great third-century scholar and theologian no doubt came to him through Pamphilus. Eusebius eventually celebrated his master with a Life of Pamphilus in three volumes. 17 As Jerome affirmed, Eusebius was indeed "a friend, eulogist and companion" (amator et praeco et contubernalis) of Pamphilus, whose name he added to his own. 18 The Great Persecution In February of 303 Diocletian (284-305) and his co-ruler Maximian (286-305), apparently instigated by Galerius, the Caesar in the East, promulgated an edict against Christianity, which Eusebius describes at HE 8.2.4. The intensity and duration of the persecution varied in different portions of the empire, but in the Greek East persecution was severe. Eusebius witnessed martyrdoms in Caesarea, Tyre, and Egypt and reported on them at length. 19 Eusebius is extremely reticent about his own role during this period, a fact that has raised questions about his conduct. Did he, in Gibbon's words, "purchase his deliverance by some dishonorable compliance"? 20 An overwrought allegation by Potammon, bishop ofHeraclea in Egypt, at the council of Tyre in 335, indicates that Eusebius was put into prison with him during this persecution (Epiphanius, Pan. 68.8). Potammon, who himself "lost his eye for the truth," wondered how Eusebius could have escaped safe and sound and accused him of having offered what the law forbids. Athanasius, who was also at that council (Contra Arianos 8.1), echoed the allegation. Such accusations contained more theological polemic than historical truth.21 The positive attitude of Eusebius toward the martyrs lacks any trace of defensiveness. He exalted their fortitude and perseverance in his Martyrs of Palestine, in Book 8 of the History, and apparently in his treatment of Pamphilus, whose life ended in martyrdom (HE 8.13.6) in 309. 22 The circumstances in which Eusebius could have been freed from prison without any physical injuries are unknown. As A. C. McGiffert has suggested,23 he may have had influential friends in high places. His imprisonment might have been brief due simply to good fortune. However Eusebius escaped serious injury, his appointment as bishop, by 315 at the latest, indicates that the Christian community in Caesarea did not consider him guilty of any dishonorable action.

30

I

INfRODUCTION

The persecution, which in fact had been virtually dormant in the West, "came completely to an end, by the grace of God, in the tenth year [i.e., 313], though indeed it began to abate after the eighth year," as Eusebius reports (HE 8.16.1). Galerius issued his edict oftoleration on April30, 311, just before his death, 24 and Maximin Daia (308-313), Caesar in the East, unwillingly sent out a letter to municipal magistrates requesting toleration of Christians (HE 9.1.1-6). Though anti-Christian movements were still active in some cities and districts of the East (HE 9.2ft), and Maximin briefly revived the persecution in 312, Christianity was finally tolerated by the Roman Empire. The new situation was recognized in the so-called Edict of Milan issued jointly by Constantine and Licinius in 313. 25 Not long afterwards Eusebius was appointed bishop of Caesarea, perhaps as successor to Agapius whom he mentions at HE 7 .32.4. The appointment is no later than 315 because Eusebius attended the dedication of the church in Tyre as the bishop of Caesarea in that year (HE 10.4.1ft).26

Doctrinal Disputes About 318 in Alexandria, doctrinal disputes broke out over the essence of Logos, the Son of God. The leading figure was Arius (256-336), a presbyter of St. Baccarius Church.27 He criticized the teaching of his bishop, Alexander, and argued that the Son, as a God whose sufferings redeemed humankind, was not impassible, as is the Father. Furthermore, since the Son had been "begotten" by the Father, he once did not exist and, therefore, was not fully divine. 28 Leaders of the Alexandrian church rejected this diminution of the Son's status and Arius was expelled from the church and the city. 29 He appealed to the eastern bishops and received some help from them. Our Eusebius and Eusebius of Nicomedia were among those who responded with assistance. Theodotus of Laodicea in Syria, to whom Eusebius dedicated both the Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica, and Paulinus of Tyre, to whom Eusebius dedicated his Chronicle and Book 10 of his History, were also among the supporters of Arius. The doctrinal disputes over the nature of the Son became serious and split the church. In an imperial letter, written in 324, Constantine expressed his deep concern over these disputes which were threatening to disturb civil as well as ecclesiastical harmony (Vita Const. 2.65-72). At an initial council held in Antioch early in 325, the orthodoxy of Eusebius was challenged and, because he refused to accept the statement of faith produced at the council, he was provisionally excommunicated. 30

INI"RODUCTION

I

31

Council of Nicaea

In the early summer of 325, the twentieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, the council at Nicaea in Bithynia (present Isnik) was convened by the imperial command to settle the dispute and restore ecclesiastical order (Vita Const. 3.6ff). According to Eusebius, "more than two hundred and fifty bishops" attended.31 A series of heated debates over the essence of the Logos ensued. In this process Eusebius presented the Caesarean creed, not so much to provide a draft of the Nicene Creed as to defend his own orthodoxy which had been challenged at the Council of Antioch.32

After Nicaea

The solution achieved by Nicaea only served to generate further controversy, which would last for the next fifty years until the creed of Nicaea was reaffirmed in the Council of Constantinople in 381.33 As a result of such ecclesiastical turmoil, further synods were convened. In 330 a council at Antioch at which Eusebius presided examined the beliefs of Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, who was deposed, apparently for the heresy of Sabellianism, and exiled to Illyria by Constantine. 34 Eusebius, while in sympathy with elements of the Arian position, was convinced of the positive role that the church could play in harmony with the empire and emerged in a position of favor. He was offered the bishopric of Antioch, a move of which Constantine did not approve. Eusebius naturally declined the offer (Vita Const. 3.60-62). He may in fact have preferred to remain at Caesarea with its good library and may have been reluctant to expose himself to further attacks on his orthodoxy by partisans of Eustathius. In 334, Constantine summoned Athanasius, now bishop of Alexandria as well as a spokesman for the pro-Nicene party, to a council at Caesarea, but he refused to come. He was again requested to attend a council at Tyre held the next year (335). It was there that Potammon accused Eusebius of having been an apostate during the persecution, and Athanasius also, on the basis of rumors, was accused of having seduced and impregnated a young girl. At this tumultuous council35 Athanasius was exiled to Gaul by the order of the emperor. Arius was reinstated in a council held the same year (335) in Jerusalem.36 In 336 Constantine catled the bishop~ to Constantinople, and as a result Marcellus of Ancyra, an ardent opponent of Arianism, was expelled from his see.37 Eusebius affirmed the decisions with his polemical tract Contra Marcellum. Constantinople was in the midst of the emperor's tricennial celebrations, and Eusebius delivered an oration, In Praise of Constantine. In the appearance of the emperor, Eusebius saw the arrival of the time (KaLp6s) of salvation for which Christians had longed. Indeed, the emperor Constantine was to him the "second Moses" who freed the elect few, i.e., 32

I

INrRODUCTION

Christians, from the bondage of tyrants and brought salvation to them (Vita Const. 1.12). The emperor died in the late spring of 337 (Vita Const. 3.64). The death of Eusebius is generally placed somewhere between 339 and 340, partly because it was Acacius who attended the council held at Antioch in 341 (Sozomen, HE 3.5) and partly because Socrates (HE 2.4) and Sozomen (HE 3.2) place his death before Constantine II who died in 340. The most likely date is May 30, 339.3 8

The Works of Eusebius Before the outbreak of the persecution in the year 303, during the period of the persecution, and on into his mature years, even in the period just before his death, Eusebius was constantly involved in writing. As Jerome reports, he produced "innumerable" works (De vir. ill. 81), including historical, apologetic, exegetical, doctrinal, and oratorical works. Such productivity was due to several factors, including zeal for scholarship inspired by Pamphilus and access to fine libraries in Caesarea and Aelia (Jerusalem), where Eusebius could "search out and trace back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers." 39 The need of the Christian community for apologetics directed toward the society at large and Eusebius' own need for theological defense stimulated literary efforts. Finally, Eusebius apparently spent little time on refining or polishing the style of his work. 40 In addition to the Ecclesiastical History his most important extant works, 41 with some indication of their possible dates, are: Chronicle (2 volumes). 42 The work clearly provided the framework for the History. Its final form dates to 325, since it referred to the vicennalia of Constantine. A date for a first edition prior to 303 is frequently accepted, 43 and Barnes has recently argued that it may be considerably earlier (295).44 Extracts from the Prophets (295?-312), an apologetic assembly of proof texts, which Eusebius (EP 1.1) describes as a supplement to the Chronicle. 45 HE 1.2.27 may refer to this text, or perhaps to the General Elementary Introduction, of which volumes 6-9 survive in the first four books of the Extracts. 46 Against Hierocles (before 303), an apologetic refutation of claims for the pagan philosopher Apollonius of Tyana. 47 Martyrs of Palestine (311). It survives in two recensions, the shorter incorporated into some manuscripts of the History and a longer, surviving in Greek fragments and in Syriac.48

INfRODUCTION

I

33

Preparationfor the Gospel in 15 volumes (completed 312-318). This apologetic work continues a long tradition of cultural apologetic and offers a valuable collection of citations from lost classical works. 4 9 This work is closely related to: Demonstration of the Gospel (312-318). An apologetic work originally in 20 volumes, the first ten and the better part of Book 15 survive.50 Book 3 expands the Extracts from the Prophets. Theophany (after 324) summarizes and condenses the apologetic concerns of the Preparation and the Demonstration. Its close resemblance to the Praise of Constantine has led to various assessments of its date. 51 Onomastikon (326-327). This gazetteer of Palestine indicates a new Christian interest in the holy places that flowered in the fourth century, particularly after the visit of Helena, the mother of Constantine, to Palestine in 326. 52 The dedication to Paulinus suggests a date prior to his death around 327. Barnes, however, detects in certain geographical details evidence of a late third-century date (295).53 Commentary on Isaiah (324-329). Perhaps the most important of the exegetical works, it illustrates important elements in the theology of Eusebius.5 4 Against Marcellus, in two volumes, and Ecclesiastical Theology (both around 336), in three volumes. Both indicate involvement in the Arian controversy.55 Commentary on the Psalms (after 330).56 Approximately one-third of this lengthy commentary survives in manuscript form; fragments are scattered in catenae. Praise of Constantine (335) actually consists of two pieces, chaps. 110, the Praise proper, a panegyric delivered at the thirtieth anniversary festival of the emperor's reign, and chaps. 11-18, a Treatise on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.57 Life of Constantine (337), an unfinished laudatory biography in 4 volumes continuing the work of the History.5 8

II. Ecclesiastical History Purpose ofWriting At the beginning of the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius indicates that he wanted "to rescue the successions, if not all, at least of the most distinguished of the apostles of our Savior throughout those churches of which the fame is still remembered" (HE 1.1.4). He wishes to enumerate the episcopal successions: "because I am not aware that any Christian (= ecclesiastical) writer has until now paid attention to this kind of writing" (HE 34

I

INfRODUCflON

1.1.5). This programmatic statement tells something of the framework on which Eusebius built, but his aims are, in fact, more complex. 59 In his eyes, the course of history has a clear meaning, in finding which he is inspired by scriptural models, Greco-Roman historians, and apologetic religious historians such as Josephus. Eusebius' composition traces the growth and development of a divinely guided institution within the Roman Empire. That institution met resistance from enemies of divine providence, both internal and external; yet the power of God finally triumphed over all opposition. At least in its final form, Eusebius' account is an encomium on that triumph. It invites Christians to celebrate God's salvific actions and unbelievers to marvel at them. Contents Some of the complexity of the work is apparent at the very beginning of the History (1.1.1-2), where Eusebius enumerates seven topics to be considered:

(1) The successions of the apostles in "the period stretching from our Savior to ourselves"; (2) The "transactions recorded in the history of the Church"; (3) The "distinguished leaders in the sees of greatest fame"; (4) "Those who in each generation were the ambassadors of the word of God"; (5) Those who ravaged "the flock of Christ" by the teaching of "Knowledge" (= Gnosis); (6) The fate which beset the Jewish nation; and (7) Christian martyrdoms in history and to the present. After "the necessary preliminaries to the history of the Church" (HE 1.5.1), in which he discusses the dispensation of God concerning Christ, the preexistent Logos (1.2.1-4.15), Eusebius starts from the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus, i.e., 2 BCE in our reckoning (from the time of the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 45 BCE). Book 1 deals exclusively with the time during which Jesus lived. Book 2 covers the time from Tiberius (1437 CE) to Nero (54-68), Book 3 from Vespasian (69-79) to Trajan (98117), Book 4 from Trajan to Marcus Aurelius (161-180), Book 5 from Aurelius to Septimius Severns (193-211), Book 6 from the persecution of Severns in 203 to that of Decius in 250, Book 7 from Gallus (251-253) to Gallienus (260-268), and Book 8 from the persecution of Diocletian (284305) to the issue by Galerius (305-311) of the recantation of the edict of Christian persecution. Book 9 deals with the times of four rulers (Maximian, 306-308; Maxentius, 306-312; Maximinus Daia, 308-313; INTRODUCTION

I

35

and Licinius, 308-324) in the East and of Constantine's victory over Maxentius in the West, although it pays special attention to the renewed persecution initiated by Maximinus, and Book 10 ends with Constantine's victory over Licinius in 324. Eusebius does not proceed in a systematic or uniform fashion throughout the work. Some books consist of a more random treatment of issues. For example, Book 1 deals with ten topics (Herod, the fulfillment of the prophecies of Moses and Daniel, the birth of Jesus, the genealogical discrepancies regarding Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Herod's crimes, opposition to Jesus, the period of Jesus' teaching, John the Baptist, Jesus' apostles and followers, King Abgar of Edessa). Book 2 deals with twenty-six topics. But Book 6 has a clear focus on the life of Origen and related matters. Book 8 deals almost exclusively with the persecution of Domitian, and Book 9 is devoted to the persecution of Christians under Maximin. Fully seventy percent of Book 10 is a record of the extravagant and lengthy oration that Eusebius delivered at the dedication ceremony in Tyre. The remainder is devoted to the edicts for the benefit of Christians issued in his time and the accounts of Licinius' crimes and Constantine's victory over him. The largest differences between portions of the work are visible between the first seven books and the last three. Several of the themes announced in the programmatic statement in Book 1 (episcopal successions, heretics) are completed by the end of Book 7 and are not discussed in the final books. Such differences may be related to the development of the work, which needs further consideration. Eusebius' Sources According to Lawlor and Oulton, who found that "nearly 250 passages [were] transcribed from early sources," "almost half of these ... are otherwise unknown to us; more than half, if we include passages of lrenaeus extant elsewhere only in the Latin or Armenian version. In addition to these there are 90 or 100 indirect quotations or summaries, of about a third of which the original text is lost." 60 As Lawlor and Oulton indicate, the History is a mine of information necessary for the understanding of the history of Christendom, especially of eastern Christendom during its first three hundred years. As to sources used, Eusebius remarks in the beginning of Book 1: "We have ... collected from their scattered memoirs all that we think will be useful for the present subject, and have brought together the utterances of the ancient writers themselves that are appropriate to it, culling, as it were, the flowers of intellectual fields" (HE 1.1.4). Gathering such a bouquet led him beyond the library of Caesarea. He went to Jerusalem to utilize "the library at Aelia [=Jerusalem], collected by Alexander, then ruling the church 36

I

INfRODUCTION

there" (HE 6.20.1) and to obtain copies of a dossier of ecclesiastical letters there. The apocryphal story of Abgar, King of Edessa, based on the letters purportedly exchanged between Abgar and Jesus, which Eusebius claims to have translated from the Syriac, are reported to have come from the archives of Edessa (HE 1.13.5). Copies of imperial letters and edicts in Books 8, 9, and 10 indicate that Eusebius must have obtained them from sources other than the libraries in Caesarea and Aelia. In the History, besides innumerable references to the Old (the LXX, of course) and New Testaments as sources, some apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books, disputed books, the accounts or oral traditions (A6yOL/ rrapa8wans) of the church, we encounter a number of quotations from other writers. They are: Jewish authors such as Philo (30 BCE-40 CE) and Josephus (37-100 CE); ecclesiastical writers such as Clement of Rome (late first cent.), Ignatius (d. ca. 115), Papias (early second cent.), Polycarp (d. 156), Justin (d. 165), Hegesippus (ca. 110--ca. 180), Dionysius of Corinth (late second cent.), Tatian, Melito, Rhoda, and Polycrates (late second cent.), Irenaeus (ca. 115-ca. 202), Serapion (ca. 140--ca. 210), Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215), Tertullian (ca. 160-221), Caius (ca. 160-ca. 230), Julius Africanus (ca. 160--ca. 240), Origen (185-254), and Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265); and anti-Christian authors such as Porphyry (223304). Information on the Lucuas war in 115 is derived from some unspecified "Greek" writers and that on the last rebellion of the Jews led by "a certain Bar Chochebas" in 134 is from Aristo of Pella. Eusebius also inserts the excerpts from the letters issued by the churches in Lyons and Vienne and from some of the Gnostic writers or anti-Montanist writers. The imperial letters and edicts issued by Galerius, Maximinus, and Constantine are translated from Latin into Greek. Numerous other references only mention names of authors or their works. The use by Eusebius of such sources is subject to certain limitations. 6 1 Eusebius projects back into earlier centuries many of the conditions of his own day. His use of authors outside of his own cultural tradition is meager. He used few Latin authors, e.g., Tertullian in Greek translation, and was not well informed about their background. Development of the Ecclesiastical History The History as we now have it was not written at one period. This is clear from the dedication at the beginning of Book 10: "And having now added, while we pray, the tenth volume also of the Ecclesiastical History to those which preceded it, we shall dedicate this volume to you, my most holy Paulinus, invoking you as the seal of the whole work" (HE 10.1.2). Book 10 was clearly written after 315 because it includes Eusebius' oration at the dedication ceremony of the church in Tyre. Paulin us, bishop of Tyre INfRODUCTION

I

37

at the time of the oration, is still alive, although it is unclear whether he is still in that office, which he relinquished before Nicaea. 62 The last events in the book enable a more precise dating of its final form. Constantine had defeated Licinius in 324, and Constantine's son Crispus still shared his father's glory (HE 10.9.2-6), a situation which ended with the execution of Crispus in the summer of 326. Thus, the History with Book 10 in its current form was issued somewhere between 324 and 326. How much of the work was written prior to the completion of Book 10 and at what precise points parts of it were written have been matters of considerable discussion. Other clear allusions to dated events appear earlier in the work. Thus the current form of Book 7 was clearly written after 303, since it concludes (HE 7.32.32) with a reference to the destruction of places of prayer, at the beginning of the great persecution, 305 years after the inception of the narrative, in 2 BCE. The current form of Book 8 was clearly written after the so-called Edict of Milan (HE 8.16.1). Some of the manuscripts of the History (AER) also contain an appendix to this book which contrasts the deaths of persecuting emperors and that of Constantius, father of Constantine. The last of the persecutors to die, Diocletian, also died no later than 313 (not 317 as once thought). The appendix confirms the completion of Book 8 after 313. Books 1-8 seem to be bound as a unit with references in the programmatic preface to the martyrdoms "of our own time" (HE 1.1.2).63 Such data provide termini post quem for dating the book. They do not preclude the possibility that parts of the work, composed earlier, were later subject to editorial modification. The data for the development of the History has been variously assessed. J. B. Lightfoot in 1880 and A. C. McGiffert in 1895 proposed two stages of composition.6 4 The first edition, with Books 1-9, would have been issued in 313, the second, with Book 10 and alterations to Book 9, would have been issued in 324. Eduard Schwartz in 1909 postulated four stages extending over fifteen years. Books 1-8 would have been written around 312, after the persecution by Diocletian and Galerius, during the resurgence of persecution under Maximin; Book 9 was added in 315; the bulk of Book 10 was added in 317; and, finally, passages on Licinius were revised after his fall in 324. 65 The linkage of Books 1-8 with the end of persecution in 311 was broken by Richard Laqueur in 1929, who viewed as an interpolation the reference to martyrdoms at HE 1.1.2 with the allusion to Book 8. 66 The original edition of the History comprised 7 books and was completed in 303. Another edition at the end of the persecution in 311 would have incorporated Book 8. That book would have been expanded and divided into two books in the final edition, which also included Book 10. The final edition would have been made some time after 317.

38

I

INfRODUCTION

The possibility of an early date for Books 1-7 prior to 303 has been widely accepted67 and has been further developed by Timothy D. Barnes,68 who also introduced other refinements on the theories of Schwartz and Laqueur. For Barnes, Books 1-7 were written well before 303, in the last decade of the third century. Eusebius would have issued a new edition in 313, modifying Books 6 and 7 and adding the short recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, as well as Book 9. Shortly thereafter, around 315, before war between Licinius and Constantine erupted in 316/317, Eusebius would have issued another edition, with Books 8 and 10, accounting for the fact that references to Licinius are often positive in these books. A final revision in 324 would have added the reference to the "madness" and consequent demise of Licinius. Barnes' position has not, however, won universal acceptance. Glenn Chesnut, while accepting the editions of 313, 315, and 326, and while granting that the references to persecution at the beginning of Book 1 and the end of Book 7 are secondary, holds that there was no proper edition of the History as early as 303. Eusebius could, however, have composed much of the material in Books 1-7 before the outbreak of persecution, perhaps for his own scholarly purposes. 69 Andrew Louth has recently maintained that the various arguments for an early completion of Books 1-7, both those internal to the History and those about its relationship with other elements of the Eusebian corpus, are not persuasive and that there are indeed grounds for dating Books 1-7 closer to the time envisioned by Schwartz and Lawlor than to that posited by Laqueur and Barnes.70 Louth's strongest argument in support of a later dating is that the current state of Book 6 seems to presuppose the Defense of Origen on which Eusebius collaborated with Pamphilus and which he completed after the latter's death during the Great Persecution. Debates about the development of the History, which cannot be finally settled here, have implications for the aims and purposes of Eusebius in the work. It is certainly possible that Eusebius conceived of his historical enterprise in different ways as his career developed and the remarkable events of the fourth century unfolded. Whatever its antecedents, the final form of the Ecclesiastical History remains Eusebius' testimony to the triumphal vindication of his faith community.

III. The Organization of This Collection The contributors to this volume were asked either to assess Eusebius himself, his aims, and his relationship with his environment, to present contemporary scholarly opinion on key areas of the period covered in, or in some cases ignored by, the Ecclesiastical History, or to evaluate some INrRODUCfiON

I

39

aspect of the legacy of Eusebius and the attitudes that he represented. The resulting contributions have been grouped into eight thematic sections. Christian Origins The ministry of Jesus, the missionary activity of his disciples, and the origins of Christian literature occupy much of the first three books of the History. Five essays offer contemporary reviews of these formative phases in church history. Richard Horsley and David Flusser treat the historical Jesus. Although each has his own perspective and emphasis, both view Jesus squarely in the context of first-century Judaism, in contrast to Eusebius, who insists on the differences between Jesus and his environment. Philip Sellew considers the reports by Eusebius about the origins of gospel literature in light of the contemporary understanding of how such literature developed. Peter Gorday considers in particular the figure of Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, and traces some of the understanding of his letters in the early church. Some of his concerns with the appropriation of the scriptures in the literature of the early church overlaps with the interests of the essays in this collection that treat Eusebius as exegete. Dennis MacDonald offers an analogous treatment of the reports about the activities of the apostles, stressing the importance of oral traditions and the sort of apostolic legends enshrined in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles and hinted at in Eusebius. Both Sellew and MacDonald indicate some of the very different methods and perspectives modern historians of earliest Christianity bring to their task. The Growth and Expansion of Christianity The Ecclesiastical History is devoted to the "number and character of the transactions recorded in the history of the Church" and mentions "those who were distinguished in her government and leadership in the provinces of greatest fame" (HE 1.1.1). Several essays treat aspects of the general history of the early church, with sensitivity both to the information which Eusebius provides and to the wider perspectives of modem historiography. Charles Bobertz describes the development of the official episcopal structures of authority in the church, giving special attention to the systems of authority in ancient society on which the church may have relied. While his essay treats one of the major organizing themes of the Ecclesiastical History, it also points to one of the areas slighted by Eusebius, the Latin West. Sebastian Brock does for the Syrian East what Bobertz does for the Latin West. His expansion of the horizon of Eusebius is built upon a 40

I

INrRODUCTION

careful analysis of the legend that Eusebius preserves about King Abgar and the origins of Syriac-speaking Christianity. Eusebius gives evidence of the popularity of ascetical disciplines in the early church, but he tells us little about the monastic institutionalization of such disciplines. James Goehring explores this phenomenon and sheds further light on the popular Christianity of Egypt and Syria. The pages of Eusebius tell of heroes of the religious movement, both male and female, but the role of women has often been slighted in histories of the church. In recent years scholars have labored to recover and analyze the story of early Christian women. Elizabeth Clark contributes to that project here with a survey of Eusebius' women. The story that Eusebius tells pays scant attention to the visual and symbolic environment that early Christians created. His own rather spare sensibilities may have influenced his presentation. While he was probably not unique, there were, nonetheless, early Christian artists and images. Joseph Gutmann explores these elements of the early church's experience. Orthodoxy and Heresy At the opening of the Ecclesiastical History (HE 1.1.1) Eusebius indicates that one of his major themes will be the discussion of "Gnosis falsely so-called" as well as other heresies. Three essays in this collection probe phenomena that Eusebius would have considered heretical. Birger Pearson offers a comprehensive view of Gnosticism as the movement is now understood. He indicates the significance not only of the testimony of ancient heresiologists, but also of recently discovered primary sources such as the Coptic Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi. Not all early Christian disagreements involved matters of doctrine. The issue of the time for celebrating Easter, the Quartodeciman controversy, caused a stir in the second century and continued to be problematic through the time of Nicaea. William Petersen explores the data of Eusebius on the controversy and finds evidence in the historian's testimony of a gradual shift of emphasis in subsequent editions of the History. Alan Segal explores the phenomenon of "Jewish Christianity," movements venerating Jesus, but retaining observance of the Torah in some form. This type of Christianity became increasingly isolated in the second and third centuries and eventually came to be considered heretical; yet it has left important literary monuments. Segal's treatment of those who tried to maintain both Jewish and Christian identities leads to the next major area for consideration.

INfRODUCTION

I

41

The Fate of the Jews In the eyes of Eusebius, the rejection of Christian claims for Jesus by the people of Israel meant the end of their history as God's chosen people. In this judgment he was hardly unique, but represented the anti-Jewish consensus of much early Christian theology. The break between Judaism and Christianity resulted from tensions that surfaced early in the history of the Christian movement. These tensions are explored by Kikuo Matsunaga, who endorses arguments for the significance of the composition of the Birkhat Ha-Minim as a decisive factor in the development of JewishChristian hostility. Despite Christian beliefs, Jewish history continued and Jews continued to make their traditional appeals to the Gentile world to accept the revelation of Torah. Louis Feldman explores this continuing history of Jewish proselytism, particularly in light of new evidence about "god-fearers" in the Greek world. Alan Avery-Peck turns instead to the internal world of Judaism and to the religious system of the Mishnah created by the rabbis in the wake of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. This was a world of which Eusebius was quite unaware, but knowledge of which is essential in order to assess his claims about Judaism. Eusebius as Apologist Apologetic concerns are prominent throughout the corpus of Eusebius, and are indicative of his intellectual roots in the tradition of Origen. Several essays explore this important element of the intellectual tradition that Eusebius inherited and embellished. Charles Kannengiesser investigates the intellectual heritage of Eusebius in the tradition of Origen. He finds important parallels between Origen's biblical criticism and the early historiographical work of Eusebius. One important bit of evidence used by Prof. Kannengiesser for his exploration of the Origenist roots of Eusebius is his Chronicle. William Adler explores that text in more detail and illustrates how it relates to the chronographical tradition of the early church. Arthur Droge investigates the apologetic dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History and relates them to the heritage of cultural polemics by Jews and Christians during the first several centuries. Alan Mendelson examines the traditions about Apollonius of Tyana and the polemics in the early fourth century for and against this figure. Frederick Norris explores some of the theological and cultural issues surrounding the apologetic treatment of Jesus by Eusebius and suggests that there are elements in the apologetic program of Eusebius that remain valid for contemporary apologists for Christianity. 42

I

INfRODUCTION

Eusebius as Exegete As a student of the school of Caesarea Eusebius would have been concerned with the Bible, including the Old Testament. His use of scripture provides a focused illustration of his intellectual training and his apologetic concerns. Eugene Ulrich discusses the textual basis of Eusebius' Old Testament scripture and indicates the historian's debt to the philological work of Origen. Another dimension of the legacy of Origen appears in the essay by Wataru Mizugaki who explores the hermeneutical dimensions of the program of Origen. Allegory appears in the work of Eusebius, although perhaps it does not dominate as it did with Origen. The technique of allegorical interpretation is simply part of a larger phenomenon which Prof. Mizugaki explores. The kind of hermeneutics that Eusebius practiced are amply illustrated in the essay by Michael Hollerich, who explores particularly the Commentary on Isaiah in order to show some of the polemical and apologetic interests that influenced Eusebius' reading of the Old Testament text. Eusebius and the Empire The final edition of the History records the contest of the martyrs against the imperial power and the victory over that power that Eusebius claimed God had won for the church. Several essays explore aspects of Eusebius and his relationship with the empire. Yoshiaki Sato examines the understanding of martyrdom in the early church, a perspective which Eusebius applied to the victims of the Great Persecution. Prof. Sato also draws interesting comparisons between the respect accorded to Christian martyrs in Japan and that found in the early church. Timothy D. Barnes offers a survey of the political situation within which the History developed, and illustrates the continuing reflection of Eusebius on current events evidenced in his later works. Robert M. Grant explores the attitudes toward particular emperors in the works of Eusebius and illustrates ways in which he was involved in imperial propaganda. The Legacy of Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History was a valuable record of a period of church history and a primary document of an important turning point in that history. Much could be written on the implications of Eusebius' work and of the decisive events which it records. Three essays offer suggestive probes. INTRODUCI10N

I

43

Glenn Chesnut considers the historiographical legacy of Eusebius in the ecclesiastical historians of the later Roman and early Byzantine periods. In some ways the heritage of Eusebius was confined to his successors in the ancient church; in others it continues to the modem period. The negative attitudes toward the Jews which Eusebius expressed were not unique, but were shared by many of his Christian contemporaries. When such attitudes became enshrined in legal systems, the situation of the Jews deteriorated and Walter Pakter considers some of the evidence for that development in Roman civil and ecclesiastical law. The Christian triumphs that Eusebius celebrated engendered new religious attitudes toward the ancient biblical promises. Robert Wilken traces some of these shifts in religious sensibility, with a focus on the Christian Holy Land.

Notes 1See the discussions of the life of Eusebius in Kirsopp Lake, Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926) l.ix-lvi; Johannes Quasten, Patrology (3 vols.; Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1950; reprinted Utrecht and Antwerp: Spectrum, 1975) 3.309-45; J. B. Lightfoot, "Eusebius of Caesarea," in W. Smith and H. Wace, eds., A Dictionary of Christian Biography (4 vols.; London: Murray, 1880; reprinted New York: AMS Press, 1967) 2.308-48; Arthur C. McGiffert, "Prolegomena to the Life and Writings of Eusebius of Caesarea," in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh: Clark, 1895; reprinted Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 2d series, 1-56, with its "Testimonies of the Ancients in Favor of Eusebius," 57-66, and "Testimonies of the Ancients against Eusebius," 67-72. See also Eduard Schwartz, "Eusebius," in PWRE 6.1370-1490; Hugh Jackson Lawlor, Eusebiana: Essays on the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912); Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Leonard Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and The Martyrs of Palestine (2 vols.; London: SPCK, 1928) 2.1-50; F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Eusebius Pamphili (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933); D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius ofCaesarea (London: Mowbray, 1960; Westminster, MD: Canterbury, 1961); Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980); Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 1-56, esp. 2-3; Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 81-271. 2 By Socrates, HE 2.4. On the historiographical successors to Eusebius, see the essay in this collection by Glenn Chesnut. 3 As McGiffert ("Prolegomena," 4) notes, of 137 individuals named Eusebius enumerated in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, at least forty were contemporaries of our historian. 4socrates, HE 1.8; Theodoret, HE 1.1. 5HE 8; Martyrs of Palestine; Lactantius, Mort. pers. 10.

44

I

INTRODUCI10N

6 Although the account of Peter's conversion of the centurion Cornelius in Acts 10 may be tendentious, it no doubt reflects the fact that proselytizing activity among Gentiles was common in the city. ?Josephus, J.W. 1.7.7 § 156; 1.21.5 § 408. 8Josephus, J.W. 1.20.3 § 396; Ant. 15.7.3 § 217. 9Josephus, J.W. 1.7.7 § 156; 1.21.5-7 § 408-14; 14.4.4 § 76; 15.9.6 § 33141. lDJosephus, J.W. 2.18.1 § 457. 11 Pliny, Natural History 5.69. 12For the history of the city, see Lee I. Levine, Caesarea under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975) and B. Lifshitz, "Cesaree de Palestine, son histoire et ses institutions," ANRW 2.8 (1977) 490--518. For an account of recent archaeological work, see Kenneth G. Holum et al., King Herod's Dream: Caesarea on the Sea (New York and London: Norton, 1988). 13HE 6.33.4; 7.32.25; 8.13.6. 14According to HE 6.23.1-2, Origen dictated his exegesis of the scriptures and had his students copy the manuscripts of the scriptures. 15Jerome, De vir. ill. 15, Contra Rufinum 1.9. l6For example, Jerome in his epistle to Ctesiphone against the Pelagians (McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 68) and Gelasian Decree concerning the Apocrypha (McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 64). 17Eusebius refers to the lost work in MP 11. l8Jerome, Contra Rufinum 1.9. The significance of the relationship is explored by the essay of Charles Kannengiesser in this volume. 19HE 8.Pref.; see also HE 8.13.7. For discussion of the political events of the early fourth century, see especially the essay by T. D. Barnes in this collection. 20Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (MLE) 1.501. 21 See, e.g., Lightfoot, "Eusebius," 311. 22The significance of the ideal of martyrdom is explored in the essay in this collection by Prof. Sato. 23McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 9. 24Lactantius, Mort. pers. 34; Eusebius HE 8.17.3ff. 25Lactantius, Mort. pers. 48.2ff; Eusebius, HE 10.5.2-14. 26some scholars suppose that Eusebius delivered the oration in September, 314. See, for example, Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2.307. 27 For a recent assessment, see Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987). 28socrates, HE 1.5.1ff. 29Theodoret, HE 1.5.1-4; Arius' lener is preserved in Epiphanius, Pan. 69.6. 300n this council, and the problems connected with evidence for it, see R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, the Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: Clark, 1988) 146-51. 31Vita Const. 3.8. Various figures are given in other sources. E.g., Socrates (HE 1.9.21, 24) says that more than three hundred attended. On the different figures, see Hanson, The Search, 155.

INfRODUCllON

I

45

32The role of Eusebius and his creed at Nicaea is much debated. His own account is found primarily in his Letter to Caesarea, on which see Socrates, HE 1.8 and Theodoret, HE 1.21.1. For analysis of the event, see G. C. Stead, "Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea," ITS n.s. 24 (1973) 85-100 (reprinted in Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers [London: Variorum, 1985]); Hans von Campenhausen, "Das Bekenntnis Eusebs von Caesarea (Nicaea 325)," ZNW 61 (1976) 123-39; Colum Luibheid, "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Nicene Creed," Irish Theological Quarterly 39 (1972) 299-305; idem, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Arian Crisis (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1978); and Hanson, The Search, 158-63. 33For a comprehensive account of the Arian controversies through the fourth century, see Hanson, The Search, 181-875. 34Theodoret (HE 1.6) claimed that Eustathius had delivered the opening address at Nicaea, although Sozomen (HE 1.19) indicated that it was Eusebius himself. An earlier date for the depositon of Eustathius was defended by Henry Chadwick, "The Fall of Eustathius of Antioch," ITS 49 (1948) 27-35, reprinted in 1/istory and Thought in the Early Church (London: Variorum, 1982). For discussion of the problems connected with the date of the deposition of Eustathius, see Hanson, "The Fate of Eustathius of Antioch," ZKG 95 (1984) 171-79, and idem, The Search, 208-11. 35 Lightfoot ("Eusebius," 316) deems it the most scandalous council of the Arian controversy. For a general account of events, and of the behavior of Athanasius up to the council, see Hanson, The Search, 246-62. 36socrates, /IE 1.33; Sozomen, /IE 2.27. 3 7socrates, HE 1.36; Sozomen, HE 2.33; Eusebius, C. Marcellum 2.4. On Marcellus and his fate, see Hanson, The Search, 217-35. 38so Lightfoot, "Eusebius," 318; Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 38; and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 263. 39 Antipater, bishop of Bostra, in his Firs/ Book against Eusebius of Caesarea's Defense of Origen (quoted by McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 61). On the establishment of the library in Aelia by Agapius, sec JlE 6.20.1. 4 0Eusebius' lack of concern for his literary style was pointed out by Photius, B ibl. cod. 13. One modem Eusebian scholar (Harold A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976] xi) records the contemporary "consensus that holds Eusebius to be tedious, repetitive, long-winded." Hanson (The Search, 46) similarly remarks, "His style is elaborate and ineffective and he has little skill at expressing his thoughts clearly or preserving strict intellectual consistency." 4 1Jerome, De vir. ill. 81, and Nicephorus' Jlistoria 6.37 refer to the works of Eusebius, though their lists are far from being perfect. For modem treatments, see Quastcn, Patrology, 3.311-45; Lightfoot, "Euscbius," 319-46; McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 26--37; Berthold Altaner, Patrology (trans. Hilda C. Graef; Edinburgh and London: Herder, 1960) 264-70; Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 39-58; and Young, From Nicaea, 1-56. See also the discussions of portions of Eusebius' corpus in the essays in this volume by Barnes, Hollerich, and Sellcw. 4 2For the texts, see Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 7: Die Chronik des 1/ieronymus (GCS 47, rev. ed.; Berlin: Akademie, 1956; 3. unveriindertre Auflage mit eincr Vorbcmcrkung von U. Trcu, 1984); Josef Karst, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 5: Die Chronik aus

46

I

!NfRODUCf!ON

dem Armenischen ubersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar (GCS 20; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911). For discussion see the essays of Profs. Adler and Kannengiesser in this collection. 43see Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 42-43. 44see Barnes, "The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," GRBS 21 (1980) 191-201 (reprinted in his Early Christianity and the Roman Empire [London: Variorum, 1984]), esp. 192-93; idem, Constantine and Eusebius, Ill. An important element in Barnes' case is the solemn synchronism at 276-277 CE, which would have been the eighty-fifth Jewish Jubilee. The date may be significant for Eusebius, but its function as the conclusion of an edition of the Chronicle is not secure. 45T. Gaisford, Eusebii Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis Eclogae propheticae (Oxford: E Typographeo academico, 1842 = PG 22.1017-1262). 46see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 167, and note the discussion in the essay by Prof. Norris in this collection. 47F. C. Conybeare, Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius ofTyana and the Treatise of Eusebius against Hierocles (2 vols: LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912) 2.483-605; C. L. Kayser, Flavii Philostrati Opera (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1870-1871, reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1964) 1.369-413; E. des Places and M. Forrat, Eusebe de Cesaree: Contre Hierocles (SC 333; Paris: Cerf, 1986). On the date, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, !65. Prof. Mendelson in this collection explores the significance of the text. 48For the Syriac: W. Cureton, History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius (London: Williams and Norgate; Paris: Borrani, 1861). For the fragments of the longer Greek recension: H. Delehaye, AnBoll 16 (1897) 113-19. On the relation of the two versions, see B. Violet, Die paliistinischen Miirtyrer des Eusebius von Ciisarea, ihre ausfii.rlichere Fassung und deren Verhiiltnis zur kiirzeren (TV 14; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1896). A comparative presentation of the two is available in translation in Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 1.327-402. 49Edwin H. Gifford, Preparation for the Gospel (2 vols.; Oxford: Oarendon, 1903; reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981); K. Mras, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 8: Die Praeparatio evangelica (GCS 43; 2 vols; Berlin: Akademie, 1954, 1956; 2d ed.; E. des Places, 1982-1983); J. Sirinelli eta!., PE I (SC 206; Paris: Cerf, 1974); PE 2-3 (SC 228; 1976); PE 4-5.17 (SC 262; 1979); PE 5.18-36 and 6 (SC 266; 1980); PE 7 (SC 215; 1975); PE 11 (SC 292; 1982); PE 12-13 (SC 307; 1983); PE 14-15 (SC 338; 1987). For discussion of the apologetic tradition of which this text is a prime example, see the essay in this collection by Prof. Droge. 5°For the texts see Ivar A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 6: Die Demonstratio Evangelica (GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913), and W. J. Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel (2 vols.; London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1920; reprinted, 2 vols. in I; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981). 51The text survives in Greek fragments and in Syriac. See Hugo Gressmann, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 3.2 (GCS; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904), and S. Lee, Eusebius on the Theophania (London, 1842; Cambridge, 1843). Wallace-Hadrill (Eusebius, 52-55) argues for dependence of the Laud. Canst. on the Theophany and hence dates it after 337. Barnes (Constantine and Eusebius, 187) sees the dependence operating in the opposite direction and hence dates the work a decade before the encomium on Constantine. 52Erich Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 3.1: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen (GCS 11.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904); Paul de Lagarde, Onomastica Sacra

INIRODUCTION

I

47

(Gottingen: Horstmann, 1887). On the text, see C. V. Wolf, "Eusebius of Caesarea and the Onomasticon," BA 27 (1964) 66-96, and Dennis Groh, "The Onomasticon of Eusebius and the Rise of Christian Palestine," StudPatr 18 (1983) 29. In this collection Prof. Wilken discusses Eusebius' interest in the "holy land." 53For the conventional date, see Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 56. For the earlier dating, see Barnes ("The Composition of Eusebius' Onomasticon," JTS n.s. 26 [1975] 412-15 and Constantine and Eusebius, 110-11). For criticism see Andrew Louth, "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica ," JTS n.s. 41 (1990) 111-23, esp. 118-20. The dating of the Onomastikon has some relevance for the dating of the History, since Jerome's prologue to the Latin translation of the text (GCS 11.1; ed. Klostermann, 9, 1-2) reports that the gazetteer was written after the completion of the 10 Books of the History. Jerome, however, was not likely to have been aware of any complex development in the His tory and inferences about its date based on this datum are precarious. 5 4 For the initial discovery of a full manuscript of the work, see A. Mohle, "Der Jesaiakommentar des Eusebios von Kaisareia fast vollstandig wieder aufgefunden," ZNW 33 (1934) 87-89; J. M. van Cangh, "Nouveaux Fragments Hexaplaires: Commentaire sur Isaie d'Eusebe de Cesaree," RB 78 (1971) 384-90; 79 (1972) 76; J. Ziegler, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 9: Der Jesajakommentar (GCS; Berlin: Akademie, 1975). In this collection see especially the treatment of Profs. Hollerich and Barnes. 55E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 4 (GCS 14; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906; revised by G. C. Hansen; GCS, 1972). 56pG 23.65-1396 and 24.9-76. A date after 330 has usually been assumed since Harnack. As Prof. Hollerich in this collection (n. 13) notes, a pre-Nicene date has been defended by M.-J. Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du psautier (llle-Ve siec/es), Vol. 1: Les travaux des peres grecs et latins sur le psautier: Recherches e/ bilan (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 219; Rome: Pontificale Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1982) 6669. 57 Ivar A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 1: Vber das Leben Cons/an/ins; Cons/an/ins Rede an die heilige Versammlung; Tricennatsrede an Constantin (GCS 7; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). An important study is Harold A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius' Tricennial Orations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976). 58 Ivar A. Heikel, Vber das Leben Cons/an/ins. On the controversy over the authenticity of the Life, see Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 45-47. For attitudes toward the imperial power in the works on Constantine and throughout Eusebius' career, see the essays by Profs. Grant and Barnes in this collection. 59see, most recently, Glenn F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodore/, and Evagrius (2d rev. ed., Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986); Monika Godecke, Geschichte als Mythos: Eusebs "Kirchengeschichte" (Europiiische Hochschulschriften 307; Frankfurt am Main, Bern, New York, and Paris: Peter Lang, 1987); and Michael J. Hollerich, "Religion and Politics in the Writings of Eusebius: Reassessing the First 'Court Theologian,"' Church History 59 (1990) 309-25. 60Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2.19. 6 1The point is often discussed; see, e.g., B. Gustafsson, "Eusebius' Principles in Handling his Sources, as found in his Church History, Books I-VII," StudPatr 4!2 (= TU 79; Berlin: Akademie, 1961) 429-41.

48

I

!NfRODUCTION

62After leaving Tyre, Paulinus became bishop of Antioch (Eusebius, C. Marcellum 1.4). According to Philostorgius (HE 3.15), he lasted in this positon only for six months before his death, probably by 327. Wherever he was located, Paulinus was certainly alive when the History was completed around 325. 63 Another verbal link seems to obtain between the reference to the "gracious and favoring ['lXEw Kal fUJ.Uviil help of our Savior in all" the periods of persecution (HE 1.1.2) and the description of the "kindly and propitious [fUJ.Uvii Kal 1X£w] regard" of the Deity in causing the recantation of Galerius in 311 (HE 8.16.1). 64 Lightfoot, "Eusebius," 322-23; McGiffert, "Prolegomena," 45. 65Eduard Schwartz, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 2: Die Kirchengeschichte (GCS 9; 3 parts.; Berlin: Akademie, 1903, 1908, 1909) 3.xlvii-lxi. The solution is generally adopted by Lake, Eusebius, ix-xxi, and Young, From Nicaea, 4. The solution of Lawlor (Eusebiana, 290, retained in Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2.2-Q) is similar, although he allows for an earlier start to the project: Books 1-8 completed by 311, celebrating the end of persecution; a revision in 313 with the addition of Book 9; a revision of Book 9 and the addition of Book 10 in 324. A reference to the Eclogae propheticae in HE 1.2.27 and 1.6.11 precludes a date of composition of the History before 303. 66Richard Laqueur, Eusebius als Historiker seiner Zeit (Berlin and Leipzig: de Gruyter, 1929) 210-12. Laqueur developed a suggestion by Adolf von Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literature (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904) 2.112-15. 67see Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 39-43; Grant, Eusebius, 14, at least as a possibility; Young, From Nicaea, 4. 68 "The Editions," and Constantine and Eusebius, 128ff. 69Chesnut, The First Christian Histories, 111-40. 70 Louth, "The Date," 121-23. Louth finds fewer difficulties with Barnes' arguments about Books 8-10.

INfRODUCTION

I

49

I

cb r< fs Lf an or Eus), in that case preferring his judgment or knowledge to that of Josephus on a point of 114

I

PHIUP SELLEW

Herodian dynastic history. When he takes over Africanus' argument on the genealogy, we may safely assume that Eusebius has also concurred with the earlier writer's explicit guiding premise: "in any case the gospel speaks the truth" (T6 "(E TOL EUa'Y"(f.>u.OV mivnus dJ,T)S€UEL,HE 1.7.15). Here we have only one of many possible examples of how Eusebius in the History typically does not conduct his own fresh research, apart from the collection of what we would call "secondary" literature. 21 On points of interpreting the gospels he will instead rely on previous work, whether his own or that of various predecessors, though at times he refers to his separate and/or prospective studies. 22 We have a good illustration in the case at hand. Eusebius was eventually to prepare his own detailed treatment of the "apparent" discrepancies in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke and the Easter appearance stories in all four gospels, known from his letters Ad Marinum and Ad Stephanum. 23 But these works date from about 320, that is, at least fifteen years after the first edition of the History. 24 Though at other points Eusebius will reject Africanus' chronology,25 for his purposes here Eusebius is content to rely on Africanus' solution. And while his later work shows that Eusebius was quite competent to continue in the tradition of the Hellenistic schools of resolving difficulties in authoritative authors, 26 this is not research he is prepared to do here as part of his project of collecting information in the History. Eusebius' technique of interweaving material from both Christian and non-Christian authors continues with his correlation of the gospel reports about Herod and John the Baptist with that of Josephus (HE 1.11). This frequent appeal to nonbiblical confirmatory statements, coupled with his decisive rejection of the archival value of the Acts of Pilate on grounds of chronological discrepancy (HE 1.9.3-4; 1.11.9), shows Eusebius' concern that the gospels be understood as documents that are historically reliable and valuable. At times the historian can pass over potentially troubling questions, such as the exact makeup of the group of Jesus' twelve apostles, with a dismissive wave of the hand: "the names of the apostles of our Savior are plain to everyone from the gospels" (HE 1.12.1). But even Eusebius' famous lapses in critical judgment, such as his use of the fictitious correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar ofEdessa (HE 1.13),27 reveal nonetheless this interest in supplementing the gospel stories with nonbiblical historical information. The implication is that the "apostolic memoirs" (imo~~~aTa, HE 3.24.5) can and should also be treated as worthy records. His interest in the New Testament gospels is clearly not limited to their spiritual content.

EUSEBIUS AND TIIE GOSPELS

I

115

Eusebius on the Gospels

Eusebius' first reference in the History to the composition of one of the New Testament gospels comes in Book 2, during his narrative of the historical period represented by the Lukan Acts of the Apostles. Here we find a similar interweaving of narrative based on the scriptural author with confirmatory or supplementary information added from external authorities (Ta 8' €~w0Ev, HE 2.Pref.), namely, Josephus, Philo, Hegesippus, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and a different source about Pilate. Not all of this material is always clearly relevant to the material at hand,2 8 but it does help convey an impression of Eusebius being well informed. In Book 2 it will begin to emerge, however, that Eusebius in fact has no direct information about the circumstances of the gospels' origins and authors. Instead he must rely on whatever scattered information he has been able to glean from previous authors, or more often depend on his own powers of inference and historical imagination. One example of our difficulty in determining Eusebius' sources for his statements, even when he mentions his authorities explicitly, is his first treatment of the career of Mark the evangelist. After describing Peter's vanquishing of Simon Magus, a story compiled from the Lukan Acts, Irenaeus, Clement, and perhaps the Pseudo-Clementines, Eusebius invokes a psychological warrant for the creation of the Gospel according to Mark (HE 2.15.1): But a great light of religion shone on the minds of the hearers of Peter, so that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation, but with every kind of exhortation besought Mark, whose Gospel is extant, seeing that he was Peter's follower, to leave them a written statement of the teaching given them by word, nor did they cease until they had persuaded him, and so they became the cause of the Scripture called the Gospel according to Mark.

So far Eusebius cites no authority, whether written or oral tradition, for this vivid picture. He seems therefore to be inventing the story. Perhaps Eusebius was not satisfied with this absence of validating sources, since he proceeds to claim the explicit seal of approval of the great apostle himself for the gospel's reliability (HE 2.15.2): And they say [cf>aaL] that the Apostle, knowing by the revelation of the spirit to him what had been done, was pleased at their zeal, and ratified the scripture for study in the churches.

116

I

PillLIP SEllEW

Eusebius' sources for this information, he will say, are Clement of Alexandria (in Book 6 of the [lost] Hypotyposes) and Papias of Hierapolis (to be introduced more fully later). Clement's judgment or guess that this author is the same as the Mark mentioned at the close of the generally recognized First Epistle of Peter (1 Pet 5:13), and that the reference to "Babylon" there means Rome, is also duly repeated and thus accepted (HE 2.15.2). Though Eusebius claims that his story of Peter ratifying the gospel's truth is confirmed by both Clement and Papias, this, as we shall see, is not at all borne out by Eusebius' own later quotations from either author. In Book 3 of the History we will have presented Papias' information that Mark was a follower of Peter (HE 3.39.15), but there is no mention there of any apostolic ratification of the gospel. In Book 6 Clement will be quoted as explicitly denying that Peter ever approved Mark's work (HE 6.14.7). Our historian's next major theme is his claim that Philo's report on the Therapeutae (De vita contemplativa) is in fact evidence of a very early Christian ascetical community in Egypt. Eusebius provides a fine transition to this account with the tantalizingly obscure words "They say that this Mark was the first to be sent to preach in Egypt the Gospel which he had also put into writing, and was the first to establish churches in Alexandria itself' (HE 2.16.1). What exactly does Eusebius mean by the term !f>acr( ("they say")? In context it might appear that at least the authority of Clement himself is being appealed to for this information about Mark in Alexandria, though unfortunately Eusebius does not actually come out and say this. Greek historians often use the verb rpacr( when following a source, either written or oral. Writers like Herodotus or Polybius typically rewrote their sources, though outright, but silent, borrowing was also a frequent practice. Eusebius' tendency to quote excerpts at length is quite exceptional among historical authors. 29 Because he usually names his sources for quoted material, when he appeals to anonymous or unnamed tradition with the word rpacr( it is all the more striking. Eusebius' typical use of the verb rpacr( seems to be to report traditions for which he has no clear written authority. That is likely the implication here, but we should point out that the general outlines of Eusebius' statement in HE 2.16, without all its pious details, accord with the substance of the legend about Mark reported in Clement's Letter to Theodore, 30 though Eusebius' extract from the Hypotyposes in HE 2.15 made no mention of the place where Mark composed his gospel. On the basis of this and comparable cases it would be more precise to say that Eusebius normally cites a tradition with the verb rpacr( when repeating oral legends. On occasion, however, Eusebius will resort to this vague authority EUSEBIUS AND TIIE GOSPELS

I

117

of cpaa( when he is not so much unable as unwilling, for reasons of theological scruples, to quote a written authority. Which possible explanation might pertain to Clement's letter about a secret edition of Mark it is difficult to say.

Eusebius on Apostolic Writings Having reached the deaths of Peter and Paul, Eusebius discusses the writings ascribed to the apostles in Book 3. Of Peter he lists an Epistle that is generally accepted, as well as Acts, a Gospel, a Preaching, and a Revelation (Apocalypse) that are "not known in catholic traditions" (HE 3.3.2). It is only at this point, due perhaps to some dislocations caused by revisions and new editions of the History, that Eusebius first enunciates his principle of classification of the different writings attributed to apostolic authors (cf. HE 5.8). We read that he seeks to determine "which ecclesiastical writer of each period used the disputed writings" (at avn>..E'y6~EvaL ypacpa() and what they said about "canonical and accepted writings" (€v8Laef]Kwv Kat o~o>..oyov~€vwv ypacf>wv HE 3.3.3). By definition no orthodox writer would have employed "spurious" writings. While discussing Paul's accomplishments Eusebius refers to the tradition of Luke's medical practice: he calls him "a physician by profession" (TJ1v hnan'J~TJV taTp6s) and calls his Gospel and Acts "therapy of souls in two books" (6EparrEvnKl) !Jlvxwv lv Svatv ... ~L~AloLs, HE 3.4.6). He attempts to provide apostolic warrant to Luke's writing by reporting the tradition (cited with cf>aa() that when Paul mentions "his gospel" he meant Luke's (HE 3.4.7). We may be confident that this "tradition" is nothing but mistaken guesswork, since of course Paul himself meant something entirely different by the words To Evayy€>..L6v ~ov. A bit later in Book 3 we have another interesting example of Eusebius' practice of undergirding his readers' sense of the reliability and authority of the gospels whenever possible through verification from non-Christian writers. The siege and destruction of Jerusalem in the First Jewish Revolt are described through extensive quotations from Josephus' Jewish War. In this connection (HE 3.7) we find a comparison of Jesus' prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem as narrated in Luke 21 with Josephus' descriptions of the circumstances of the city's fall. There is, of course, no hint that Luke's report of Jesus' prophecy might date from a period more or less contemporaneous with Josephus' description; instead the comparison is used to verify the "infallible" (a!J!EvSii) insight of Jesus as God's Christ. Jesus' prophecies as recorded in Luke are introduced in HE 3.7.1 as though confirming Josephus' account, but rather soon it seems that the validation works both ways: "If anyone compare the words of our Savior with the other narratives of the historian concerning the whole war, how can he avoid 118

I

PlllLIP SELLEW

surprise and a confession of the truly divine and supernaturally wonderful character both of the foreknowledge and of the foretelling of our Savior?" (I!E 3.7.6). When Eusebius reaches the time of the emperor Domitian, he is able to employ his now stated practice of including tidbits of information about the gospels where these seem appropriate. He includes a mention of the exile on Patmos of John the "apostle and evangelist," whom he identifies for the time being (but see further below) as the author of the Apocalypse of John (liE 3.18). His authority for this information is Irenaeus in Book 5 of his Adversus haereses. The item is introduced by the phrase KaTEXEL A6yos, which Lawlor argued is consistently used by Eusebius when referring to a specific written authority. 31 This clue to making distinctions between named and unnamed authorities is very useful, as can be seen right in this context. Vague reference is made to non-Christian testimony to persecution during Domitian's reign in !IE 3.18.4, without citing any authority. But mention of an "ancient story" about some descendants of Jesus' family, using this phrase (rra>..aLOS' KaTEXEL A6yos, HE 3.19) is followed immediately by a quotation from Hegesippus. A bit later Eusebius reports that Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria also made the same identification of John the Seer with the evangelist. First, Eusebius deals with a possibly conflicting tradition about the evangelist's residence in Ephesus some time later. He relies in typical fashion on "two witnesses ... [who] represent the orthodoxy of the church" (Tfjs EKKAT]UlaUTlKfjS' rrpw~Euaavns op9o8o~(as, HE 3.23.2). The citations from Irenaeus mention merely that John the disciple of the Lord remained in Ephesus until the time of Trajan, but this information is supplemented by an extensive quotation of a remarkable story from Clement's tract on the salvation of the wealthy, Quis dives salvetur (HE 3.23.5-19). Here Clement clearly identifies the seer with the evangelist and apostle: "For after the death of the tyrant he passed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus" (HE 3.23.6). This kind of use of careful citation of written authorities makes us wonder still further about the reliability of material introduced only by the much vaguer word cj>aaL The Gospel of John should be recognized, he says, because "it is read in all the churches under heaven" (Kat 81'] To KaT' aiJTov Euayyl>..LOv Tai:s tllTO TOV oupavov BlEYVWUj..LEVOV EKKAT]U(qs, HE 3.24.2). Eusebius concedes that on literary grounds the gospels are less than admirable; it is the spiritual and virtuous lives of their authors that commend their value to us. Here we have the fullest treatment of Eusebius' own judgment about the character and skill of the gospel authors (If E 3.24.3):

EUSEBIUS AND TilE GOSPELS

I

119

Those inspired and venerable ancients ... had completely purified their life and adorned their souls with every virtue, yet were but simple men in speech. Though they were indeed bold in the divine and wonderworking power given them by the Savior, they had neither the knowledge nor the desire to represent the teachings of the Master in persuasive and artistic language .... Thus they announced the knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven to all the world and catered but little for attention to their style.

By inference, then, Eusebius admits to the poor literary quality of the gospel narratives, but he is able to suggest a religious explanation. The claim about the virtuous character of one's favorite authors is standard practice, since good character necessarily leads to good products. Apparently, however, a higher artistic sensibility would have been out of place for the evangelists, since, according to Eusebius, their ministry was of a higher order: "And they did this inasmuch as they were serving a greater, superhuman ministry" (Kat TOUT ' €rrpaTTov CiTE j.Ld(ovL Kat im€p avepwrrov E~'li1TllP€TOUj.L€VOL 8LaKov(q, HE 3.24.4). The logic of this inference is not made clear. We seem to be groping to find a virtue somewhere in the fact of the gospels' "simple speech." Within this context Eusebius tells us in passing that the other original disciple of Jesus among the four evangelists originally composed his "recollections" (imOj.LVJlj.laTa) in Hebrew (Aramaic?): Yet nevertheless of all those who had been with the Lord only Matthew and John have left us their recollections, and tradition says [KaTEXEL Myos] that they took to writing perforce. Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent. (3.24.5-6)

This writing "by necessity" (€mivayKES) presumably also helps explain the poverty of the evangelists' style. In any case ti"TTOIJ.~IJ.aTa were usually thought to have less polish than more literary products, since typically they took the form of private notes not meant for wide circulation.32 Though Eusebius cites this account with the phrase KaTEXEL >..6yos, here he uncharacteristically names no source for his information. This may at first glance appear to be a departure from his practice of citing traditions based on written authorities with this phrase, and relegating traditions from less trustworthy sources to the vague formula with cf>aa(. But it turns out that Eusebius does have what is to him substantial written authority for this information about Matthew writing for Jewish Christians "in Hebrew letters," as we see when he quotes the tradition later from two of his favorite 120

I

PHILIP SELLEW

ecclesiastical writers, Irenaeus' Adversus haereses (cited at HE 5.8) and Origen's Commentary on Matthew (at HE 6.25). At this point Eusebius takes the opportunity to mention the very significant transition of generations from the apostolic to the post-apostolic period. A discussion of John's "undisputed" writings in tum provides the occasion for his most systematic and important treatment of the question of the relative chronology of the gospels (HE 3.24). Here we catch a glimpse of what sorts of historical or literary difficulties and solutions appealed to Eusebius. "They say" (cflaa() that John supplemented the other three evangelists by writing about the period before the arrest of John the Baptist (HE 3.24.11-12). The difficulty, of course, though it is left unstated for the most part, is the considerable difference in orientation and content between John and the other canonical gospel texts. Here again Eusebius reveals his largely chronographic orientation, since his solution to the question is ingeniously discovered by proposing a "narrative gap" in the accounts of the first three gospels. His solution is backed up by quoting a legend (cflaa() about an "apostolic gospels committee" that Eusebius imagines had consulted on the matter. John wrote his gospel down, after a long period in which he had told his stories only orally, when confronted with this supposed narrative gap in his colleagues' works. It may be that John's famous longevity aided the invention of this story (HE 3.24.7): John, it is said [cf>aa(], used all the time a message which was not written down, and at last took to writing for the following cause. The three gospels which had been written down before were distributed to all including himself; it is said [cf>aat v] that he welcomed them and testified to their truth but said that there was only lacking to the narrative the account of what was done by Christ at first and at the beginning of the preaching.

This legend, with its claim for a chronographic concern on the part of the evangelist, is quite congenial with Eusebius' own way of thinking: "The story is surely true" (Kal dX.TJOllS" yE 6 Myos, HE 3.24.8). Thus a "period passed over in silence" is now described by the Fourth Gospel and any "apparent" discrepancy among the apostolic witnesses is avoided. No mention is made of the different biographical and theological orientation of John's story. Varying christological perspectives do not amount to discrepancies. All is reduced to chronology and supposed concern for an annalist's completeness (HE 3.24.12-13): Thus John in the course of his gospel relates what Christ did before the Baptist had been thrown into prison, but the other three evangelists EUSEBIUS AND 1HE GOSPELS

I

121

narrate the events after the imprisonment of the Baptist. If this be understood the gospels no longer appear to disagree.

At this point we have the clearest claim so far that the writing of the gospels was not merely a human enterprise but was indeed overseen by God. Because Matthew and Luke had already described the human genealogy (TI]v Tfjs aapKOS yEvECIAoytav) of Jesus, John "began with a description of his divinity since this had been reserved for him by the Divine Spirit as for one greater than they" (HE 3.24.13). Eusebius next turns his attention to Luke and interprets the famous preface to his gospel (Luke 1:1-4) to mean that the Third Evangelist was critical of the hasty or "somewhat rash" attempts of "others" (dA>..OL) to narrate the story of Jesus. But the historian is silent on the question as to who was responsible for the "doubtful propositions" of these unnamed "other" previous writers (Tijs TTEpt Toils dA.A.ous d~cf>TJp(aTou imoA.i]t/IEWS, HE 3.24.15). Naturally Eusebius would not want to imply that Luke was condemning Mark, for example, or Matthew; nor, on the other hand, would he want to suggest that any of the noncanonical gospels could be viewed as one of Luke's predecessors. He does specify that Luke means the apostles, including Paul, when he mentions "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" as his authorities for his narrative. Without mention of his evidence Eusebius presents this association with Paul (E"K Tijs a~a IIauA.ql auvovatas, HE 3.24.15) as a fact, not as a legend or perhaps an interpretation of the claims of Luke's preface.

Eusebius on Other Gospel Literature

At this point in the llistory Eusebius pauses to summarize his previous scattered references to the various New Testament writings, giving pride of place to "the Holy Tetrad" of the gospels among the "recognized books"

(Kat 811 TaKTEOV EV TTPWTOLS TT!v ay(av TWV EilayyEMwv TETpaKTUV ... Kal TUUTU ~Ev EV o~oA.oyov~EVOLS, HE 3.25.1-2). In his grouping of "disputed books" (Ta civnA.Ey6~Eva), along with various

epistles, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hennas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Didache, and perhaps the Apocalypse of John, Eusebius includes a book which he says is especially loved in Jewish-Christian circles, the Gospel of the Hebrews (HE 3.25.5). Eusebius relegates to his third category of "spurious books" that merit the label "altogether wicked and impious" (dToTTa TTCIVTIJ Kat BuaaE~fl) further gospels ascribed to Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, and others that he refuses even to name. His main criterion here is that "to none of these has any who belonged to the succession of the orthodox ever thought it right to refer in his writings" (HE 3.25.6). In addition, Eusebius invokes the more internal criteria of these works' 122

I

PHILIP SELLEW

differences in literary style and thought from the recognized books; he claims that it is obvious that they are nothing but "forgeries of heretics" (on 8T] a\.pETLKWV aV8pWV avaTTAaO"jlaTa Tuyxavn aacflws Trap(O"Tllatv, HE 3.25.7). Nowhere, however, does Eusebius mention what specific elements of the spurious books render them so clearly unsuitable. This reticence is due in part, one imagines, to the difficulty in finding real differences of style in some cases, and even more to Eusebius' general reluctance to mention anything concrete from sources of which he does not approve. This reluctance is quite unfortunate for the modern historian. Its theological basis is shown quite clearly by Eusebius' disparaging treatment of Jewish Christianity. He refers a second time to the Gospel of the Hebrews when discussing the Ebionites, those caught in the "diabolical snare" who err by having "poor and mean opinions concerning Christ" (HE 3.27.1). Along with their unsound doctrine of the human origin of Jesus, their rejection of Paul's letters as works of an apostate, and their continued observance of Jewish rituals, these heretics "used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest" (HE 3.27.4). By dismissing this gospel through its associations with the Ebionites Eusebius need never raise historical questions, such as whether or how this text might relate to the Hebrew gospel that he himself has just claimed was written for Jewish believers by Matthew. It is not as though Eusebius had no direct information about this (and some other) noncanonical documents. The subject of the Ebionites recurs briefly in Book 6, while discussing Origen's work on the Hexapla. Eusebius calls one of the additional translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, Symmachus, an Ebionite, as he can show in part because "memoirs too of Symmachus are still extant, in which, by his opposition to the Gospel of Matthew, he seems to hold to the above-mentioned heresy" (HE 6.17.1). He reveals a bit later in Book 3 that he knows something of the contents of the Gospel of the Hebrews, when he mentions a story expounded by Papias of a woman accused before the Lord of many sins (presumably what we know as John 8:3-11),33 but which Eusebius ascribes to this document (Kat dAATlV taTop(av TTEpt yuvatKOS ... Tjv To Ka9' 'E~pa(ous Evayyl>.tov TTEpLEXEL, HE 3.39.17). By reading between the lines we can infer that in Eusebius' view the Jewish-Christian Gospel of the Hebrews simply could not have been authored by Matthew. The "sacred" or "divine" gospels are those specifically left to "us" by the apostles (see, e.g., HE 3.31.6, TTEp( TE Twv aTToaT6>-wv Kal TWV QTTOO"TOALKWV xp6vwv tilv TE KaTaAEAO(TTaO"LV TJjlLV LEpwv ypajljlciTwv). This "us" by definition cannot include unacceptable groups

like the Ebionites. They gave "little account" to respectable writings. EUSEBIUS AND TIIE GOSPELS

I

123

Eusebius says several times that the genuinely apostolic writings were transmitted to "us" by designated successors. At HE 3.37 .2, for example, he refers to post-apostolic missionaries who both preached and "transmitted the writing of the divine Gospels" (Kat n1v Twv 6dwv Eliayye),(wv rrapa8L86vaL ypacfl'llv), and explicitly appeals to "the first succession of the apostles" (n1v rrpWTT)V Twv arroCTT6Mt>v 8La8oxflv). The case of Papias of Hierapolis is even more revealing of Eusebius' methods and perspectives. Eusebius recognizes Papias' antiquity, though he is unsure exactly where to place him chronologically. More importantly, one of Eusebius' major authorities, lrenaeus, quoted and approved of Papias. The difficulty was that both second-century authors held to a fervent millenarianism, a perspective that Eusebius eventually was to find quite uncongenial in his own very different situation.3 4 Though it seems that Eusebius would almost prefer to omit reference to Papias altogether, he apparently saw enough value in recording his information or opinion about the evangelists that in this case he would overcome his scruples. Distaste for the apocalyptic fervor of a Papias could be endured even when disapproval of specific doctrine could not. Still it is remarkable how belittling Eusebius' treatment of Papias turns out to be-he seems to be holding his nose even while he repeats Papias' testimonies. Eusebius places Papias in the time of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp (HE 3.39.1). Through Irenaeus he knows that Papias authored a work in five books called Interpretation of the Logia of the Lord. B. Gustafsson has made the interesting suggestion that Eusebius did not have the entire work, but read only the excerpts that he found in lrenaeus: unlike his constant practice elsewhere, Eusebius does not mention the specific book when introducing his several quotations from Papias.35 If this is so, it may provide further insight into Eusebius' curiously disparaging use of Papias' material. Though he clearly wants the benefit of what he must see as valuable information, Eusebius is suspicious of his source's level of discernment. After mentioning Papias' reports of various miracles, he remarks (HE 3.39.11-12): The same writer addresses other accounts, as though they came to him from unwritten tradition, and some strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical accounts. Among them he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection of the dead, when the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this earth.

124

I

PHILIP SEUllW

Eusebius comments: "I suppose that he got these notions by a perverse reading of the apostolic accounts, not realizing that the apostles had spoken mystically and symbolically. For he was a man of very little intelligence, as is clear from his books" (acp68pa yap TOL UJ.LLKpOs wv -ri}v votiv, Ws dv EK Twv auToti Mywv TEKJ.LTlP6J.LEVOV drrE'Lv, cf>a(vnaL, HE 3.39.12-13). It is in this unflattering context that Eusebius almost grudgingly quotes Papias' tradition "from the Elder" about the evangelists Mark and Matthew (HE 3.39.14-16): We are now obliged to append to the words already quoted from him a tradition about the Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he expounds as follows. "And the Presbyter used to say this, 'Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles [>.oy(wv ], so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them."' (HE 3.39.15)

After the report of tradition about Mark, there is an even briefer quote about Matthew: "About Matthew this was said, 'Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language (MaT6afos 'E~paLBL 8taAEKTcy Td Aoy(a auvna~aTo), and each interpreted them as best he could"' (HE 3.39.16). There is no room here for discussion of the special difficulties in interpreting this passage of Papias36 except from the perspective of understanding Eusebius. We may note that for neither Mark nor Matthew does Eusebius add anything to Papias' statements. Unlike his treatment of most other authorities, Eusebius gives no particular commendation to this source, but says that he feels obliged to report what Papias has to say as valuable early tradition (dvayKalws viJv rrpoa~aOJ.LEV Tats rrpoEKTE6ECaaLs a1hoiJ cf>wva'Ls rrapa8oatv ilv rrEpt MdpKov ... EKTE9EL Tat, HE 3.39.14). Once again there is no attempt made on our historian's part to correlate this material with other traditions about the evangelists mentioned previously or in later books. The overall effect is no doubt dismissive. The tone of Eusebius' preceding remarks about Papias' inferior mind surely works to minimize the significance of his information for the reader. After Book 3 Eusebius leaves behind the apostolic age and so his already only occasional comments about the gospels necessarily come even less frequently. The remarks that are made are very much in line with the values already seen at work earlier in the History. When the time comes to mention Tatian's Diatessaron, for example, surely an important and wellEUSEBIUS AND TilE GOSPELS

I

125

known work, it is in the context of a discussion of heretical teachers at the close of Book 4 (HE 4.29.6). This context means that Eusebius will naturally remain vague and dismissive about the writing of a disreputable figure (a status Eusebius confirms by quoting the judgment of Irenaeus). His wording when referring to the Diatessaron in fact suggests a studied carelessness: Tatian composed some combination and collection of the gospels-! don't know how-and gave this the name of The Diatessaron, which in fact is still extant with some. And they say that he ventured to paraphrase some words of the apostles, as though correcting their style. (Loeb modified)

Eusebius' words disavow any direct knowledge of Tatian's activity: he "composed some combination and collection of the gospels-! don't know how" (auvac/>ELav nva Kal auvaywyr}V oiJK ot8' IS'!TWS Twv EvayyE>Jwv auv6ds). Eusebius won't say who reads or uses the book: "which in fact is still extant with some" (8 Kat '!Tapa now Els ln vDv cl>lpETaL). Though he never says so directly, Eusebius tries to give the impression that he has never seen the Diatessaron: "And they say [c/>aat] that he ventured to paraphrase .... " At HE 5.8 there is a reference to Eusebius' promise "at the beginning of this work" to provide information about what early Christian writers say about "the canonical Scriptures" ('TTEpl Twv €v8La~Kwv ypac/>wv). That intention is not expressed in the opening of the History as we now have it, but instead is found at 3.3.3.37 Here in Book 5 Eusebius quotes from Irenaeus' Adversus haereses, giving pride of place to his remarks about "the sacred Gospels" (mopt Twv tEpwv EvayyE>Jwv): Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church. But after their death Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter, and Luke also, who was a follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel which was preached by him. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living at Ephesus in Asia. (HE 5.8.2-4)

Here the tradition like that already mentioned from Papias (HE 3.39) is repeated about Matthew's Hebrew (or Aramaic) gospel, but unlike earlier opinions cited, the composition of the Gospel of Mark is now put after the death of Peter, and that of Luke after the death of Paul, who on previous occasions had provided its apostolic warrant. John's gospel again is found in 126

I

PIDUP SELLEW

final position. It is curious that when excerpting this passage from the opening of Book 3 of the Adversus haereses, Eusebius does not repeat Irenaeus' famous justification for the church having no more and no less than four scriptural gospels (to correspond with the "four comers of the world") found a few pages later at Adv. haer. 3.11. It is improbable that Eusebius did not approve of Irenaeus' "four winds and four comers" analogy. Instead the later writer seems so accustomed to the four-gospels concept that he sees no need to argue its merits as Irenaeus had in his day. While discussing Pantaenus, the head of a "school of sacred learning" at Alexandria (HE 5.10), Eusebius finds occasion for indirect mention of missionary methods in the early period. The treatment is as circumstantial and offhand as we have come to expect. Though his chief topic here is Alexandrian Christianity, Eusebius seizes the chance to report some lore (introduced by the verb cpaaLv) about Pantaenus' career in the East. A picture is drawn of a church administration that appoints suitable individuals for missionary campaigns: "he showed such zeal in his warm disposition for the divine word that he was appointed as a herald for the gospel of Christ"

(ToaaUTllV ... avTov ... rrpoSuj..L(av TTEpt TOV St:Lov Myov €v8d~aa6aL, ws Kat K"TlpuKa ToO KaTd: XpLaTov EuayyE>..(ou ... d:vaBnxefjvaL, HE 5.10.2). Pantaenus' campaign reaches a surprising point in India,

where the missionary, employing "inspired zeal on the apostolic model," discovers that his work had been anticipated many years before by a genuine apostle, Bartholomew. According to this story, some Indian Christians had in their possession a copy of the Gospel of Matthew "in Hebrew letters": The tradition is [Myos] that he found there that, among some of those there who had known Christ, the Gospel according to Matthew had preceded his coming; for Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and had left them the writing of Matthew in Hebrew letters, which was preserved until the time mentioned. (HE 5.10.3)

Stories such as this one likely helped form or buttress Eusebius' view that the apostles had arranged personally for the transmittal of their gospel writings. The picture that Bartholomew had actually brought copies of Matthew's gospel for distribution in the East is charming nonsense, of course, though the story presumably shows some awareness of Syriacspeaking Christianity far to the East.

Serapion, Clement, and Origen

The final substantive comments about the gospels in the History are found in Book 6, a long section devoted mostly to Eusebius' hero Origen. The time frame is provided by imperial events, beginning with Septimius EUSEBIUS AND TilE GOSPELS

I

127

Severus and reaching the Decian troubles. The correlative successions of bishops in the leading sees culminates with the great Dionysius of Alexandria. It is here in Book 6, after mention of the choice of Asclepiades to succeed Serapion as bishop of Antioch, that Eusebius mentions Serapion's literary remains. Eusebius has access to some of Serapion's writings; the one that he chooses to quote addresses his interest in collecting opinions on scriptural or potentially scriptural writings, Serapion's letter on "the so-called Gospel of Peter." The excerpt as it unfolds gives us some valuable information about early church practices in making decisions about which texts should be considered as scripturat.38 Eusebius tells us that Serapion's main objection to the suitability of the Gospel of Peter, despite the text's general "accordance with the true teachings of the Savior," is its "additional" teachings of a docetic tendency, which have had a deleterious effect on the Christian community at Rhossus (HE 6.12). The Rhossians, or at least one faction among them, have had this gospel read publicly as a scriptural authority. A question of the suitability of the work apparently arose for adjudication by the bishop. Serapion uses categories similar to those of Eusebius in distinguishing authentic from inauthentic writings: the truly apostolic documents, "those handed down to us," will be those without this sort of dangerous teaching. Eusebius begins his quotation as follows: It will not be unreasonable to quote a short passage [from Serapion] .... "For our part, brethren, we receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ, but the writings which falsely bear their names we reject, as men of experience, knowing that such were not handed down to us." (HE 6.12.3)

The group in Rhossus had apparently given the Gospel of Peter special place for some time. Though Serapion viewed this practice as rather unusual, on a previous visit, when exercising oversight in some matter of dispute, the bishop had given the text his rather casual approval. His rationale is quite revealing: For I myself, when I came among you, imagined that all of you clung to the true faith; and without going through the Gospel put forward by them in the name of Peter, I said: If this is the only thing that seemingly causes captious feelings among you, let it be read. (HE 6.12.4)

Since Serapion considered the Rhossians' faith to be correctly held, he presumed that the gospel text that they were reading must also be appropriate-even though he was personally unacquainted with it! It was 128

I

PHILIP SELLEW

only after he came to disapprove of the theological position of one faction that he came to examine the Gospel of Peter with more critical eyes and then disallow its use on the grounds that it must have led to the errors he had found: But since I have now learnt, from what has been told to me, that their mind was lurking in some hole of heresy, I shall give diligence to come again to you .... But we, brethren, gathering to what kind of heresy Marcianus belonged ... were enabled by others who studied this very Gospel, that is, by the successors of those who began it, whom we call Docetae, ... were enabled to go through it and discover that the most part indeed was in accordance with the true teaching of the Savior, but that some things were added, which also we place below for your benefit." (HE 6.12.4-6)

Eusebius seems satisfied with Serapion's opinion about the docetic origins of the Gospel of Peter, since he appends no further comment of his own, and of course neglects entirely to inform his readers of the specific contents of the document. His excerpt reads, in fact, as though he stops quoting at just the point where Serapion began listing the more objectionable contents of the work. We get the strong impression that if Eusebius had not found Serapion's example of method in theological judgment so useful as validation of his own practice of discriminating among various texts, his readers would have heard nothing at all about Peter's gospel. After disposing of Serapion, Eusebius returns to Alexandria for a respectful discussion of the writings of Clement, who is praised as a learned and worthy "near contemporary of the successors of the apostles" (m:pt EQUTOU 8TJAOL WS" lyytaTa Tils TWV arroaT6>-wv Y€VOj.J.EVOU 8ta8oxfis, HE 6.13.8). Eusebius' quotations of excerpts come mostly from the Hypotyposes, opinions of interest on the authorship of various potentially scriptural works. At HE 6.14.5 Eusebius quotes the following tradition from "the elders of the earliest church" about the sequence of the gospels: He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies, but that the Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. (HE 6.14.5-6)

Mark composed his gospel book on hearing Peter, but without Peter's knowledge or approval: "when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he

EUSEBIUS AND TIIE GOSPELS

I

129

neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward" (HE 6.14.7). Clement's report agrees that John wrote last, in this case to complement the external or "somatic" accounts of the others with his "spiritual gospel." From Clement at least we get a recognition of the different character of John's gospel-for him it is not merely a chronological supplement to the other three. With Alexandrian Christian usage in mind, this distinction between the "pneumatic" and "somatic" suggests that John's gospel was seen as providing the spiritual meaning to the historical narratives of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Eusebius is naturally very interested in Origen's views on which writings have scriptural authority, and he excerpts these at HE 6.25 from the scholar's extensive works of biblical commentary. A traditional list of the books of the Hebrew Bible is cited first, from Origen's exposition of Psalm 1; then his opinions about the four received gospels from Book 1 of the Commentary on Matthew; then the epistles in the Expositions of John's Gospel and Homilies on Hebrews. Origen's comments, as quoted here at least, include enough argument to clarify Eusebius' statement that the great man was "defending the canon of the Church" (Tov EKKAT'}aLaanKov vMTTwv Kav6va, HE 6.25.3). This language suggests that Origen was justifying the usage of the ecclesiastical circles with which he was associated against the opinions of other Christians, with the word "canon" here meaning "rule" or "standard of practice" rather than an authoritative list of books. Eusebius mentions that the remarks of Origen in the Commentary on Matthew about the origin and sequence of the gospels that he is summarizing had been "learned by tradition" (Ws €v TTapa86aEL 1-1a6wv): First was written that according to Matthew, who was once a taxcollector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. (HE 6.25.4)

It is easy to believe that what tradition taught Origen here was that

Matthew's gospel was written "in Hebrew" (ypaj..ll-laaLv 'E~paLKo(s), since this element is common to all the stories we have seen quoted. That the use of a Semitic language showed that its composition was meant for Jewish Christians is likely to be Origen's own deduction; however obvious, it certainly was not a conclusion Eusebius was entirely ready to make himself, since he viewed Jewish Christians as heretics. Origen's tradition about Mark's gospel is also similar to those previously seen in connecting the work somehow with the apostle Peter:

130

I

PHIUP SEllEW

Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: "She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son." (HE 6.25.5, quoting 1 Pet 5:13)

Unlike Clement's tradition, or the one quoted by Irenaeus reporting that Mark wrote the gospel after the apostle's death, Origen deduced from the comment in 1 Peter not what we would today, that the traditional name of the author either derived from that note or else was connected to Peter through it, but instead that Peter himself commended Mark's work. Eusebius then quotes Origen's very brief notes about Luke's and John's gospels: "And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who were from the Gentiles, the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John" (HE 6.25.6). Here we find a clear placement of these gospels as third and fourth, as well as the traditional con- ection between Luke and the apostle Paul. The suggestion that Luke's gospel was written for believers of Gentile origin likely derives from Paul's role as apostle to the nations. While discussing the scriptural epistles in the Expositions of John, Origen added that John the apostle and evangelist also wrote the Apocalypse (HE 6.25.9-10), a view that Eusebius was later to drop when discussing the writings of Dionysius of Alexandria (with extensive quotations at HE 7.25). 39 Since they were contemporaries, Eusebius inserts another note about Julius Africanus at this point, mentioning once more, among other things, his letter to Aristides harmonizing the genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke that he had previously discussed in Book 1 (HE 6.31.3; cf. 1.7).

Conclusion

It may be helpful in summing up to provide a synthetic collection of

the comments that Eusebius records here and there about each particular gospel writing. The category of "spurious" books, those that Eusebius says he cannot find used by ecclesiastical authors, is rarely mentioned, but we do get the bare names of the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias when Eusebius mentions this classification at HE 3.25.6. Other "spurious" gospels are not even listed. The Gospel of Peter is treated further, though never quoted, to show how Bishop Serapion disapproved of its use due to docetic tendencies (HE 6.12). Tatian's Diatessaron comes in slightly better, though its authorship by a heretic prevents Eusebius from using it as a historical source or providing any excerpts. Eusebius admits that Tatian's

EUSEBIUS AND 1HE GOSPELS

I

131

work Against the Greeks is "useful" and that "some" (presumably ecclesiastically sound) people read the Diatessaron (HE 4.29 .6). The case of the Gospel of the Hebrews is very interesting. In his listing at HE 3.25.5, Eusebius classes Hebrews among the "disputed" works. This means that some theologically acceptable authors have referred to it, and Eusebius specifically declares twice that Hebrews was of special interest among Jewish Christians. Its higher status emerges even more clearly when Eusebius mentions some of its contents, apparently the pericope adulterae (HE 3.39.17), something he would never do with a "spurious" document. Yet we have seen that Jewish Christianity is a suspect group in Eusebius' eyes, and one of the evils he attaches to the Ebionite sect is their exclusive use of the Gospel of the Hebrews in disregard of Paul's epistles and the other gospels. Eusebius' comments about the Gospel of Matthew form a consistent pattern. At HE 3.24.6--7, we read that "story has it" (KaTEXE:L Myos) that Matthew first preached his gospel to Jews and only later on his departure presented it to them in writing "in Hebrew letters." The authorities for this tradition we later see to be Irenaeus, who in the Adversus haereses mentioned that Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language (cited at HE 5.8), and Origen, who in his Commentary on Matthew had affirmed that Matthew wrote first among the evangelists, that his audience was Jewish Christianity, and that he wrote in Hebrew (cited at HE 6.25). Papias' tradition had earlier been cited for the story of Matthew's composition of the gospel "in Hebrew" (HE 3.39.16); from Clement of Alexandria Eusebius quoted tradition "from primitive elders" that those gospels with genealogies were written first (HE 6.14.5). The Judaic character of Matthew's gospel, and perhaps also its primacy, is confirmed by a legend (quoted by lf>aat) about Pantaenus encountering a Christian group in India who traced their origins to the apostle Bartholomew, who had left them a copy of this gospel "in Hebrew" (HE 5.10). This and other references suggest strongly that the "Hebrew language" (8LciA.e:KTOS') so consistently mentioned is a reference to what we would more accurately call Aramaic or Syriac. From both a theological and a literary-historical perspective, it is interesting that Eusebius never connects his consistent description of Matthew's gospel as written for Jewish Christians in "Hebrew letters" with the "disputed" Gospel of the Hebrews. A modem reader must admit that most of the "traditional" opinions about Matthew's authorship accord as well with what little we know of Hebrews as with canonical Matthew. It is his beliefs that seem to prevent Eusebius either from seeing the connection, or perhaps from admitting the potential similarities-his beliefs that Matthew's gospel is of apostolic origin; that Hebrews has the taint of 132

I

PHILIP SELLEW

possibly heretical usage; and that the categories "apostolic" and "heretical" are necessarily mutually exclusive. The case of Luke's gospel seems least problematic. Though the note quoted from Clement's Hypotyposes that those gospels with the genealogies were written first (cited at HE 6.14.5) is slightly discordant, a consistent tradition associates Luke with Paul. At HE 3.4.7 Eusebius cites a legend (aa() that suggests that when Paul referred to "his gospel" he meant that written down by Luke. This interpretation is repeated by Irenaeus in the Adversus haereses (cited at HE 5.8.2) and by Origen (HE 6.25), who adds, in apparent disagreement with Clement, that Luke was third to write. The most interesting comment appears at HE 3.24.15, where we find what seems to be Eusebius' own inference from Luke's preface, that the evangelist wrote intending to correct the hasty and dubious attempts of earlier writers. Our historian shrinks from wondering who those rash predecessors might have been. All of Eusebius' informants agree that John's gospel was written by the apostle, who is equated by lrenaeus with the mysterious character of the "Beloved Disciple" (cited at HE 5.8). Most also agree that this same evangelist was the seer of the Apocalypse of John, written in exile on Patmos (so Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen; cf. HE 3.18; 3.23; 6.25.6). Eusebius at first seems unsure of this identification, and indeed includes the Apocalypse among the "disputed" books, while admitting that some leading authorities fully recognize its apostolic and thus scriptural status (cf., e.g., HE 3.25.2-4). Ultimately his reading of Dionysius of Alexandria convinced Eusebius of the basis for his doubts, that the vivid apocalypticism of the book, as well as its language, made it the product of "another John" (see HE 7.25). Eusebius has no more sympathy for John the Seer's strongly antiRoman fervor than he had for Papias' brand of millenarianism. The tradition is also uniform that John was the last of the canonical evangelists to commit his gospel to writing. Explanations for this fact vary; an obvious one seems to be the exceptionally long life John was believed to have led. Eusebius cites Clement's view that John wrote a "pneumatic" gospel to supplement the "somatic" accounts of the other three (HE 6.14). This perspective is readily explained by John's identification as the specially loved disciple, and more particularly by the dramatically higher christology of his gospel. Mark's gospel seems to have given Eusebius the most difficulty. Here the historian's ability to make sense out of his disparate and partially conflicting source materials was stretched beyond its capacities. The only consistent point mentioned by his informants is Mark's at least tenuous connection with the apostle Peter, but the nature of that connection varies radically from source to source. Ultimately, as seen in Origen's report (HE EUSEBIUS AND TIIE GOSPELS

I

133

6.25), it is claimed both that Peter instructed Mark in his composition, and that he acknowledged the appropriateness of his work, as shown by the notice at the end of 1 Peter. The traditional identification of the "Babylon" of that letter with Rome may have been the origin of the belief that the gospel was written there. The connection of Mark's gospel with 1 Pet 5:13 was also made by Clement in the Hypotyposes, according to Eusebius' note at HE 2.15. The other point frequently made about Mark by Eusebius' informants, in some tension with Origen's claim that he wrote at Peter's direction, is that Mark wrote only after being persuaded to do so by those who had heard Peter's preaching of the gospel. Irenaeus reports that this happened after Peter's death (cited at HE 5.8), but Clement says explicitly that while Mark wrote without the apostle's knowledge or consent, Peter did permit the work to be read (HE 6.14.6). Eusebius' sources agree then that Mark at least followed or listened to Peter, and indeed lrenaeus calls him Peter's disciple. But there is clearly some embarrassment over exactly how to explain the apostolic warrant for this document, how the gospel can be both Peter's and yet not Peter's too. This ambiguity is quite evident in Papias' words as cited in HE 3.39.15. Papias, or his tradition, insists that Mark "did nothing wrong" in committing Peter's preaching to writing, and explains an impression of Mark's unsystematic style by reference to the apostle's own manner of speaking and making reminiscences. There is need by Eusebius' day to have the great apostle represented among the evangelists, even if the claim is justified only erratically. In this study we have seen, finally, that what Eusebius is able to say about the origins and use of the gospels is limited rather severely. One limit is provided by a scarcity of available concrete or trustworthy information, another by the writer's own ecclesial-political perspective. Scholars who mine the History for historical data on these questions must therefore assay its ore with prudence, and in expectation of small return. Eusebius' historical achievement as it relates to the gospels is found to lie in his collection and preservation of story, practice, and opinion, even if this is sporadic, and not in his discovery and presentation of reliable facts about the writings' origins or early history.

Notes 1comm. !sa. (PG 24.77-526, and J. Ziegler, ed., Eusebius' Werke, Vol. 9: Der Jesajalwmmentar [GCS; Berlin: Akademie, 1975]); Commentary on the Psalms (PG 23 and 24.9-76).

134

I

PHIUP SELLEW

2 E. Klostermann, ed., Eusebius Werke, Vol. 3.1: Onomastica Sacra (GCS 11.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904). 3canons = Epistula ad Carpianum (PG 22.1275-92 or Nestle's Novum Testa· mentum graece). 4 T. Gaisford, Eusebii Pamphili episcopi Caesariensis Eclogae propheticae (Oxford: E Typographeo academico, 1842 = PG 22.1017-1262). For a list of improvements to Gaisford's text, see Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981) 360-61 n. 18. 5Ivar A. Heikel, ed., Eusebius Werke, Vol. 6: Die Demonstratio evangelica (GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913); Quaestiones et solutiones evangelicae ad Marinum et ad Stephanum (PG 22.879-1016). 6 on Eusebius' biblical scholarship and its influence, see the overviews in D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius of Caesarea (London: Mowbray, 1960) 59-99, and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 106-25. 7 In addition to the works above, I have found the following secondary literature most useful in my research: J. B. Lightfoot, "Eusebius of Caesarea," in W. Smith and H. Wace, eds., A Dictionary of Christian Biography (4 vols.; London: Murray, 1880) 2.30848; Max Muller, "Die Uberlieferung des Eusebius in seiner Kirchengeschichte iiber die Schriften des N.T. und deren Verfasser," TSK 105 (1933) 425-55; Hugh Jackson Lawlor, Eusebiana (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912); J. Stevenson, Studies in Eusebius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929); B. Gustafsson, "Eusebius' Principles in Handling His Sources, as Found in His Church History, Books I-VII," StudPatr 4/2 (TU 79; Berlin: Akademie, 1961) 429-41; Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon, I 980). Frances M. Young provides an up-to-date general orientation in her From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 1-23; 291-94. 8 cf. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 142: Eusebius "projected the Church of the late third century back into the first two centuries and assumed that Christian churches had a! ways been numerous, prosperous, and respectable." An entertaining example of Eusebius' tendency to envision even the first decade of the church in terms of his own day is his claim that the "whole world" was "inundated" "at once" with the overwhelming persuasion of the apostles' missionary endeavors before the death of Tiberi us (HE 2.3.12).

9 At HE 5.8.10 Eusebius repeats Irenaeus' comments (from Adv. haer. 3.21) about "the translation of the inspired scriptures according to the Septuagint" (tr€pl TijS' KaTii Toils- i'I3BollfJKovTa EP1111vdas- Twv BE'otrv«wv). 10Translations of the Ecclesiastical History used in this essay are taken from the Loeb edition (trans. K. Lake and J. E. L. Oulton; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926-1932) unless otherwise indicated. II The term "tetrad" significantly recurs as Eusebius' term for the gospels as a whole in the Ep. ad Carpianum, his key to the Canon Tables or Concordance of the 'Gospels. l2Note, e.g., the Pauline corpus in p46, or two or more gospels as in P 75 and P 45 , or even a collection of what Eusebius would call "useful" if not necessarily "scriptural" writings in P 72 (a label referring to the NT components of a larger codex, which was apparently a secondary collection of disparate works, such as 1-2 Peter and Jude, but also including the Paschal homily of Melito of Sardis, the Protevangelium of James, 3 Corinthians, and the lith Ode of Solomon). EUSEBIUS AND THE GOSPELS

I

135

13 Similarly Eusebius depends on his favorite Jewish authorities, Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, for reliable lists of the Hebrew canon of scripture. 14cf. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 131, 142-43. 15 "When Eusebius paraphrases, he feels free to rewrite, to omit or to expand passages, to alter the emphases of the original, and he often rnisreports, just as if he had composed his paraphrase from memory. When he quotes extant writers directly, Eusebius often truncates his source, beginning or ending a quotation in the middle of a sentence. As a result, he sometimes misrepresents his authority or renders the mutilated sentence unintelligible .... In any event, it is unwise to rely on Eusebius' reports as reproducing exactly the precise tenor, or even main import, of lost evidence" (Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 140-41). On Eusebius' collection of sources for the History, see also Lawlor, "On the Use by Eusebius of Volumes of Tracts," Eusebiana, 136-78; Grant, Eusebius, 3943, 60-83. 16 Lightfoot, "Eusebius," 326; Grant, Eusebius, 1, 127-28. W allace-Hadrill (Eusebius, 165) defends his subject: "It is easy to criticize this arrangement of material, as it is read in the History, as tending to scrappiness of presentation, but it is hard to see how else the diverse topics could have been arranged and how much closer a fusion of chronological order and diversity of subject-matter could have been achieved." 17For information on editions, see esp. Grant, Eusebius, 10-21; Barnes, "The Editions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History," GRBS 21 (1980) 191-201; Andrew Louth, "The Date of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica," JTS n.s. 41 (1990) 111-23. 18 See the comment at HE 1.1.6: "I have already summarized the material in the chronological tables which I have drawn up, but nevertheless in the present work I have undertaken to give the narrative in full detail." For discussion of the relationship between the Chronicle and the History, see esp. Wallace-Hadrill, Eusebius, 155-67; Grant, Eusebius, 3-9; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 130. Grant's analysis (22) led him to conclude, however, that the Chronicle "provided no more than the bare bones, plus a few joints, for the ultimate 'body' of the later work." [See the discussion of the issue in the essay by William Adler in this collection. Eds.] l9Gustafsson ("Eusebius' Principles," 436) points out that Eusebius lays special emphasis on the general esteem in which both first-century Jewish authors were held. Gustafsson cites in this connection HE 2.4.2 (Philo) and 3.9.2 (Josephus). See also Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 130-31; Heinz Schreckenberg, "The Works of Josephus and the Early Christian Church," in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 315-24. 20 Eusebius is quoting Julius Africanus, Epistola ad Aristidem (PG 10.51-64). 21 Admittedly Gustafsson opens his essay on "Eusebius' Principles in Handling His Sources" by claiming that Eusebius did nearly make the modem distinction between "primary" and "secondary" sources, but this surprising statement is quickly disproven by Gustafsson's own marshaling of the evidence and especially by his analysis of that evidence. 22Eusebius reveals his reliance on his own previous scholarship at the beginning of Book 5, where he mentions that he will now summarize information from his more extensive treatment of the subject in the (lost) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms (5.1.2): "Since the whole record ... has been embodied in our collection of martyrs, ... I will at present select and quote merely such points as belong to the present undertaking." Elsewhere Eusebius reveals his reliance on surviving written records (HE 3.37.4): "It is impossible for us to give the number and the names .... It was therefore natural for us to 136

I

PlllLIP SELLEW

record by name the memory only of those of whom the tradition still survives to our own time by their treatises." At HE 6.32.3 Eusebius refers to his previous research on Origen's writings prepared for his Life of Pamphilus. 23 Quaestiones et solutiones evangelicae (PG 22.879-1016). 24so Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 344 n. 126. 25 As my colleague Oliver Nicholson kindly points out to me, the prologue to the (Latin) Chronicle shows Eusebius reaching his own view against that of Africanus on the date of the Exodus: Eusebius Werke, Vol. 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (ed. Rudolf Helm; GCS 47, rev. ed.; Berlin: Akademie, 1956; 3. unveriinderte Auflage mit einer Vorbemerkung von U. Treu, 1984); 7-19; for discussion see Alden A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1979) esp. 146-57; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 118-19; 0. P. Nicholson, "The Source of the Dates in Lactantius' Divine Institutes," JTS n.s. 36 (1985) 291-310, esp. 296-97. 26This sort of work began with the Homeric Problems (Clln'UJ.aTa OIJ.llPLKd.) associated chiefly at first with the Peripatetics and the Stoics. The Neoplatonist Porphyry of Tyre, a contemporary of Eusebius, compiled a major collection of difficulties and solutions from the scholarly tradition on the Iliad and the Odyssey, and similar works of Miscellanies and Quaestiones et solutiones are also attested in Alexandrian Jewish and Christian scholarship. For the Hellenistic schools, see Felix Buffiere, Les mythes d'Homere et pensee grecque (Paris: "Les Belles Lettres," 1956) and Rudolf Pfeiffer, A

History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968). On the Christian material, see Gustave Bardy, "La litterature patristique des 'Quaestiones et Responsiones' sur l'ecriture sainte," RB 41 (1932) 228-36. 27 [On this correspondence, see the essay in this collection by Sebastian Brock. Eds.] 28 Most famously that which came (indirectly) from Tertullian about a supposed reference by Tiberius to the Senate of Pilate's report about the execution and resurrection of Jesus (HE 2.2.4-6), or Philo's report on the Therapeutae (HE 2.17). 29For discussion of Eusebius' quotation of excerpted sources and the implications for his status as a historican, see Arnaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.," in his The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963) 79-99; idem, "The Origins of Ecclesiastical Historiography," in his The Foundations of Modern Historiography (Sather classical Lectures 54; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990) 132-52; Paul Veyne, "When Historical Truth Was Tradition and Vulgate," in his Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? An Essay in the Constitutive Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988) 5-15. 30 so Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) 22-29, followed by Grant, Eusebius, 51, 72-73. Grant discusses Eusebius' use of oral traditions on pp. 61-67. 31 Lawlor, "The Hypomnemata of Hegesippus," Eusebiana, 22-23. 3 2 For discussion, see George Kennedy, in William 0. Walker, Jr., ed., The Relationships among the Gospels (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1978) 136-43. 33 Dieter Liihrmann has recently drawn attention to a citation of this story in Didymus the Blind's Commentary on Ecclesiastes ("Die Geschichte von einer Siinderin und andere apokryphe Jesusiiberlieferungen bei Didymos von Alexandrien," NovT 32 [1990] 289-316). Didymus mentions at Comm. in Eccl. 4.222.19-223.13 that the story exists EUSEBIUS AND TilE GOSPELS

I

137

"in some gospels" (lv nm.v ,;uayy,;)..[ots) (see Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes [Tura-Papyrus] IV [ed. Johannes Kramer and Barbel Krebbe; Patristische Texte und Abhandlungen 16; Bonn: Habelt, 1972] 86-89). Liihrmann compares Didymus' reference with Eusebius' note at HE 3.39.17 and makes the highly probable suggestion that Didymus also read the story in the Gospel of the Hebrews (and not in John) and showed a reluctance similar to that of Eusebius to name his noncanonical source. 34 see Grant, Eusebius, 130-36; and cf. idem, "Papias in Eusebius' Church History," Melanges d'histoire des religions offerts a Henri-Charles Puech (Paris: Beauchesne, 1974) 209-13. 35 so Gustafsson, "Eusebius' Principles." The quotation of Papias' preface in HE 3.39.2-4 is an easily explained exception. 36 For recent work on Papias, see Ulrich H. J. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des fruhen Christentums (FRLANT 133; Giittingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983 ). 37"As the narrative proceeds I will take pains to indicate successively which of the orthodox writers of each period used any of the doubtful books, and what they said about the canonical and accepted Scriptures." This discrepancy is further evidence of unfinished revisions in the work as a whole; see Grant, Eusebius. 3 8on this topic see now Eric Junod, "Eusebe de Cesaree, Serapion d'Antioche et l'Evangile de Pierre: D'un evangile a un pseudepigraphe," Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 24 (1988) 3-16. 39For discussion of Eusebius' "shift in attitude" toward the Apocalypse of John, see Grant, Eusebius, 130-36.

138

I

Plill..IP SELLEW

4

Paul in Eusebius and Other Early Christian Literature PETER GORDA Y

I. Introduction

After an initial period of debate, in which the church's exegetical methods and traditions were shaped by the need to demonstrate from the Jewish scriptures the eschatological messiahship of Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy, the Christian interpretation of scripture was increasingly formed by the struggle with Gnosis. By the end of the first century CE, certainly by the early part of the second century, in writers such as Ignatius of Antioch and the author of the Johannine epistles, the need to interpret the ministry of Jesus and to explain the gathering body of quasi-canonical oral traditions and written texts in terms of a polemic against other interpretations was steadily growing. Just how early this polemic can be detected in the formation of the New Testament documents is difficult to discern clearly, 1 and, indeed, the relationship between the growing anti-Gnostic front and a multitude of syncretistic forms of Jewish religiosity is tantalizingly uncertain at present;2 nonetheless, one can say with confidence that when we come to lrenaeus of Lyons, on the one hand, and Clement of Alexandria, 180 CE, on the other, the detailed exposition of scripture-by this time one can definitely speak of a canon of the two testaments-is a matter of patient repudiation of Gnostic exegesis of these same texts.3 The central organizing concept seized upon by the Great Church, a move probably stimulated by use of the term by the Valentinian Gnostics,4 is that of the "economy" (olKovo~(a) of salvation, in which the bipartite canon is made to cohere and to reveal its deepest meaning as a temporal, earthly unfolding of the divine will in creation, the history of Israel, the career of Jesus, and the final consummation.5 At the same time, one should note that the exegetical debate with Judaism did not cease at the end of the first century. Jewish and Christian expositors of the Hebrew scriptures continued to wrestle with the full PAUL IN EUSEBIUS

I

139

import of the texts and significant borrowing took place on the part of the Christians. This mutual engagement with scripture for Christians and Jews is very much in evidence in the patristic period, as we can see particularly among Christian interpreters living in Egypt, Palestine, and Syria,6 and it is entirely possible that the primary technique of churchly exegesis, namely that of allegory, was principally derived from Hellenistic-Jewish writers, of whom the best known is Philo of Alexandria.? Closely related, moreover, to the probably strong influence of Hellenized Jewish thought on the early centuries of Christian biblical interpretation is the fact that some issues in specific interpretations were those dictated by the concerns of Hellenistic philosophy. Such matters as the origin of the visible and intelligible worlds, the nature and eternity of matter, the source and nature of evil, the reality and efficacy of divine providence, and a host of others, received a good deal of attention from both Jewish and Christian exegetes; indeed, both were responding to the need for an apologetic to the pagan world, and in creating that apologetic they tended to produce a united front on many subjects. This merging of Jewish and Christian agendas in turn created, as we shall see, a special issue for Christians: namely, how to explain why Christians adopted, and then departed in some ways from, the ancient truth of Judaism in an era when most people agreed that what is older is ipso facto better. 8 In the effort to defend Christian claims against Jewish and pagan critics, the Great Church's exegetes utilized fundamentally the same design they had developed against Gnosis: scripture contains the revelation of an economy in which the true "knowledge of God" (6EO>..oy(a) is made possible for humankind. This way of making sense of scripture was nowhere more in evidence than in the evolving exposition of the Pauline epistles, the special concern of this essay. From the deutero-Pauline literature through second-century writers to the great Origen and at last to Eusebius of Caesarea the economic interpretation of Paul is molded, focused, and refined to contain the inner logic of Christian teaching as the Apostle proclaimed it. The development of this way of understanding Paul, especially in Eusebius, for whom the original anti-Gnostic thrust of "economy" is no longer of particular concern, is fascinating to behold and provides a vantage point from which to appraise Eusebius' master apologetic in the three major works of the Ecclesiastical History, Preparation of the Gospel, and Demonstration of the Gospel. First, however, we must survey the interpretation of Paul up to Eusebius' time.

II. Pre-Eusebian Use of Paul

The modem exegete of the Pauline literature is, of course, heir to the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century critical consensus that has tended to separate first the Pastoral and then the Captivity epistles from the remainder 140

I

PETER GORDA y

of the Pauline corpus, with Hebrews often considered as deutero-Pauline from the time of the early church. Consequently, contemporary interpretations of Pauline theology are based on Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon primarily, with Colossians sometimes taken as deutero-Pauline, Ephesians virtually always taken to be so, and 2 Thessalonians often disregarded. It is not irrelevant to note that those Pauline epistles universally considered authentic are precisely the ones on which the sixteenth-century protestant Reformers depended most heavily for their interpretation of the Apostle, although they made much use of Ephesians also. It was in these genuine epistles that they found expressed most clearly the central teaching of justification; as one moved away from the authentic Paul into other parts of the New Testament, this teaching was diluted or disappeared entirely. This point of view was later to be elaborated with the historical argument that, as the deutero-Pauline literature evolved, one encountered actual distortions of the authentic Paul for the sake of an emerging early Catholicism. In the contemporary version of the argument, it is the Pauline theology of the cross that one sees being weakened and then transformed into a theology of glory, which is associated with the historical rise of dogma, creed, and episcopate in the church. The early Greek, Latin, and Syriac churches all continued this process of misunderstanding Paul until Augustine recovered in the Pelagian controversy a more accurate reading of the Apostle and, finally, Luther firmly established this rediscovery for all later generations.9 Several more recent trends in Pauline scholarship have challenged this conventional view and may serve to frame our understanding of pre-Eusebian interpretation of Paul. Aside from the ever unresolved matter of the genuineness of Colossians and Ephesians, there has been, first, a new awareness of real development within Paul's thought from 1 Thessalonians and Galatians through Romans. 10 Paul in this latter and latest epistle appears to have moved to a less polemical view of the antithesis between Law and Gospel, and, consequently, to a more eirenic understanding of the relations between Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians as well as between Christians and Jews. 11 In Romans he wrestled in a more concerted way with such themes as the universality of salvation and of the church's mission, and at the same time he used motifs, images, and vocabulary that show the increasing impact of Hellenistic cosmopolitanism on his thought. 12 This heightened consciousness of development in Paul's arguments is related to what has often been a minority view in the scholarly interpretation of Paul, namely that some form of "salvation-history" is in fact the center of his theology. Such a perception has a long pedigree among those who have had a stake in relating Paul's teaching to various philosophies of historical process, but most recently it has served as a way of appreciating the Apostle in the PAULINEUSEBWS

I

141

particularities of his historical and social context. 13 In his concern to unite Jews and Gentiles in one people of God, in his conviction that all social classes have a share in the Good News, in his awareness that the last days had come and that he was to fulfill the prophetic vision of all peoples worshipping God on Mount Zion, and in his determination to gather a collection for the Jerusalem church in token of the consummation of God's plan in history, Paul's individual genius shines forth, as does the uniqueness of his calling. The effort he expends on unifying the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians and on keeping Law/Gospel and, in Romans, Jew/Gentile firmly bonded, as well as his focus on the collection in 2 Corinthians 8-9 and even his labored defense of himself in Philippians 3, all suggest that justification and the theology of the cross have an integrating purpose which reflects the character of God in universal history. Part of the upshot of these newer concerns in Pauline interpretation is to show that the development of Paul's theology moved naturally toward the emphases of Colossians-Ephesians and even the Pastorals, whether or not these were actually authored by him. 14 Precisely these letters reveal a preoccupation with the cosmic scope and character of salvation with christology (Col 1:15-20; Eph 2:8ff.), ecclesiology (Eph 2:11-22), communal paraenesis (Eph 4:1lff.), and a vision of universal combat with evil (Eph 6:11ff.; Col 2:6ff.; and passim) to match. The paraenesis of the Pastorals, in addition, is that of a Christian community increasingly committed to the penetration and assimilation of the surrounding society with forms of congregational and domestic order that are largely derived from Jewish and secular sources. In due course, all that is conveyed by the term "economy," first introduced in a technical sense at Eph 1:10; 3:2; 3:9, with all that it denotes of an ordered structure by which God, the world, and the individual are to exist in right relationship, will function in such a way as to sum up the biblical, specifically Pauline, and finally generically Christian, view of cosmic order. The Christian adoption of Hellenistic philosophical theory and practice will be legitimated by the use of this Pauline idea, 15 as will be at last in Eusebius the embrace by the Empire of Catholic Christianity as the religious norm of the Roman world. The Christos Pantocrator of Byzantium has its origin at the heart of Pauline thought, however far in one sense it may have come from the theology of the cross and however much it may have lost that element of the criticism of the "world" that the cross implies. Recent study, in fact, has tended to emphasize that, for all of the parallels and derivations that can be shown to exist and that can be presumed to have been formative for the early Christian ethos, the power of the church to exercise a transforming effect on society was enormous, precisely by calling into question the norms of that society.16

142

I

PETER GORDAy

This task of understanding the historical course of the use of Paul's thought in early Christianity has most recently and most comprehensively been undertaken by Ernst Dassmann. 17 He has rendered the great service of showing that a lively use of texts and themes from Paul's epistles, while being far from universal, began early and continued unabated through the work of Irenaeus of Lyons. Starting with the portrait of Paul and his work constructed by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles and surveying the attention given by early Christian thinkers to Paul in the deutero-Pauline literature through all of the major second-century figures, Dassmann has argued convincingly that the Apostle was a potent influence on orthodox theology. Different authors selected and developed various themes from Paul and venerated him early on as the Apostle, all of this to a degree that suggests that Paul was not the property in any exclusive way of heterodox or Gnostic interpreters of the epistles. While some authors appear not to have known Paul or, perhaps, did not find his theology helpful, as in the Didache, and there are signs of anti-Paulinism on the fringes of the church, as in the foundation-document of the Pseudo-Clementine romances, most make significant use of him, some on a grand scale, as with lrenaeus. Central to Dassmann's presentation, however, is the view that this use of Paul is always in rich combination with other theologies represented in the New Testament and that, consequently, he is never used over against other writers. No evidence exists, in other words, for a critical use of Paul either as a foil to other canonical figures or, even, in opposition to Gnosticism; instead, he is one of many figures who stand on an equal footing and who are more-or-less important in the church's theological constructions. 18 Dassmann's target in developing such a thesis is the Protestant history-of-dogma argument that Paul was largely unknown to the patristic church and actually was venerated only by Gnostic writers until late (Overbeck's famous dictum that no one in the early centuries of Christianity knew Paul but Marcion, and Marcion misunderstood him). Dassmann does finally allow, nonetheless, for a theology of the cross that made Paul a thorn in the flesh for each generation: the Apostle's theology functioned as a judgment and a warning that the church must never conform to the world in its proclamation.I9 While some of the real power of Dassmann's line of thought lies in its correction of much that has been one-sided in the perception of Paul's place in the early church, its weakness is that it tends to downplay too much the import of Paul for Gnostic thought and the extent to which this import shaped in tum the Paulinism of the Alexandrian-Caesarean tradition of Christian exegesis, i.e., that of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. Indeed, the evidence for massive attention to Pauline texts on the part, particularly, of Valentinian Gnostic exegetes is indisputable,20 whether or not we accept Dassmann's opinion that the Johannine tradition, rather than PAULINEUSEBIUS

I

143

the Pauline, was the favorite of the Gnostic interpreters.21 It is not that the Valentinian and other Gnostic writers make exclusive use of Pauline texts, or that they rate him above other canonical writers; it is more a matter of their evident fondness for Paul, probably because of the close affinity between their own language and ideas and those of the Apostle. Consequently, one finds frequent reference to the cosmic texts of Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul speaks of the earthly and heavenly man (1 Corinthians 15), of the cosmic pleroma (Col 2:9) of deity, 22 the recapitulation of all in Christ (Eph 1:10),23 the heavenly powers of wickedness (Eph 6: 12),24 the contrast of the three types of being as earthly, psychic, and spiritual (1 Corinthians 2 and 15),25 and particularly the extended description of the spiritual man (1 Corinthians 2). 26 Often the Valentinian Dreiklassenlehre (doctrine of the three classes of human being) is taken as the distinctive sign of their school of thought,27 in addition to the more generally Gnostic cosmological, protological, and eschatological speculations; and, indeed, scholars have argued that Paul is the direct source of the Valentinian anthropology,28 though it is clear that the creation myths in the early chapters of Genesis have played a major role here as well. 29 Recently, Harold Attridge has drawn attention to the way in which the Gospel of Truth (NHC 1,3), an apparently Valentinian text, makes considerable use of allusions to New Testament texts, including a number of Pauline passages, as part of a complexly structured exoteric presentation of Valentinian doctrine.3° This kind of use of phraseology and terminology which are remarkably similar to those of Pauline texts, while not constituting actual citation of the passages, suggests both the possibility of a pre-Christian Gnosticism from which Paul and the second-century Gnostics draw and the fact that the authoritative status of the Pauline literature was not yet solidified. Other Gnostic writings from Nag Hammadi witness to the presence of Paul in the devotion and theology of this group, sometimes by specific reference and citation, sometimes by allusion. 31 The existence particularly of such a document as The Apocalypse of Paul (NHC V,2) points to the more general phenomenon of pseudepigraphic Pauline literature in the early Christian world in the form not only of apocalypses, but also of acts (Acts of Paul; Acts of Paul and Thecla) and epistolary compositions (3 Corinthians; So-Called Epistles of Seneca to Paul and of Paul to Seneca), such as are gathered and edited in the collections of M. R. James and Hennecke-Schneemelcher. Here again we find that a more or less Gnosticizing elaboration of Pauline teaching is present, as in the apocalypses with their basis in 2 Cor 12:2-4, or an anti-Gnostic elaboration of Pauline themes as in 3 Corinthians and the Acts of Paul in a tradition which may well originate with canonical Acts. 32

144

I

PETER GORDAy

Something of the status of a special case in this Gnostic attention to Paul is usually accorded to the work of Marcion of Sinope, although there is no need here to address the continuing debate about the extent to which Marcion is to be viewed as a true Gnostic. The question is practically impossible to resolve since in the case of Marcion we are completely dependent on indirect testimony from heresiological accounts and their successors and from the Marcionite prologues to the gospels for clues to his doctrine. In addition, the scholarly literature on Marcion, in a tradition stemming from Harnack, contains an unfortunate tendency to construct an apologetic for Marcion as the propagator of a Paulinism more authentic than that of the Great Church. Most relevant to the topic of this study, however, is the fact that Tertullian, in his polemic against Marcion, labeled Paul "the Apostle of the heretics," because of the way in which Marcion appears to have used him. 33 Marcion gathered together and edited a collection, the Apostolikon, of the Pauline letters which, along with an edited Gospel of Luke, functioned as a scriptural canon on which to base his teaching, thus justifying Irenaeus' comment that for Marcion "Paul alone knew the truth; for to him the mystery of Christ was made known by revelation. "34 His interest in Paul seems to have been polemical, i.e., grounded in the desire to use Paul to combat the distorted doctrine of other teachers who hadjudaized the Gospel message by maintaining a consistency and integrity of meaning between the Jewish scriptures and the revelation of Jesus. For Marcion the God who appears in the Old Testament is the "God of the Law," the creatorGod who is responsible for the immersion of human beings in the spacetime world of materiality and the nexus of Law-guilt-damnation that necessarily proceeds from existence in such a world. The Pauline critique of the Mosaic Law and of the "flesh" easily lent itself to the support of such a cosmological construction. Marcion, indeed, affirmed an original and primary God of love, who is good, the source of the spirit in all creatures, and the means of salvation when he comes in Jesus Christ and dies on the cross in order to take all believers back to the eternal world with himself. Existence in the present world is thus essentially a matter of choice: either one opts for materiality and all of its concomitants, or one decides on behalf of the spiritual world made accessible in Jesus and given to believers as a gnosis appropriated by faith. Without question, all of the Pauline language about the spiritual man, the cosmic battle with supernatural powers, the call to faith, and the present-yet-future reality of the new life of liberty in Christ was a convenient vehicle and warrant for the Marcionite doctrines. Part of Marcion's genius, so far as we can tell, was that he saw this fact and made the most of it at a time when Paul's authority was clearly on the rise. 35 By the second half of the second century CE the authority of Paul was growing rapidly. Whether or not the Pastoral Epistles were written as a PAUL IN EUSEBIUS

I

145

response to early Gnostic use of Paul, as many contend, one can see already in an orthodox writer like Ignatius of Antioch that Pauline texts are becoming important to Christian teaching. William Schaedel in his recent commentary on the lgnatian letters makes it clear that a considerable number of allusions to passages in Paul exist in Ignatius, but that actual citation can be claimed only for passages from 1 Corinthians with very strong allusions to Romans and Ephesians. Schaedel notes that this particular selection of texts points to a measure of identification on Ignatius' part with Paul's sufferings36-a characteristic use of Paul that will appear elsewhere in martyrological writings. Already in 1 Clement one can see a developed use of 1 Corinthians with explicit citation in order to invite the Corinthian church to a deeper wisdom which eschews schism and recognizes the true character of the resurrection. 37 Likewise, Polycarp of Smyrna is deeply rooted in the Corinthian correspondence, as is Melito of Sardis a generation later. 38 Walter Bauer, writing as a historian of Christian origins in the tradition of Harnack, speculated that the orthodox reliance on the Corinthian letters was a symptom of the need to maintain church discipline against the Gnostic threat. 39 More likely, however, was the concern shared by Gnostic and orthodox alike (problematic terms at this early date) to describe with Paul's help authentic spiritual wisdom, i.e., true doctrine, and the authentically spiritual person, i.e., the genuine gnostic or adept in the things of God. It is this emphasis, so easily nurtured by a host of Pauline texts from 1-2 Corinthians, from Ephesians and Colossians, from Philippians (especially where faithful suffering and spiritual wisdom come to be linked), and finally from Romans, which is represented across the spectrum of late antique philosophical and religious texts. Combined with this focus, moreover, is another theme-that of an inner-worldly salvation-history, the knowledge and appropriation of which is conceived by some to be integral to salvation-which comes in time to have a countervailing force. The major figures who stand at the point of convergence of these two foci are first, Irenaeus of Lyons and then the Alexandrians from Clement to Origen to Eusebius. They represent the absorption, with Paul's help, of the Gnostic agenda of esoteric and world-rejecting redemption into a comprehensive view that accepts responsibility for cosmic and this-worldly order, indeed that accepts contingency and its ambiguity as central to the divine purpose. Modem theological scholarship, especially since the Second World War, has made Irenaeus the central, consolidating figure in the Great Church's struggle with Gnosis and thus the definer par excellence of patristic orthodoxy. Much of the reason for this focus lies in the view that Irenaeus was the first thinker to structure Christian theology in a way that clearly portends the emergence of creedal catholic belief. This structuring process arose in part from lrenaeus' clear adherence to the bipartite canon of scripture 146

I

PETERGORDAY

and his generous use of a broad spectrum of scriptural texts, but also from his comprehensive concern to combat Gnostic doctrines by formulating a solid relationship between the divine work of creation, described in the Old Testament, and that of redemption, as portrayed in the New Testament. The oneness of God in essence and activity is thereby maintained unequivocally, especially with the help of the synthesizing concepts of recapitulation and economy, and Scripture is presented as a unified salvation-history. 40 Major events in the creation narratives of Genesis are reenacted in the career of Jesus and prophecy finds its fulfillment in him and in the birth of the church. Pauline texts play a major role in providing the basis for this point of view; but most central to my thesis here is the way, already mentioned, in which otKOVOIJ.(a dominates lrenaeus' theological vision in a manner that has some prehistory in Ignatius, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, but which takes a quantum leap forward with him and his successors. Paul's own description of himself as an otKoV61J.OS (steward) of the mysteries of God41 and the use of otKOVOIJ.(a (economy) in Eph 1:10; 3:2; 3:9, along with all of the doxologicallanguage of divine foreknowledge and divine ordering of salvation that one finds in Ephesians and Colossians, assume major importance in lrenaeus because of the debate with Valentinian Gnosis, where a similar language prevails. 42 While there is the possibility of influence at a general metaphoric level from Hellenistic and HellenisticJewish use of otKoV61J.OS for either a secular administrator (as, e.g., in Jesus' parables) or a guardian of religious mysteries in chthonic or oriental cults, the Gnostic influence is much more likely because of the inner-divine and salvific weight that the term carries in their thought. The entire Valentinian drama of the unfolding of the extraterrestrial and terrestrial worlds through a series of declensions in which the primal God gives birth, after cosmic battle with its own creatures, the Archons, and through the intermediary of divine Sophia, to humankind, and then draws those who can be saved back to itself by means of a connaturality of substance, is termed the economy. Consequently, this term suggests for the Gnostics a primarily mythical and invisible drama, one which happens in the spiritual world and which has an inner-worldly component only in the realm of inwardness for those pneumatics who, through Gnosis, can escape the world. Salvationhistory for the Valentinians happens inside the being of God in a manner which Christian thinkers will appropriate when, like Hippolytus and Tertullian, they begin to apply the term economy to inner-Trinitarian life (i.e., the "processions") and, in terms of a doctrine of providence, to the divine "missions" in the biblical history. lrenaeus began in a serious way this systematic use of a term which the Gnostics had first employed extensively, but, stimulated by Paul and the canonical Pauline literature, he insisted on applying it to the task of unifying the biblical canon and thereby PAUL IN EUSEBIUS

I

147

gave it a this-worldly valence. Precisely this way of using the term would establish its application in an absolutely comprehensive fashion to the whole range of God's activity on behalf of the human race, whether in the broad scope of saving history or in the most mundane details of the history of communities and individuals. 43 This accelerating use of Pauline texts to develop more structured, more intellectually coherent, more apologetically and pastorally useful presentations of the sources and logic of Christian faith, belongs to the entire process by which the experiences and convictions of Christians were being formulated in rational terms, a process which it has been the central task of the history of dogma to explain. The increasing presence of Hellenistic philosophy, particularly Middle Platonism, in this process is quite evident, particularly with Clement and Origen of Alexandria, where the debate with Valentinians and Marcionites remained at the growing edge of theological vitality. Pauline texts are abundant in the work of both men; both were greatly concerned, like Irenaeus, to formulate a salvation-historical understanding of the canon of scripture and to affirm the oneness of God and the goodness of the spatia-temporal order of things. Both also were eager to describe the spiritual human being, the "true Gnostic," in a way which both distinguished their views from heterodox Gnosticism and offered an effective response to philosophically grounded critiques of Christianity. Like Irenaeus, both of the Alexandrians united the testaments of the canon by means of a whole network of typologies, correspondences, and figural interpretations that tum the scriptures into a vast internal system of revealed truth, all of it discernible by means of spiritual exegesis which starts with, but goes beyond, the mere letter of the text. The Christian Bible is defended against pagan detractors and rescued from Valentinians who allegorize it and Marcionites who dismember it by means of the "spiritual sense" and its various nuances. This way of interpreting scripture is, in fact, a hermeneutic based on a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between spirit and matter in the cosmos. This last observation, however, goes beyond lrenaeus, who, to be sure, conceives of salvation-history as containing an educative dimension for human beings (history is progressive and God brings humankind to the truth gradually), but Clement and Origen developed a philosophy of being and becoming which entailed a full understanding of providence and of evil. 44 For Origen particularly the entire drama of divine creation of the intelligible world, the fall into embodiment, the existence of sin and suffering, the subsequent election of Israel, the divine wrath with sin, the coming of Jesus and his bodily resurrection with the history of the church and the eventual restoration of all things-all of this is viewed as one vast economy. 45 The central issue of the Valentinian myth of the cosmos-how to explain the existence of inequality and suffering in a 148

I

PETER GORDA y

physical cosmos-is solved without having to construct an absurd doctrine of God or to dishonor the actual narrative contained in scripture. Divine control of the drama, including the existence of evil, is asserted in uncompromising terms, on the one hand, while the reality and moral burden of human free will are affirmed on the other. Precisely the mark of the spiritual person is that one fully understands this theology as it is revealed in scripture and lives in response a virtuous and pious life in imitation of Christ. This concern with the quality of life in the present, material world is essential to that which marks the orthodox use of the olKoVoiJ.(a concept and its successful retrieval from the Valentinians. Origen in his thought generally, and in his use of Pauline texts, is very much a teacher of practical virtue. In the tradition of the Hellenistic-Judaism which precedes him, and in dialogue with contemporary Jewish teachers, he is preoccupied with the teaching of the wisdom literature and he relates this orientation to a host of ethical matters-issues of church order, of personal and ecclesiastical discipline, of the doing of works of mercy, and of the significance of martyrdom-that beset the Christian communities of Alexandria and of Caesarea in Palestine. 46 His use of Paul and his understanding of him, so far as favorite texts go, are both continuous and discontinuous with those of his predecessors: Origen easily picked up on the use of Corinthians passages 47 and on themes of spiritual combat from Ephesians (6: 12ff., etc.) and on the christology of Colossians (1:15ff.), as well as on the use of Pauline texts which serve as warrants for spiritual exegesis (2 Cor 3:6; Gal4:21ff.; 1 Cor 10:6; etc.); but he added many others which reflect his expanded use of economy. 48 Indeed, it is fair to say that with Origen one sees a full appropriation for the Great Church of the Apostle, an appropriation which involved not only the formal dimension of producing extensive commentaries on the Pauline texts but also the material one of providing a total synthesis of these texts into a coherent, if not actually systematic, theology. In such a manner Origen incorporated the Gnostic demand for a saving knowledge of the beginning and the end (cipx~ and Tl>..os) into orthodoxy. By the time of Origen's death, ca. 252 CE, shortly after the end of the persecution under Decius, the stage had been set for the emergence of a Paulinism such as one encounters in the work of Eusebius of Caesarea.

III. Eusebius' Use of Paul (a) One theme that constantly appears in the early books of the Ecclesiastical History is that of the consolidation of the canon of the Bible by the early churches. Previous writers, particularly Origen, bear witness to this process by which those writings which were coming to be considered authoritative were being distinguished from those viewed as non- or only PAULINEUSEBIUS

I

149

partially authoritative, but Eusebius is the first to reflect on the process as a whole and to let his readers see what was at stake. His motive is similar to that which underlay his drawing up of lists of bishops for the principal urban churches: namely, to demarcate the orthodox tradition and its normative sources from heresy, particularly from Gnosis. 4 9 In HE 3.25 he lists the canonical gospels of lVmtthew, Mark, Luke, and John along with the Acts of the Apostles, Paul's epistles, 1 John, and 1 Peter as recognized authorities, delays discussion of the Revelation of John, and includes James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2-3 John as disputed books. The Acts of Paul, Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, along (possibly) with the Revelation of John, and the Gospel of the Hebrews are considered to be spurious with regard to claimed authorship, but still to have the status of disputed books. Gospels circulating under the names of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and others, as well as Acts attributed to Andrew, John, and other apostles, are to be rejected as downright heretical. Eusebius' criteria for canonicity are clear: use by the churches, consistency with apostolic teaching and terminology, compatibility with orthodox belief. That the canon of the New Testament was not yet a closed collection is evident from the way in which Eusebius could list the disputed books used in the churches, but also from the way in which he could so easily pass to the description of writings considered to be in the tradition of the apostles, such as the letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, and to the possible role of a figure like Clement of Rome in producing the Greek text of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a work which Eusebius, following Clement of Alexandria, believed to have been written by Paul in Hebrew.50 There was still in Eusebius' time an openness on the matter of the biblical canon in which some writings are clearly "in" but others occupy an ambiguous status while still others share the authoritative status of compatibility with the canonical compositions. It is precisely the quality of apostolicity that elevated a writing to canonical rank; and it is the determination of authentic apostolicity that concerned a thinker like Eusebius. Such a determination was in part a historical judgment, in part a matter of theological discernment. Certainly for Eusebius, the thirteen Pauline epistles are unquestionably canonical, both by explicit statement and by his citation of all of them in various places. Hebrews in its Greek form he accepted as a translation of a genuine Pauline letter.5 1 At HE 6.25, while quoting (and implicitly accepting the views of) Origen's Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews to the effect that the Greek text is a rendering of an originally Hebrew document, Eusebius also transmitted Origen's comment that Paul's diction in this letter does not reflect his characteristic roughness (l8LWTLK6v) of expression5 2 (a comment reflecting 2 Cor 11:6 and closely allied to Origen's !50

I

PETER GORDAy

description of Paul's usage in the preface to his Commentary on Romans)5 3-an implicit admission that Eusebius, like others, found Paul's meaning difficult at times. Eusebius appears to have accounted for this fact by noting that the first apostles were not writers, but speakers, and that the divine power at work in them sometimes resulted in experiences that could not be put into words. 54 He noted that Paul was the greatest of the apostolic thinkers (vofu.1.auL TE tKavwTaTos yqovWs-)55 but that, nonetheless, he had left us only brief compositions.56 In a similar manner, Eusebius suggested that all or most of the New Testament writings have a circumscribed character that bespeaks their humble origin, as with the Gospel of Matthew, or that grew out of the fact that they supplemented what was found in other writings, as with the Gospel of John. 57 One senses here an echo of the defensiveness of many patristic writers for whom either the relatively unliterary nature of the biblical texts was a source of dismay in dealing with cultured pagans, or the brevity of the documents was an invitation to speculative abuse by heretics. Because Eusebius was not, in the manner of Origen, preeminently a philological critic, anxious to work out and defend a closely reasoned exposition with its underlying hermeneutical theory, his principal work was not that of commentary. Rather, he dealt with the problem of how to understand Paul by incorporating him into the rounded apostolic witness contained in the approved writings as a whole. For this reason, Eusebius is above all concerned in the Ecclesiastical History with the delimitation of a body of literature which, as canonical, taken together with certain extra-canonical works, could be said to define the orthodoxy of the church. Moreover, Eusebius certainly knew of a tradition of commentary on Paul's epistles, since he mentioned the work of a certain Heraclitus, On the Apostle, and, of course, was familiar with Origen's work. 58 He has left us, however, completely in the dark on the questions of how, and by whom, the corpus paulinum came to be gathered, and he appears not to have known the tradition that Paul was much used by the Gnostics. He definitely did know of heterodox groups who rejected Paul's writings or expurgated them. 59 One gains the impression from the Ecclesiastical History that the collection of Pauline epistles has for Eusebius suddenly appeared in a finished state by the latter years of the first century; we may surmise that information about the origins and early history of the canonical writings themselves was largely unknown to him. (b) The picture that Eusebius conveys of Paul is that of "the Apostle," i.e., the individual most responsible for the universal spread of the church among the Gentiles. One of his favorite texts from Paul is Rom 15:19, where Paul describes his missionary work as covering the area from Jerusalem to Illyricum. This reference supplied for Eusebius the essential PAUL IN EUSEBIUS

I

!51

datum about Paul, that as a missionary he evangelized a certain geographical area and thus played an essential part in the historical growth of the church, as did a number of others, Peter being the foremost. 60 This is not to say, however, that in the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius showed much interest in the details of Paul's missionary journeys or in the history of the Pauline churches or in constructing any sort of a contrast between Paul and other apostles. Eusebius first mentions Paul in connection with information from Clement of Alexandria's Outlines about the identity of the seventy disciples of Jesus and the identity of some of the earliest witnesses of the resurrection.61 He next made reference to Paul's career as a persecutor of the church and then to his apostolic call, using language that reflects Acts 9:15 and Gal 1:1, 12,62 and next touched briefly on the work of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch and in the relief of the Jerusalem famine as recorded in Acts 11, all of this accompanied by a description of the extraordinary and divinely empowered missionary success of these earliest Christians. 63 Paul's missionary journeys are summed up with a reference to Rom 15:19 and with a mention of Aquila and Priscilla as co-workers and fellow travelers with Paul, particularly at the time when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome.64 Clearly Eusebius had no intention of repeating the material already available in the Acts of the Apostles, or to be inferred from Paul's epistles themselves, though he used 2 Tim 4:16 to argue that Paul's death in Rome came only after a second Roman imprisonment following the first described at the end of Acts. 65 Finally, Eusebius passed on the tradition that he learned from the third volume of Origen's Commentary on Genesis that Paul was martyred in Rome during Nero's time,66 and he noted from a lost work, the Dialogue of Gaius, 61 that Peter was executed about the same time and that both of their bodies were laid to rest in the Roman cemetery to which their names were later attached. The only specific tradition about Paul himself that Eusebius transmitted was the view, again from Clement of Alexandria, that Paul was a married man, a notion based on a reading of "yoke-fellow" (av(vye") at Phil4:3.68 Moreover, Eusebius showed great interest in Paul's fellow workers as mentioned in canonical Acts and the epistles, especially where the foundation and establishment of an episcopal line could be attributed to them. Timothy is mentioned as the first bishop of Ephesus, Titus as the same for the churches of Crete, Linus as the second bishop of Rome after Peter, and Clement as the third bishop of the church at Rome.69 Crescens is cited as the companion that Paul first despatched to Gaul, and Luke is claimed as the author of the gospel that bears his name and of the Acts with the note, of which Eusebius seems to have approved, that when Paul referred to "my gospel," the reference was to the Gospel of Luke. 70 Indeed, the collaborative nature of Paul's ministry-that he worked in concert with other apostles, !52

I

PETER GORDA y

particularly Peter-was important to Eusebius, as indicated by the way in which he cited Clement of Alexandria's probable reference to Pantaenus on the tradition of the authorship of Hebrews: that through modesty (!J.EpLOn'jm) Paul did not affix his name to this composition since, in writing to "the Hebrews," he had gone beyond the assigned province of his apostleship.7 1 Though Eusebius did not give us any indication of this, he was probably echoing here the Origenian view that Paul and Peter had no real disagreement at Antioch (Gal2: 11-21) but staged a deception in order to teach their fellow Christians something of the nature of the gospel. 72 We might also note that, although Eusebius did not provide any view, so much taken for granted in recent times, that Paul in his epistles can be understood only in terms of the false gospels against which he contends, he did describe the origin of Gnosis in the work of Paul's contemporary Simon Magus in words that come from 2 Cor 10:5 and 2 Tim 3:6 and made the point that this heresy arose in opposition to the preaching of all the apostles, Paul included.73 (c) In sketching the use made by Eusebius of Pauline texts and in inferring his construal of Pauline theology, several formal observations are first in order. 74 First, Eusebius did on occasion do 1>ome theorizing about the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation, particularly of Old Testament texts, but reflection of this kind is minimal. 75 We do know from the commentaries on Isaiah and the Psalms that he deliberately steered away from Origen's kind of spiritual exegesis at the same time that he manifested real reliance on some of the great Alexandrian's insights.76 Perhaps by Eusebius' time some of the criticisms leveled by Porphyry and others like him at Christian allegorizing of the scriptures had struck home; 77 perhaps also the description of allegorical method which Philo attributed to the Therapeutae near Alexandria around the middle of the first century CE-a group identified by Eusebius with primitive Egyptian Christianity7 8-can be construed as an endorsement of the view that such a hermeneutic, while valid for the spiritually advanced, could not be taken as suitable for ordinary Christians. In fact, as is generally agreed, when Eusebius expounds biblical texts, he is a careful cultivator of the literal sense of a passage-that is, attentive to details of time and place which locate a passage in its context and contribute to a straightforward statement of its meaning-but he was also most anxious to weld together Old Testament and New Testament passages in a scheme of prophecy and fulfillment which recalls one of the basic purposes of spiritual exegesis as Origen had practiced it. With Eusebius, attention to the historical sense of Old Testament and New Testament passages led to the discernment of precise correspondences between the basic narrative structure and ethical content of each-a prime example being the elaborate parallel which Eusebius saw between Moses and Jesus_79 Consequently, while PAUL IN EUSEBIUS

I

!53

Eusebius was not a hermeneut, he did have a method which allowed him to link New Testament, and, in our case Pauline, material with that of the history of salvation for the ancient Hebrews. Second, in contrast to his work on Isaiah, Psalms, and the Gospel of Luke, Eusebius did not produce commentaries on Pauline texts nor, as a rule, did he formulate polemical exegeses as Origen, for instance, had done in attacking Valentinian or Marcionite interpretations. As a result, one can rarely find in his work, at least with regard to Paul, a focused exegesis in which he developed a particular interpretation of a passage in contradistinction to other possible or actually held positions. Generally, he simply assumed his own view of what a piece of scripture meant and wove that view into the overall direction of a composition by citing the verse or verses as he wished. This manner of proceeding is especially true for the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica, and for the Historia ecclesiastica and De Martyribus Palaestinae as well. The controversial nature of the works against Marcellus caused him to hammer away at partic-ular interpretations of christological passages, while there is little scripture in the panegyrics on Constantine. His understanding of certain Pauline texts as well as any sense he might have had that particular passages are impor-tant to an overall comprehension of Paul's message have, therefore, to be inferred from their frequency and centrality in Eusebius' setting forth of his key ideas. Finally, with Eusebius one very rarely encounters any discussion of biblical passages that are sources of difficulty, cbrop(aL, in interpreting scripture; 80 rather, one gets the sense that for him scripture, including Paul, constitutes an even, uniform surface displaying a single, clear message. With these observations, then, the Eusebian Paulinism, ultimately an OLKOVOil(a theology which is no longer specifically anti-Gnostic in purpose as it had been for his predecessors, may be outlined. From the beginning of the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius made it clear that he would lay out for the reader a continuous historical narrative (BL' uTl~UEWS taTopLtcflS) which would reveal the olKovoll(a of the savior Jesus Christ. 81 As an apologetic project, the construction of this historical account would continue the work of demonstrating the truth of Christianity against heretics with their passion for innovation, against Jews who, Eusebius maintains, crucified the Lord and fail to accept the fulfillment of their own prophecy, and against unbelievers who denounce the Christian message and persecute its advocates. The work had been begun by Origen in Contra Celsum and by apologists before him and would be continued by Eusebius in most of his writings. He argued that those who wander from the truth through innovation could be identified with the teachers of false Gnosis as denounced by Paul at 1 Tim 6:20-21,82 for they do not understand the true knowledge and love of God which have been made 154

I

PETER GORDAy

known in Christ to all nations as foretold by the Hebrew prophets. 83 In the first book of the Praeparatio evangelica Eusebius claimed that the gospel could be summed up in 2 Cor 5:19 and Eph 2:17 84 and argued repeatedly that the true, divine knowledge (1 Cor 2:4; 1 Cor 2:6f.; 2 Cor 3:5f.) 85 had now become available to the wise in a "mystical economy" (llt!O"TLKll olKovoll(a) that could be set forth in a rational form. 86 This use of 1 Corinthians 2 to point to the gospel as a wisdom was continuous with the earlier exegetical tradition in second-century writers and is ubiquitous in Eusebius; moreover, he added to it a strong emphasis on Christ as the wisdom of God, using 1 Cor 1:24 and 1:30, to underline the implied contention that the work of salvation precisely as an economy could be known and obeyed by rational human beings. Eusebius in his christology and theory of salvation-history found Paul's own view of Christ as wisdom a valuable support to the contention that salvation is, after all, a matter of true knowledge. The wisdom christology, rooted in Proverbs 8, associated with Eusebius, and often labeled semi-Arian, was supported by him with Pauline texts that had become central already to Origen's christology: Col 1: 15ff. and Phil2:5ff. These passages became testimonies to Christ's exalted status and divinity, but also by implication to his secondary status as the Father's creative agent. 87 In a way that was absolutely central to his apologetic task Eusebius saw the entirety of Christ's teaching already present in Moses as the teacher of knowledge about the Father (8L8aaKa>..os ... Tfis rraTpucfls ... yvwaEws). 88 In the theophanies to various Old Testament figures the fullness of divinity was revealed in such a manner that it is clear that the very Logos of God had come to earthly creatures; they could understand God and worship him. Blindness, idolatry, and hardness of heart, however, prevented the Hebrews from fully receiving this Wisdom of God, but in their Law, bestowed through Moses, they spread this wisdom far and wide. 89 Descriptions of sin are duly developed by Eusebius with Pauline material, particularly Rom 1:21ff., with the ultimate sin always that of idolatry because it obscures the essentially spiritual and incorporeal nature of God. 90 The argument that God fully revealed his truth to the ancient Hebrews is complex for Eusebius. 91 A development of a line of thinking that went back to pre-Christian Hellenistic Judaism, Eusebius was able to expound it in a manner that probably grew out of his work on Origen and from his knowledge of a composition which he attributed to Origen's teacher Ammonius, "The Harmony of Moses and Jesus. "92 The explicit intention of this linkage is to show that Christian doctrine is not an innovation, but rather has existed in veiled form from remotest antiquity. In the teaching of Moses, who antedates Plato and from whom the concept of the spiritual nature of God came to Plato and other Greek thinkers, the essential points of PAULINEUSEBIUS

I

!55

ancient truth had already been delivered to the human race. In this way, the polemic of pagan critics, to the effect that Jewish and Christian doctrine was at best a plagiarism of Hellenistic thought, was undercut, and the claim that Christianity was a superstition of recent origin and thus not entitled to serious consideration was disposed of entirely. In the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius was at pains to show that through the prophet Moses "images and symbols of a mystical sabbath and of circumcision and instruction in other spiritual principles" (h€pwv TE VOTJTWV 6EWPTJIJ.CiTwv Elaaywyas) had been given, but no actual initiation (lluamywytas),9 3 while in PE 11-13 he marshaled both Old Testament and New Testament texts to support the case. For Eusebius Paul became here one of the scriptural voices that articulate the Hebrew tradition which is rooted prior to Plato: Rom 1:20 shows that the Hebrews already foretold the incorporeal nature of God;9 4 Rom 2:6, 9, 16; 10: 12; and 2 Cor 5:16 all point to the universal divine judgment on idolatry;9 5 Rom 2:15 and 7:22f. display the inner combat that has always marked spiritual people,96 while 1 Cor. 2:9 refers to the spiritual knowledge hidden in Platonism but revealed to the followers of Moses and Jesus,9 7 a knowledge which brings persecution to its exponents (1 Cor 4:9ff.)9 8 but which prepares believers for death as a positive good (2 Cor 5:1, 5-8).99 At one point, in citing Col 1:15ff. to underline the exalted status of the divine Word, Eusebius referred to Paul as "another Hebrew theologian.'' 100 Preeminently, however, it is in the Demonstratio evangelica that Eusebius offered the richest array of Pauline texts for illustrating the nature of the fulfillment of Hebrew wisdom in the Christian dispensation. In the Demonstratio evangelica, which we may take as the high point of Eusebius' use of scripture, one finds an unrelenting argument to the effect that the Law of Moses(= the whole Hebrew dispensation) has been made into a universal blessing only in the incarnation and only as the gospel has been proclaimed by the apostles throughout the world. 101 Paul's call at 1 Cor 7:31-35 for believers to be freed from worldly cares, in this case those of marriage and family, is a prime example of how Eusebius found in the New Testament that note of the critical time (Kalp6s) of fulfillment in which all that God had intended in Mosaic teaching, in this case the call to be fruitful and multiply, could now be lived out in complete faithfulness.102 Eusebius understood the "weak elements" (aa6Evfl acn] that when the blessed Peter saw his wife led off to death, he rejoiced because of her calling and her returning home, and shouted after her by name, so that he mi§ht greatly encourage and comfort her, saying, "Remember the Lord!"l

Martyrdom Stories In Mark 13:9-13 Jesus warns Peter, James, John, and Andrew of future persecution: But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.2°

It is not clear whether the author of Mark already knew of apostolic martyrdoms or if he or she merely anticipated them. From this time on, however, one finds evidence everywhere of an intoxication with the deaths of the apostles, as is apparent from narrations of their deaths at the end of all apocryphal Acts, from the popularity of other apostolic martyrological literature, and from the tombs and relics of the apostles scattered from India to Spain. The author of John 21, an epilogue added to the gospel late in its compositional history, already was aware of traditions concerning Peter's death on a cross; Jesus told him: "When you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.21

The author also knew of John's legendary longevity, such that some thought he would be alive when Jesus returned. 22 The Acts of the Apostles narrates the execution of Stephen and persistently places apostles in the courts of hostile authorities. 23 At about

174

I

DENNIS R. MACDONALD

the same time as the writing of Acts, Clement of Rome praised the courage of the apostles in the face of death: [T]he greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who because of unrighteous jealousy suffered not one or two but many trials, and having thus given his testimony went to the glorious place which was his due .. . Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith, he taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place-the greatest example of endurance.24

Clement of Alexandria claimed that traditions he received from those before him told how James, the son of Zebedee, converted a soldier who was to execute him: So they were both led away together, ... and on the way he [scil., the soldier] asked for forgiveness for himself from James. And James looked at him for a moment and said, "Peace be to you," and kissed him. So both were beheaded at the same time. 25

Eusebius preserves an account from Hegesippus (second century) concerning the death of James the Just, the brother of Jesus. So they went up and threw down the Just, and they said to one another, "Let us stone James the Just," and they began to stone him since the fall had not killed him, but he turned and knelt saying, "I beseech thee, 0 Lord, God and Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom Jeremiah the prophet bore witness, cried out saying, "Stop! what are you doing? The Just is praying for you." And a certain man among them, one of the laundrymen, took the club with which he used to beat out the clothes, and hit the Just on the head, and so he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot by the temple, and his gravestone still remains by the temple. 26

The second century Gnostic author Heracleon argued that only four of the apostles avoided martyrdom: Matthew, Philip, Thomas, and Levi.27 Later, however, one finds martyrdom accounts for all but the last of these apostles. No story of apostolic martyrdom seems to have been more popular than Paul's. Ignatius claimed that "those who are being slain for the sake of God" are "fellow-initiates with Paul" (Eph. 12.2). Knowledge of Paul's death is LEGENDS OF TilE APOS1LES

I

175

also evident in The Acts of Peter, which begins with Paul imprisoned in Rome. He is soon released and sails off for Spain, even though it is revealed to him that he must return to Rome to be "perfected" at the hands of Nero. The Acts of Paul ends with Nero's execution of the apostle. By the fifth century, this martyrdom story circulated independently, and it has come down to us in Greek, Latin, Coptic, Slavonic, and Ethiopic. A longer Pauline martyrdom, ascribed to "bishop Linus" and inspired by The Acts of Paul, exists in seventy-eight Latin manuscripts. There is also a Passion of Peter and Paul extant in Greek and Latin and two shorter martyrdoms of Paul in Armenian. The Acts of Peter and Paul, which concern the deaths of the apostles, exist in two versions, in over one hundred manuscripts in Greek, and Latin, and in three different Armenian recensions. Further evidence of the popularity of Paul's martyrdom appears in Pseudo-Pauline epistles, that nearly always purport to have been written from prison (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Timothy, 3 Corinthians, and Laodiceans). Although Luke's Acts does not narrate the death of Paul, the author undoubtedly knew of this tradition (20:23; 21:11-14; and 28:30-31) and suppressed it. Later tradition saw fit that appropriate tombs were ascribed to nearly all of the apostles. The Acts of Andrew located Andrew's tomb in Patras, Achaea, even though tradition had been silent on the matter. The Acts of Thomas buried the Twin in India after a violent execution (even though Heracleon claimed he had avoided such a fate). John purportedly lived to a ripe old age and died peacefully in Ephesus, 28 though Manichaeans believed he starved to death in prison (Manichaean Psalm-Book 142, 18-29). Heracleon too seems to have known of a martyrdom of John. Hierapolis showed visitors the tomb of Philip and two of his daughters.29 Egypt later claimed Mark, Spain James the less, Cyprus Barnabas, Ethiopia Matthew. It goes without saying that few details in these legends of the deaths of the apostles can sustain close historical scrutiny. In fact, in many cases one cannot be certain that the written accounts are based on any tradition whatsoever. On the other hand, early Christians obviously narrated stories about the deaths of the apostles, most notably James, Peter, and Paul. These legends have created the enduring impression that the apostles generally demonstrated their commitment to Jesus Christ with their blood.

Eusebius, Origen, and the Dispersion of the Apostles

One highly controverted passage of Eusebius' History pertains directly to the status of apostolic memory in the early church. [T]he holy Apostles and disciples of our Savior were scattered throughout the whole world. Thomas, as tradition relates, obtained by lot 176

I

DENNIS R. MACDONALD

Parthia, Andrew Scythia, John Asia (and he stayed there and died in Ephesus), but Peter seems to have preached to the Jews of the Dispersion in Pontus and Galatia and Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, and at the end he came to Rome and was crucified head downwards, for so he had demanded to suffer. What need be said of Paul, who fulfilled the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyria and afterward was martyred in Rome under Nero? This is stated exactly by Origen in the third volume of his commentary on Genesis.30

Origen's commentaries on Genesis have not survived, but there is no good reason to question the reliability of Eusebius here.3 1 The five apostles Origen mentions are the very five who were honored with their own Acts. It is quite possible-though arguable-that Origen's "tradition" (rrapci8oaLs) ultimately derived from these apocrypha. Origen's statements concerning Peter issued from The Acts of Peter, according to which the apostle demanded to be "crucified head downwards" to imitate the head-first, primordial arrival of the uncorrupted Adam into the world (37-38 [Martyrdom 8--9]). Paul's beheading at Nero's behest, referred to by Origen, was common Christian tradition, but its primary literary narrative expression comes at the end of The Acts of Paul. Origen's information about Thomas, Andrew, and John likewise may have come from their Acts. He claims that each obtained his field of mission by lot (d>..11xe-v): Thomas was chosen to evangelize Parthia, Andrew Scythia, and John Asia. The scene Origen has in mind is the famous apostolic lottery, when the apostles gathered in Jerusalem to cast lots for the world. Luke's Acts contains no such scene (there lots select Matthias to replace Judas among the Twelve), but the Acts of Thomas, Andrew, and John, the same three apostles whom Origen relates to the lottery, probably began with a scene allotting regions to these apostles. The Acts of Thomas begins with such a scene in which Thomas draws India. (This does not necessarily conflict with Origen's reference to Thomas in Parthia; not only were India and Parthia geographically contiguous, but there was no firm boundary separating them, and Parthians ruled northern India during much of the Roman Imperial period.)32 The beginning of The Acts of John no longer exists, but it quite possibly included the allotting of Asia to him; 33 John's ministry in his Acts takes place entirely in Ephesus and its environs. The Acts of Andrew too began with a lottery at which that apostle won Achaea. Because Origen says Andrew's allotment was Scythia, scholars have supposed that he received this information from a source other than The Acts of Andrew. However, there is not a whisper concerning Andrew's mission to Scythia in other sources prior to Origen. At the beginning of The Acts of Andrew and Matthias, which probably once stood at the LEGENDS OF TilE APOS1LES

I

177

beginning of The Acts of Andrew, the lot fell on Matthias to go to Myrmidonia, "the city of the cannibals." When Matthias arrived, the cannibals captured him. Jesus then sent Andrew to rescue his fellow apostle, and he, not Matthias, evangelized the city. It is quite possible that Origen saw in this story evidence of Andrew evangelizing Scythia, a region notorious for its cannibals.34 In any case, Origen's commentary (1) listed the very five apostles featured in the earliest of the apocryphal Acts, saying nothing, for example, about James, Matthew, or Philip, (2) ascribed the proper regional allotments to the only three apostles whose Acts either did or might have included the apostolic lottery, and (3) stated that Peter was hung upside down, which almost certainly points to The Acts of Peter. These observations make it quite likely that Origen knew of all five early apocryphal Acts and that he approved of at least some of their content.

Notes 1 Eric Junod ("Un echo d'une controverse autour de la penitence," RHPhR 60 [1980] 153-60) provides an excellent example of the creation of an apostolic legend by Oement of Alexandria in Quis dives salvetur 42.1-15. 2 Most recently, Eric Junod and Jean-Daniel Kaestli, L'histoire des Actes apocryphes des ap6tres du/Jle au!Xe siecles: Le cas des Actes de Jean (Cahiers de Ia Revue de Theologie et de Philosophie 7; Geneva, Lausanne, and Neuchitel: La Concorde, 1982). 3Richard I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). Also Rosa Soder, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und die romanhafte Literatur der Antike (Wiirzburger Studien zur Altertumswissenschaft 3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932, reprinted, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969), and Eric Junod, "Creations romanesques et traditions ecclesiastiques dans les Acts apocryphes des Ap6tres," Augustinianum 23 (1983) 271-85. 4 Readers wanting to trace traditions about individual apostles may do so by consulting the relevant entries in encyclopedias or the superb essay by Walter Bauer in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament Apocrypha (2 vols.; English trans. ed. Robert MeL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) 2.35-74. For additional treatments of these legends, see Richard A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden (Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 1883); Gunther Bomkamrn, Mythos und Legende in den apokryphen Thomas-Aklen (FRLANT n.s. 31; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1933); Francis Dvomik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 4; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958); Fran~ois Bovon, "La vie des apotres: Traditions bibliques et narrations apocryphes," in Fran~ois Bovon, ed., Les Actes apocryphes des Apotres: Christianisme et monde pai"en (Publications de Ia faculte de theologie de l'Universite de Geneve 4; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1981) 141-58. 51 Cor 15:5-8; cf. 2 Cor 12:3-5; Gal 1:16.

178

I

DENNIS R. MACDONALD

6Acts of Peter 35 (Martyrdom 6), Acts of Paul 10 (P. Ham. 1-8). 7 Acts of John 113, Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2.257. 8 For an excellent treatment of the role of such christophanic esoterica see M. Homshuh, in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2.74-87. 9Apud Eusebius, HE 2.1.4 (LCL translatioo). lODennis R. MacDonald, "A Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor 15:31-32: Or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight," HTR 73 (1980) 265-76; idem, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983) 21-23; and idem, "The Role of Women in the Production of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles," Iliff Review 40 (1984) 21-28. 1 1 Th~ Revolt of the Widows: The Social World of the Apocryphal Acts (Carbondale: Southern illinois University Press, 1980). 12MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle. 13 chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stories of Apocryphal Acts (Studies in Women and Religion 23; Lewiston/Queenston: Edwin Mellen, 1987). See also the discussion between Burrus and Jean-Daniel Kaestli in Semeia 38 (1986) 101-35. 14The text appears in a fragment of a commentary on Matthew by Apollinaris of Laodicea, preserved in a catena. For the most recent edition, see Josef Kiirzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Eichstatter Materialien 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1983) frag. 5, pp. 104-5. Earlier collelctions of fragments of Papias number the text differently: in Funk-Bihlrneyer-Schneemelcher, frag. 3; in Preuschen, frag. 16. 15Epiphanius, Pan. 30.16, citing The Ascents of James. 16:rrenaeus, Adv. haer. 3.3 (ANF); also cited in Eusebius, HE 3.28.6. 17 The fragment is preserved in the Adumbrationes in epistolas canonicas: In Epistola /ohannis Prima. See Gustav Stlihlin, Clemens Alexandrinus (GCS 12, 15, 17, 39; 4 vols; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1905-36) 3.210, 12-15; translated in HenneckeSchneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2.189. 18Junod and Kaestli, L'histoire, 13-21. 19Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.63.3, translated in Hennecke-Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, 2.50. 20The pericope is paralleled in Matt 10:17-22a; Luke 21:12-19. 21John 21:18!r19; cf. 2 Pet 1:14 and Tertullian, Scorp. 15.3. 22 John 21 :20-23; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Quis dives salvetur 42.2, and Tertullian, De anima 50. See Jean-Daniel Kaestli, "Le role des textes bibliques dans la genese et le development des legends apocryphes: Le cas du sort fmal de l'apBtre Jean," Augustinianum 23 (1983) 319-36. 23 cf. Acts 4:5-22; 5:27-42; 17:5-9; 18:12-17; 19:28-41; 22:3-29; 22:3023:10; 24:1-23; and 25:23-26:32. 241 Clem. 5.2-7 [LCL]; cf. Dionysius of Corinth apud Eusebius, HE 2.25.6. 25Apud Eusebius, HE 2.9.3 (LCL). 26HE 2.23.15-18 (LCL). 27 According to Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.71.3. 28cf., e.g., Polycrates [secood century] apud Eusebius, HE 5.24.2-3. 29Eusebius, HE 5.24.2-3.

LEGENDS OF THE APOSTLES

I

179

30HE 3.1 [LCL]. Eusebius also appealed to sources other than Origen for apostolic information: Oement of Alexandria (esp. his now lost Hypotyposes (HE 2.1, 8, 15, and 23]), Irenaeus (3.28), Hegesippus (2.23 and 3.11 and 20), and, of course, the New Testament. He also treated with credulity alleged correspondence between Jesus and King Abgar of "the nations beyond the Euphrates," which sent Thaddaeus, Thomas' associate, to evangelize the region (HE 1.12-13). [On this correspondence, see the essay by Prof. Brock in this collection.] 31 So Eric Junod, "Origene, Eusebe et la tradition sur la repartition des champs de mission des apotres (Eusebe, HE ill,l,l-3)," in Fran~ois Bovon, ed., Les Actes apocryphes des apotres, 233-48. 32Albrecht Dible, "Neues zur Thomas-Tradition," lAC 6 (1965) 54--70. 33 The Acts of John by Prochorus does so, but the author seems not to have known the second-century Acts of John. 34several ecclesiastical documents placed the city of the cannibals in Scythia: Recensio Vaticana (a Latin poem retelling the cannibal story), the Anglo-Saxon poem Andreas which is based on The Acts of Andrew and Matthias, Epiphanius the Monk, Nicephorus Callistus, Pseudo-Epiphanius, and Pseudo-Hippolytus.

180

I

DENNIS R. MACDONALD

II Lbe gropa[ are is not specified in this letter, we know from both earlier and later sources that it would have included an offering of bread and wine and possibly other sorts of gifts as well. An earlier account (though not from Rome) of Christian liturgy is given in the Didache where bread, wine, and other food are mentioned (Did. 9 and 10); the Christian liturgy is described as a sacrifice in Didache 14. Justin Martyr in Rome in the middle of the second century describes the offering as bread and wine mixed with water (1 Apol. 65). l5Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition (Rome, ca. 200 CE), is perhaps the most important source for liturgical practices in the West (see below). Ignatius also provides a picture of the presbyters gathered around the bishop (Trail. 3.2-3; cf. Magn. 6). 16This assumption fits facts observed in other early Christian literature. Paul (Phil 1:1) mentions only bishops and deacons as does Didache 15. In both cases it is the priestly liturgical function being addressed. In Paul's case the collection spoken of in the letter would have been accomplished at the liturgical gatherings. The language used there204

I

CHARLES A. BOBERTZ

"I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God" (Phil 4: 18)--is certainly liturgical and is echoed in a later liturgical prayer of Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition (oa~r)V £vw8(as-, Ap. Trad. 3.5). Ultimately such language was dependent upon the Septuagint (Gen 8:21; Exod 29:18; Lev 1:9, 13, 17, etc.) and demonstrates its profound influence in the developing patterns of early Christian liturgy. Thus Paul's commendation of liturgical leaders, bishops, and deacons shows the continuity and development from his time (ca. 50 CE) to the time of 1 Clement. So also the reference to selecting bishops and deacons in Didache 15 follows directly the description of the liturgical cult: "On the Lord's Day of the Lord break bread and give thanks, having confessed your sins so that your sacrifice [6ucr(a] may be pure" (Did. 14.1 ). Since bishops were in fact presbyters acting in a specific priestly role, to mention them explicitly in the liturgical context presented in these cases would be redundant. In the West, even as late as the mid third century, bishops were also always considered to be presbyters. Moreover, the priestly and cultic connotations of the title "bishop" were never forgotten: the Latin word for priest, sacerdos, could always be translated simply as "bishop." See my "Cyprian of Carthage," IO!ff. 17 It is obvious from the last sentence that presbyters are the ones who also function as bishops, i.e., that the role of bishop is specifically the liturgical and priestly role filled by the presbyters at this early date. 18 In what follows I use PG 6.428-29. The word Justin uses here is rrpo£crnis-. It literally means "the one who presides," but in this case it is undoubtedly Justin's term for bishop. Justin no doubt uses it in order to make sense to a non-Christian audience. !9The reference is unclear, but most likely the prayers referred to are the prayers of offering the "gifts" to God. 20 In Justin's description one notices immediately the lack •of reference to presbyters, from this point on in the history of Christianity in the West an increasingly common omission. For the priestly role of the presbyter was being assumed in the ascendancy of the bishop as the priest of the community. 21The implication is that this food has become the "flesh and blood" of Jesus Christ and thus becomes ritual participation in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. This may have been awkward for Justin to explain to his Roman audience, for the Greek here is deliberately ambiguous in describing Christians as eating the flesh and blood of Jesus in this ritual. 22 so also the bishop's prerogative to function as priest in the cultic assembly brought with it the authority to teach at that same assembly. For Justin describes the bishop as orally providing the warning and challenge to imitate the good things they have heard in the reading of the scriptures in the assembled community. This is, in fact, our first indication of the bishop's authority as priest broadening to include the important function of teacher. 23 1 Apol. 67.7. For a still unsurpassed description of the comprehensive nature of early Christian charitable activities, see Adolf von Harnack, The Miss ion and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (trans. James Moffet; Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1972, reprint of 1908 ed.) 147-98. Among the provisions discussed there are the support of orphans and widows, the support of the sick, infirm, and disabled, the care of the poor needing burial, and the cult of the dead in general. See also Hatch, Organization, 42-47. 24 A third-century source from Syria reminds us that the situation was not all that different in the eastern part of the empire: "And hold not aloof from the church but when thou hast received the Eucharist of the oblation, that which comes into thy hands cast in TilE DEVELOPMENT OF EPISCOPAL ORDER

I 205

that thou may sharest with strangers; for this is collected and brought to the bishop for the entertainment of all strangers" (Didascalia 9; trans. R. H. Connolly, Didascalia Apostolorum: The Syriac Version Translated and Accompanied by the Verona Latin Fragments [Oxford: Clarendon, 1929] 100). See also Frank Edward Brightman, "Terms of Communion and the Ministration of the Sacraments in Early Times," in Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry, 313-408. 25The text under discussion is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus. Chaps. 2729 describe the cena dominica. The text used is the Latin of E. Hauler, ed., Didascalia Apostolorum Fragmenla Veronesia Latina (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900) reproduced with commentary in both B. Botte, La tradition aposlolique de Saint Hippolyle: Essai de reconstitution (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1963) and Gregory Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolylus of Rome (London: SPCK, 1968). I follow the chapter order of Botte. The text can be fairly placed and dated: Rome around the turn of the second to the third century. The attribution to Hippolytus is reasonable and generally accepted. For the debate see C. Jones, ed., The Study of the Liturgy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978) 57-58. 26 cf. 1 Cor 11:17-34; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.1; Minucius Felix, Octavius 31.1; Tertullian, Apologia 39.16; Ignatius, Smyrn. 8:1-2; Jude 12. These meals were also part of the problem mentioned in Pliny's famous letter to Trajan (Ep. 10.97.7). For a full discussion of the relevant Christian sources see A. Hanunan, Vie liturgique el vie sociale (Paris: Desclee, 1968) 151ff. 2? Ap. Trad. 29. 28In the East this is clear already in the early second century. Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch in Syria, wants to make this rule quite clear: "It is not permitted to baptize or hold an 'agape' [Lord's Supper] without the bishop" (Smyrn. 8.2). See W. Telfer, The Office of a Bishop (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1962) 166. 29such language, of course, ties in clearly with what we have observed in the case of 1 Clement. All three orders of clergy are considered to be of priestly status (high priest, priests, and Levites) and able to perform priestly functions. The difference here is that the prerogative of fulfilling the role of priest within the cult falls squarely with the bishop. It is ouly in his absence that presbyters and deacons may serve the cult. 30It is also evident in this text, as in the case of Justin's description, that it is the bishop alone who exercises the right to teach within the context of the cultic setting: "When they eat, therefore, let those who are invited partake in silence, not striving after words, but the things the bishop exhorts. But if one asks something, let him be answered, and when the bishop speaks the word, let all be silent, praising him modestly until he should again be questioned" (Ap. Trad. 28). 3 1See, for example, Tertullian, De pudicilia (PL 2.1023-26). 3 2 This prayer is a curious mix of NT texts-John 20:22-23 (dimillere peccala); Matt 16:19 and 18:18 (dare sorles; solvere eliam omnem colligationem); Eph 5:2 and Phil 4:18 (odorem suavitalis)-which are themselves profoundly influenced by the Septuagint, especially Leviticus (cf. John 20:22-23 with Lev 4:20; 5:6; 19:22; Matt 16:18; 18:18 with Lev 16:8-10; Eph 5:2 and Phil 4:18 with Lev 1:9; 2:9; 3:5; 4:31; etc.). The liturgical origins of the NT texts themselves cannot be treated here. 33Tertullian provides much of our information about the affairs of the church in the Roman West in the first twenty years of the third century. Originally a member of the catholic Christian community in Carthage, he at some point decided to leave that church

206

I

CHARLES A. BOBERTZ

and embrace the teachings of a schismatic movement called Montanism, a Christian sect begun by a certain Montanus in Asia Minor sometime after the middle of the second century. Montanists were especially concerned with a renewal of apocalyptic prophecy heralding the imminent reign of God on earth with his Montanist saints, and with asceticism (hence Tertullian's negative comments about forgiveness of fornication and adultery). They carried their movement to North Africa in the latter part of the second century. The exact date of Tertullian's "conversion" to the sect is difficult to ascertain. See T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 247, and "Tertullian's Scorpiace," ITS n.s. 20 (1969) 104-32. W. H. C. Frend provides a summary of current scholarly debate over the origins of Montanisrn in The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 253-56. 34 As the capital of the western Roman province of North Africa, Carthage was, at the side of Rome, the other great center of Christianity in the Latin West. The Christian community there, for reasons of geography, language, and heritage (the church in Carthage may have been founded by the church in Rome, or vice versa; scholars continue to debate the issue), was traditionally linked to the church in Rome. The Christians in Carthage may have always been primarily Latin speaking and by the beginning of the third century the Roman church was changing over to Latin as well. Most of our information about this transformation, as well as other issues affecting the Christian church in the western Roman provinces in the third century, comes from Christians who belonged to these two great churches. On the transformation from Greek to Latin language among Christians in the West, see Christine Mohrmann, "Les origines de la latinite chretienne a Rome," VC 3 (1949) 67-106, 163-83. 35For De pudicitia I cite PL 2.979-1030. 36Even before his conversion to Montanisrn, Tertullian was uniquely concerned that any hint of what he considered to be sexual immorality not taint the ascetic purity of the church (cf. his Ad uxorem, De monogamia, and De exhortatione castitatis). 37see Eusebius, HE 4.23.6; 5.28.8-12; 6.44; Didascalia 2.18; Origen, Homily on Leviticus 2.4. There is an extensive scholarly discussion on the subject of penitential discipline in the early church. A few of the more important are Bernard Poschrnann, Paenitentia Secunda: Die kirchliche Busse im Altes/en Christen/urn bis Cyprian und Origenes (Bonn: Hanstein, 1940); John Taylor, "St. Cyprian and the Reconciliation of Apostates," ITS n.s. 3 (1952) 27-46; Wolfgang Nauck, "Probleme des friihchristlichen Amtsverstii.ndnis," ZNW 48 (1957) 200-20. 3 8cyprian often appealed to the precedents of episcopal decisions made in the past, especially those of general councils of bishops, a practice which seems to have begun in the third century in Africa. For further discussion, see G. W. Clarke, The Lel/ers of St. Cyprian of Carthage (4 vols.; ACW 43, 44, 46, 47; New York: Newman Press, 198488) 1.158-59. 39The discussions of the procedure of episcopal elections in the third century and earlier are numerous. See my "Cyprian of Carthage," 124 n. 84 for bibliography. The discussion of the Cyprianic evidence centers on what influence each of three groups involved in the election had in the nomination and election of the new bishop: neighboring bishops, local clergy, and the laity (cf. Ep. 55.8 [629, 21ff. ed. Hartel]). The crucial passages which support the conclusion that the primary role in the election belonged to the laity are chap. 5 of the Vita Cypriani and Ep. 67.3: "The laity, obedient to the dominical precepts and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate (praepositus] and not associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest THE DEVELOPMENf OF EPISCOPAL ORDER

I 207

[sacrilegi sacerdotis]. especially since they have the power either of electing [elegendi] worthy priests [dignos sacerdotes; note the plural] or of refusing unworthy ones [indignos]" (Ep. 67.[737, 20ff.]; cf. Ep. 65). The most telling evidence for the principal role of the people in Cyprian's election is that he was able to assume the office even though a majority (five) of the presbyters in Carthage opposed him. See Claike, Letters, 1.39-44. Origen (Hom. in Num. 13.4) also depicts the central role of the laity: "If, therefore, such a one as Moses gives not his judgement in choosing a leader of the people in appointing a successor, what man would be he who dares to do so? Whether of the people who are always accustomed to be moved by shouts for favor or perhaps excited for money, or of the priests themselves, who will there be who would judge himself equal to the task, except only him to whom through prayers and petitions it is revealed by God" (trans. Everett Ferguson, "Origen and the Election of Bishops," CH 43 [1974] 26-33). Cf. Eusebius, HE 6.29.2-4. 4°For a full discussion of this point, see Claike, Letters, 1.39-44. 41 This would include those who chose to sacrifice to the Roman gods in order to escape punishment for being Christian, or alternatively, the purchase of a so-called libel/us, a document accepted by the government which stated that the person had sacrificed to the Roman gods. In both cases the offenders were called lapsi (those who had left the church). For further discussion and references, see my "Cyprian of Carthage," 175243. 42 They based this claim partly on the fact that several confessors and martyrs had joined their group. Their "merits" (accrued because of their suffering for the faith) allowed the rebel faction to proclaim forgiveness to those who would join their "church." In conjunction with this forgiveness, they also claimed to offer proper and valid Christian sacrifice. Cyprian is careful to pay attention to both aspects of their claim. For further discussion, see my "Cyprian of Carthage," 224-42. 43 Chapter and line numbers refer to the edition by M. Simonetti, Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, pars II (CChrL; Tumhout: Brepols, 1976). 4 4The cheese and olives of Hippolytus' Ap. Trad. 6 would be a reference to this. See George Huntston Williams, "The Role of the Layman in the Ancient Church," GRBS 1 (1958) 9-31. Cf. Maik 7:11; Lev 2:1, 4, 12, 13. 45 Interestingly, Josephus (Ant. 4.4.3-4 § 67-75) links the use of the term KOp~dv and the sum of money which must be paid to the priesthood for redemption of vows in various cases. 46 A tutor was specifically charged with the management of property bequeathed to descendants of someone deceased. A curator usually had more specific duties, e.g., looking after a ward of the estate. See Clarke, Letters, 1.151-55. 47 The letters of Cyprian are cited according to the edition by Hartel (1868): letter, paragraph, page, and line(s). 48 Th is is clearly indicated, for example, in his letters from exile. Cf. esp. Eps. 5, 7, 13, 34 and note particularly Ep. 41.2 (588, 14): stipendia eius episcopo dispensante perciperent. I comment extensively on this aspect of Cyprian's role as bishop in my "Cyprian of Carthage," 130-223. 49In Ep. 39 Celerinus and Aurelius were promoted by Cyprian to the office of reader, soon to be moved into the presbyterate: "What's more, you should know that we have given them [designasse] the honor of presbyters and they are to be honored with the

208

I CHARLES A. BOBERTZ

gifts along with the presbyters and are to share equally in the monthly salary" (39.5 [584, 25ff.]). 50cf. Ep. 34.4 (571, 1-4); the subdeacons Philurnenus and Fortunatus along with the acolyte Favorinus are asked to "refrain from the monthly allotment [divisione mensurna] for a time" (cf. Ep. 39.5 [585, 1-2]). This must be the same procedure found in Tertullian, Apology 39.5-6: "Even if there is some sort of common chest [arcae], it is not collected from payments for office [honoraria summa] as if it is religion for a price. Each one puts in a small amount on one day of the month [menstrua die], or whenever he wishes and wants to and is able. For no one is compelled, but each offers voluntarily. These funds are like deposits of piety. For they are not spent on suppers, or drinking parties or thankless eating houses, but for the support and burial of the poor and for boys and girls who lack property and parents and for elderly servants. So also the money is spent on the shipwrecked and if there are any condemned to the mines or the islands or in prisons (provided it is for the sake of God's sect), for pupils of their confession are created." The context for the monthly offerings is not provided in either text. It is most probable, however, that it was the community's liturgy wherein the gifts would be dedicated to God. Cf. Jean Colson, Les fonctions eccUsiales aux deux premiers siecles (Paris: Desclee, 1956)

178.

51 This was also true of the deacons, whose place as priests within the cult was always clear enough. In fact, it is surprising how many times deacons became bishops in the early church, a phenomenon I would attribute to their clearly defined status as priests within the sacrificial cult (note that, in the three earliest sources we have, it is bishops and deacons who are mentioned together; Phil 1:1; Did. 15; and 1 Clem. 42.4); the episcopate was simply a change of venue in relation to the altar. It is instructive to cite the Didascalia (Syria, third century) on this point: "But let the portion of the pastor be separated and set apart for him according to the rule at the suppers or the bounties [in agapis et erogationibus], even though he be not present, in honor of almighty God. But how much[soever] is given to one of the widows, let the double be given to each of the deacons in honor of Christ, but twice this much again to the leader for the glory of the almighty. But if any one wish to honor the presbyters also, let him give them a double [portion], like the deacons [i.e., in relation to the widows]; for they ought to be honored as the apostles, and as the counsellors of the bishop, and as the crown of the church; for they are the moderators and councillors of the church. But if there be also a lector, let him too receive with the presbyters. To every order, therefore, let every one of the laity pay the honor which is befitting him, with gifts and presents and with the respect due to his worldly condition" (Didasc. 2.28.2-5, ed. Funk; I have slightly modified the translation of Connolly, Didasc., 88-90). One notes that the bishops and deacons are mentioned first (along with the widows) as receiving payment out of obligation. The presbyters, on the other hand, receive remuneration only if someone wishes to honor them. While the roles of bishop and deacon go unexplained (and therefore are common knowledge), the role of presbyter has to be spelled out, as if to justify one who would choose to honor them. Hence it was the presbyters, at one time also functioning as bishops, who lost out when the role of bishop became synonymous with one man. They retained their priestly prerogatives (they could and did serve the sacrificial cult), but in a role that was no longer clearly understood and, with the bishop's control in so many matters, less necessary. For a collection of the texts and commentary upon the role of deacon, see A. Hamman, Vie liturgique et vie sociale, 93ff.

TilE DEVEWPMENf OF EPISCOPAL ORDER

I 209

52see esp. Eps. 15-17 and 41-43. For discussion, see my "Cyprian of Carthage," 130-223. 53 Maurice Bevenot (ed. and trans., St. Cyprian: The Lapsed and The Unity of the Catholic Church [Westminster: Newman, 1957] 26) provides a misleading translation of the Latin here, obscuring the reference to the bishop as priest and the exclusion of the clergy in the formula of reconciliation: "without making expiation of their sins or any open acknowledgement of their guilt, before their conscience has been purified by sacrifice offered by the priest or by imposition of hands." The Latin reads: ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante pergatam conscientiam_sacrificio et manu sacerdotis (my emphasis). 54 For a discussion of the historical context of this treatise, se my "The Historical Context of Cyprian's De Unitate," JTS n.s. 41 (1990) 107-11. 55I cite the edition of M. Bevenot, Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, pars I (CChrL; Turnhout: Brepols, 1972). 56 All of this, of course, returns us to the language of 1 Clement, where the apostles received the priestly prerogatives from Christ and "preaching in the countryside and cities, established their first sacrifices among the bishops and deacons, having been tested in the spirit, of those who were to believe in the future" (42.4). 5 7 Cyprian's letters from exile show that the presbyters were accustomed to performing the sacrifices on their own, see, e.g., Eps. 5.2 (479, 14-15); 15.1 (514, 12); 17.2 (522, 5-7). The issue, of course, is whether or not they are in agreement with the high priestly power of the bishop when they act in their traditional role as priests. 5 8The idealization of the Temple and its cult found a place in rabbinic writings very soon after its destruction (m. M iddoth, ca. 150 CE), partly out of memory and partly out of anticipation of restoration. [On this subject, see the essay in this collection by Alan Avery-Peck. Eds.] 59Leon, Jews, 192. 60For what follows, I rely on the inscriptions and discussion of Leon, Jews, 16794; 264-346. 61 In retrospect it is easy to point out that the Christians misread the text of Malachi: it is really denouncing the improper performance of the necessary sacrificial cult (there are those who "cheat" on their obligations by bringing sick and lame animals for their offering). What is more interesting is that most Christians, including many intellectuals and leaders, never read Malachi as a whole. Rather, they relied on a written tradition of texts selected from the Septuagint for the purposes of supporting Christian morality and polemic. The effect of the use of these scripture compendia needs further study. See J. P. Audet, "L'hypothese des testimonia," RB 70 (1963) 381-405; J. L. Marshall, "Some Observations on Justin Martyr's Use of Testimonies," StudPatr 16 (1985) 197-200; Albert C. Sundberg, "On Testimonies," NovT 3 (1959) 268-81; the classic work and beginning point for any discussion is James Rende! Harris, Testimonies (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1916). 62Probably written ca. 160; the Dialogue with Trypho records a polemical conversation which Justin had with a learned Jew (perhaps Rabbi Tarphon of the Mishna). 63Dial. 116; PG 6.745. 64 Also in chap. 41 Justin uses this text from Malachi, obviously from a compendium prepared for Christian polemic against the Jews, to argue for the superiority of the Christian cult vis-a-vis Judaism: "And concerning those sacrifices [6oo[wv] offered

210

I CHARLES A. BOBERTZ

by you at that time, God says through Malachi (one of the twelve, as I mentioned previously), 'I take no delight in you says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice [Oucr[av] from your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name has been glorified among the nations, and in every place incense [ 6U1J.[a1J.a) is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord. But you profane it' [Mal 1:10-12]. Now this concerns the sacrifices offered to him in every place by us gentiles, these are the bread of the Eucharist and likewise the cup of the Eucharist. As he predicted then, we glorify his name but you have profaned it" (PG 6.563). 65Dial. 117. The exact reference for this claim of Justin is puzzling, for it appears in the text to be a quotation: "prayers and thanksgivings, when they are from worthy men, are perfect and delightful sacrifices to God." Such ideas are found in our text of the Septuagint (Pss 49:14; 107:22; 115:17) but as far as I can ascertain, this appears to be a development of Christian polemic against the Jews, combining, as it were, ideas from the Psalms and the text of Malachi (quoted above). 66 PL 1.1286-87.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF EPISCOPAL ORDER

I 211

7

Eusebius and Syriac Christianity SEBASTIAN BROCK

At the outset it is necessary to recall that Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is essentially a history of the Christian church within the bounds of "our olKOtJ!iEV11.'' i.e., the Roman Empire. Since the Christianized Roman Empire served for Eusebius as an dKwv of the Kingdom of God, what lay outside the empire was a potential source of detriment and danger, and it is significant that in his only reference to "the land of the Persians" (HE 7.31.2) he speaks of it as a place from which "deadly poison" comes (he is referring to the teaching of Mani). This model set by Eusebius, whereby "Church History" is limited to the history of the church within the Roman Empire, has had an insidious effect on almost all subsequent histories of the early church down to modem times, for these normally leave the reader with the impression that Christianity was essentially a phenomenon restricted to the Graeco-Latin cultural world, once it had broken loose of its Jewish roots. The all-pervasive influence of Eusebius has meant that the existence of a third cultural tradition, represented by Syriac Christianity, has consistently been neglected or marginalized by church historians, both ancient and modem. Eusebius is indeed aware of the existence of Syriac-speaking Christian communities in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, but these, with the one exception discussed below, are of very peripheral interest to him. As for Syriac Christianity beyond the eastern boundaries of the Roman Empire, that is, within the Persian, or Sassanid, Empire (approximately modem Iraq and Iran), he has not a single word to say, even though Christianity was certainly already well established there by his time (however unclear the details may be). In the following pages our concern will primarily be with Eusebius' sole detailed reference to Syriac Christianity, centered around the alleged 212

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

correspondence between Abgar Ukkama ("the Black"), king ofEdessa (Syriac Urhay, modem Urfa in southeast Turkey), and Jesus. Mter looking at this and the parallel account in the early fifth-century Syriac work known as the Teaching of Addai (Doctrina Addai), we shall need to consider briefly the other scanty evidence available for the early history of Syriac Christianity prior to the fourth century; only then will it be possible to assess what, if any, historical value Eusebius' account may have. Eusebius' narrative concerning King Abgar appears right at the end of Book 1 of his Ecclesiastical History (1.13). First of all he gives a general account (1.13.1-5) of how Abgar, having heard of Jesus' healings, sent a letter "asking to find relief from his disease." Jesus sent a letter in reply, promising to send one of his disciples. In due course, after the resurrection the apostle Thomas sends Thaddaeus, one of the seventy, to preach in Edessa. Eusebius then names as his source for all this a Syriac document kept in the archives of Edessa. From this document he then provides a translation of the two letters, from Abgar to Jesus (1.13.6-9), and from Jesus to Abgar (1.13.10). Following these two documents he gives an extended narrative extract from his Syriac source, recounting Thaddaeus' arrival and preaching in Edessa (1.13.11-22). Subsequently, in HE 2.1.6-7, Eusebius provides a retrospective summary of his earlier account; since, however, this adds no new material, discussion below will be confined to the longer passage in 1.13. Eusebius' claim to have used a Syriac document from Edessa can be accepted, though it is improbable that it was kept in the town's archives, and unlikely that he himself made the translation into Greek. This Syriac document from which Eusebius quotes in fact survives, albeit in a later and somewhat expanded form, incorporated into a much longer work known as the Teaching of Addai (where Addai is the same person as Eusebius' Thaddaeus). The Syriac Teaching of Addai is preserved in a manuscript of about 500 CE, and the work in its present form probably dates from the first decades of the fifth century. 1 The author of the Teaching of Addai evidently had access to the Syriac original underlying Eusebius' Greek, for his wording differs in a number of significant details from that of the early Syriac translation of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (which might otherwise have been supposed to have been the sole source of the relevant sections of the Teaching of Addai).Z Although the initial pages of the Teaching of Addai, where the account runs closely in parallel with Eusebius' account, can thus be taken back to some time prior to the publication of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 3 the remainder of the Teaching of Addai contains materials, some of which can only belong to the late fourth or early fifth century, while others are of indeterminate date.

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 213

The extent of the additional material in the Teaching of Addai can best be seen from a summary listing of the contents: (1) Introductory narrative, providing an account of how Abgar came to send a letter to Jesus at the hands of Ananias/Hannan 4 (trans. Phillips, pp. 1-3; trans. Howard, pp. 3-7); although the general tenor of this is implied by Eusebius' opening sections (HE 1.13.1-5), many new details have clearly been added. (2) The text of Abgar's letter (trans. Phillips, p. 4; trans. Howard, pp. 7-8); this is very close to Eusebius, with only minor differences in wording. (3) The text of Jesus' reply in the form of an oral message, not a written letter (trans. Phillips, pp. 4-5; trans. Howard, p. 9); 5 although in Eusebius this is given as a letter by Jesus himself, the wording of the contents is again very close in the two texts, except that the Teaching of Addai adds a blessing at the end for the city of Edessa. (4) A brief account of how Abgar's messenger, Hannan, painted Jesus' portrait and presented it to Abgar (trans. Phillips, p. 5; trans. Howard, pp. 9-11); this is absent from Eusebius. 6 (5) The narrative of Addai's arrival and healing of Abgar (trans. Phillips, pp. 5-10; trans. Howard, pp. 11-21); this corresponds very closely with Eusebius' narrative, with only some rather minor differences. (6) Addai tells the story of how Protonike, wife of Claudius, was converted by Simon Peter and went to Palestine where she discovers the true cross in Jerusalem (trans. Phillips, pp. 1016; trans. Howard, pp. 21-35); this is not to be found in Eusebius, and is clearly a later insertion, for it presupposes a Christian building on the site of Golgotha.? (7) Abgar arranges for Addai to preach to the whole city; his long sermon is then given (trans. Phillips, pp. 16-30; trans. Howard, pp. 35-63). Since Eusebius' narrative breaks off with the plans for Addai to preach to the whole city, it is likely that his source document also contained Addai's sermon; it is unfortunately not possible to say for certain whether the sermon in the Teaching of Addai preserves the original document intact, or whether it has altered and expanded it. If, however, the author of the Teaching of Addai continues here to follow the same practice as in the earlier sections, then it would seem likely that he would have kept

214

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

to his source fairly closely, though there is the possibility that he may have inserted some new material. The remainder of the Teaching of Addai has nothing corresponding in Eusebius' account, and is likely to be the work of the person who produced the Teaching in its present form, probably early in the fifth century. (8) Narrative concerning conversions of local nobles; Addai's church building and his ordinations; Abgar's correspondence with Narse, "king of the Athoraye (Assyrians)," concerning Addai (trans. Phillips, pp. 30-36; trans. Howard, pp. 63-75); (9) Abgar's correspondence with Tiberius, urging him to punish the Jews of Jerusalem for crucifying Jesus (trans. Phillips, pp. 36-38; trans. Howard, pp. 75-81);8 (10) Addai's illness and arrangements before his death (trans. Phillips, pp. 38-39; trans. Howard, p. 81); (11) Addai's final address to the nobles of Edessa (trans. Phillips, pp. 39-45; trans. Howard, pp. 83-95); (12) Addai's death and burial (trans. Phillips, pp. 45-47; trans. Howard, pp. 95-99); (13) his successor Aggai's ministry and martyrdom (trans. Phillips, pp. 47-50; trans. Howard, pp. 99-105); (14) the ordination of his successor Pa1ut by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, who in tum had been ordained (literally, "received the hand") by Zephyrinus of Rome, in the line of succession from Simon Peter (trans. Phillips, p. 50; trans. Howard, p. 105;9 (15) Lebubna is stated to be author of the account of Addai (trans. Phillips, p. 50; trans. Howard, pp. 105-7). Thus of these contents of the Teaching of Addai only (2), (3) and (5) correspond closely to material in Eusebius, and for these sections the two texts are translated in parallel below .10 The beginning and end of Eusebius' narrative also presuppose the general background of (1) and the existence of a sermon corresponding to (7) in the Teaching of Addai.

(a) Letter of Abgar to Jesusll Eusebius, HE 1.13.6-9

6. Abgar Ucharna, the toparch, to Jesus the good Saviour who has appeared in the district of Jerusalem, greeting! I have heard concerning you

Teaching of Addai

Abgar Ukkarna to Jesus the good Doctor who has appeared in the district of Jerusalem, my lord, greeting! I have heard concerning you

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 215

and your cures, how they are accomplished by you without drugs and herbs. For, as the story goes, you make the blind regain their sight, the lame to walk, and you cleanse lepers and cast out unclean spirits and demons, and you cure those tormented by long disease, and you raise the dead. 7. And when I heard all these things concerning you I decided that it is one of the two, either that you are God and came down from heaven to do these things, or are a son of God for doing these things. 8. For this reason I write to beg you to hasten to me and heal the suffering which I have. Moreover I have heard that the Jews are murmuring against you, and wish to illtreat you. 9. Now I have a city, very small and venerable which is enough for both.

(b) Jesus' reply to Abgar12 Eusebius, HE 1.13.10

10. Blessed are you who have believed in me, not having seen me, for it is written concerning me13 that those who have seen me will not believe in me, and that those who have not seen me will believe and live. Now concerning what you wrote to me to come to you, I must first complete here all for which I was sent, and after thus completing it, to be taken up to him

216

I

and your healing, that you are not healing drugs and herbs. with For by your word you open [the eyes of] the blind, you cause the lame to walk, and you cleanse lepers, and the dumb you cause to hear, and spirits and demons and the tormented by your very word you heal; even the dead you raise. And when I heard the wonderful great things which you are doing I decided either that you are God who came down from heaven and have done these things, or you are the Son of God who do all these things. For this reason I have written to beg you to come to me, as I worship you, and heal a certain sickness which I have, as I have believed in you. Moreover I have heard this too, that the Jews are murmuring against you and are persecuting you and even want to crucify you and are intent on harming you. small and Now I hold a city beautiful which is enough for both to live there in quiet.

Teaching of Addai

Blessed are you who, not having seen me, have believed in me, for it is written concerning me that those who see me will not believe in me, and those who do not see me will believe in me. Now concerning what you wrote to me that I should come to you: that concerning which I was sent here is henceforth completed, and I am going to ascend to my

SEBASTIANBROCK

who sent me, and when I have been taken up I will send you one of my disciples to heal your suffering and give life to you and those you.

(c) Narrative

Eusebius, HE 1.13.11-22

11. Now after Jesus had ascended Judas, who is also Thomas, sent to him Thaddaeus as an apostle being one of the Seventy And he came and stayed with Tobias, son of Tobias.

Now when news of him was heard, it was reported to Abgar

that an apostle of Jesus has come here, as he wrote to you.

12. So Thaddaeus began in the power of God to heal every disease and weakness so that all marvelled. And when Abgar heard the great and wonderful deeds that he doing, and how he was working cures he began to suspect that this was he of whom Jesus had written, saying, "When I have been taken up, I will send you one of my disciples who will heal your suffering." 13. So he summoned Tobias with whom Thaddaeus was

Father who sent me, and when I have ascended to him I will send you one of my disciples who will heal and restore the sickness you have, and everyone who is with you he with will convert to eternal life. And your town shall be blessed, and an enemy shall not have dominion over it ever again.14

Teaching of Addai

After Christ had ascended to heaven Judas Thomas sent to Abgar Addai the apostle who was one of the Seventy-Two IS apostles. And when Addai came to the town of Edessa, he stayed at the house of Tobia, son of Tobia, a Jew who was from Palestine.16 And when news of him was heard in all the town, there entered one of Abgar's nobles and he spoke about Addai-his name was cAbdu, son of cAbdu, one of Abgar's leading men who sat on bended knee: "Look, a messenger has come and stayed here, the one concerning whom Jesus sent (a message) to you, (saying), 'I am going to send you one of my disciples.""

And when Abgar heard these things and the mighty deeds which Addai was was doing, and the wonderful cures which he was effecting, he was of the firm opinion that "Truly, this is the man of whom Jesus had sent (a message), 'When I have ascended to heaven, I will send you one of my disciples."' Now Abgar sent and summoned Tobia

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I

217

staying, and said, "I hear that a certain man of power has come, and is staying in your house. Bring him up to me."

And Tobias came to Thaddaeus and said to him, "The toparch, Abgar, summoned me and bade me bring you to him in order to heal him." And Thaddaeus said, "I will go up since

and said to him, "I hear that a certain man of power has come and is staying in your house. Bring him up to me. Maybe there shall be found for me some good hope of healing from him."

And Tobia rose up early the next day and brought Addai the apostle, taking him up to Abgar, while Addai knew that "it is by the power of God that I have been sent to him."

I have been miraculously sent to him." 14. So Tobias rose up early the next day and taking Thaddaeus came to Abgar. Now as he went up, And when Addai had gone up and entered while the king's magnates Abgar's presence, with his nobles were standing present, as soon as standing by him, at his entrance he entered a great vision appeared to him a wonderful vision appeared to Abgar from the face of to Abgar on the face of the apostle Addai. And the moment Abgar Thaddaeus. And when Abgar saw that vision he fell down and did saw this he did reverence to Thaddaeus, and wonder reverence to Addai, and great wonder held all those who were standing in held all those who were standing by his presence, for they did not see for they had not seen the vision which had appeared to the vision which appeared only to Abgar. 15. Then he asked Thaddaeus, Abgar. Then Abgar said to Addai, "Are you of a truth the disciple "Are you of a truth a disciple of Jesus, of Jesus that man of valor, the Son of God, who sent to me the son of God who said to me 'I will send you one of my disciples 'I will send you one of my disciples who will heal you and give you life'?" for healing and for life'?" And Thaddaeus said, "Since you have Addai says to him, "Since you have had great faith in him who from the first had faith in him who sent me, for this reason I sent me to you, for this reason I was sent to you. And again, if was sent to you. And when again you believe in him, the request of you believe in him, everything that your heart shall be to you as you shall believe in shall be to you believe." you." 16. And Abgar said to him, "I have Abgar says to him, "I have such belief in him as to have such belief in him as to have wished to take force and wished to take me a force and go and destroy the Jews who crucified him, destroy the Jews who crucified him, had I not been prevented from this but I abstained from doing this

218

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

by the Roman Empire."

And Thaddaeus said, "Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father, and after fulfilling it has been taken up to the Father." 17. Abgar said to him, "I too have believed in him and in his Father." And Thaddaeus said, "For this cause I lay my hand on you in his name." And when he did this immediately he was healed from the disease 17 and the suffering which he had. 18. And Abgar wondered that just as he had heard concerning Jesus so he had in fact received through his disciple Thaddaeus who cured him without drugs and herbs, and not only him, but also Abdus the son of Abdus who had the gout; for he too came and fell at his feet and received his prayer at his hands, and was healed. And the same Thaddaeus healed many others of their fellow citizens, performing many wonderful deeds and preaching the word of God. 19. And after this Abgar said, "0 Thaddaeus, it is by the power of God that you do these things and we ourselves have wondered. But in addition to this, I beg you narrate to me concerning the coming of Jesus, how it happened, and concerning his power and by what power he did these

because of the Roman Empire and the covenant of peace which had been established by me with our lord Caesar, Tiberius, like my former ancestors." And Addai says to him, "Our Lord has fulfilled the will of his Father and having completed the will of his begetter, has been raised to his Father, and is seated with him in the glory in which he was from eternity." Abgar says to him, "I too believe in him and in his Father." And Addai says to him, "Because you have thus believed I lay my hand on you in the name of him in whom you have believed." And immediately he laid his hand on him he was healed from the harm of the disease which he had had for a long while. And Abgar was amazed and wondered that just as he had heard concerning Jesus, that he was performing and healing, so Addai too without drugs of any kind was healing in the name of Jesus, including cAbdu the son of cAbdu who had the gout in his feet. And he too proffered his feet, and he laid his hand on them and healed him, and he no longer had the gout. And also in the whole city he performed mighty healings, manifesting wondrous powers in it. Abgar says to him, "Now that everyone knows that it is by the power of Jesus Christ that you do these wonders and we ourselves have wondered at your works, I beg you, therefore, narrate to us concerning the coming of Christ, how it happened, and concerning his glorious power, and concerning the wonders which

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 219

things of which I have heard." 20. And Thaddaeus said, "I will now be silent, but since I was sent to preach the word, tomorrow summon for me an assembly all your citizens and I will preach before them, and sow in them the word of life, concerning the coming of Jesus, how it happened, and concerning his mission, and for what reason he was sent by the Father, and concerning his power and his deeds and the mysteries which he spoke in the world and by what power he did these things and concerning his new preaching and concerning his lowliness and humiliation, and how he humbled himself and put aside and made small IS his divinity, and was crucified and descended into Hades, and rent the partition which had not been rent from the beginning of the world, and raised the dead, and he went down alone, but ascended with a great multitude to his Father." 21. So Abgar commanded his citizens to assemble in the morning to hear the preaching of Thaddaeus, and after this he ordered him to be given gold and silver, but he did not receive it, saying, "If we have left our own things, how shall we take those of others?"

220

I

we have heard that he was doing, which you saw along with the rest of your companions." Addai says to him, "Of this I will not be silent from preaching, because for this reason I was sent here to speak and to teach everyone who is willing to believe like you. Tomorrow assemble for me all the of city and I will sow in it the word of life in the proclamation which I shall preach before you both concerning the coming of Christ, how it happened, and concerning his glorious power, and concerning his Sender, why and how he sent him, and concerning his power and his wonderful deeds and concerning the glorious mysteries of his coming which he spoke in the world and concerning the exactitude of his preaching, and he made himself small and humbled his exalted divinity in the body [var. humanity] which he had assumed and was crucified and descended to the place of the dead, and rent the partition which had never been rent, and revived the dead by his being killed, and he went down alone, but ascended with many to his glorious Father."

And Abgar ordered him to be given silver and gold. Addai says to him, "How can we take what is not ours, for our own things we have left, as we were commanded by our Lord, to be without purses and without wallets; rather, carrying crosses on our shoulders, we have been commanded to preach his gospel in

SEBASTIAN BROCK

22. These things were done in the 340th year.

all creation .... " [At the opening of the Teaching of Addai] In the 343rd year of the kingdom of the Greeks .... 19

What are we to make of this account? While no serious scholar would accept it at face value, there is the possibility that this legend (for such it must be classed) might contain some grains of historical value. On this point scholars generally fall into one of two camps: thus some consider the entire narrative to be a fabrication dating from about 300, while others prefer to see the narrative as reflecting the supposedly historical conversion of King Abgar VIII, "the Great," at the end of the second century, but transposed to Abgar V, "the Black," in order to take back the conversion of the royal house to apostolic times. The first view was propounded by W. Bauer in 1934, while the second was argued by F. C. Burkitt in his influential book Early Eastern Christianity (1904); subsequent scholars have generally followed either Bauer or Burkitt in their basic attitude to the account. 20 Here we need only note that Burkitt's interpretation assumes that Abgar VIII (Burkitt referred to him as Abgar IX),21 who reigned from ca. 177-212, did indeed convert to Christianity-something which is, as we shall see, far from certain. At this point, before proceeding any further in an attempt to assess the historical value, if any, of the story of Addai's mission in Edessa as recounted in the narrative common to Eusebius and the Teaching of Addai, it will be helpful to glance at the other surviving evidence for Syriac Christianity as a whole prior to the fourth century. It will rapidly become clear how very meager this evidence is: only with the Demonstrations of Aphrahat (composed in the Sassanid Empire between 337 and 345), the acts of the Christian martyrs under Shapur II (339-379), and the extensive corpus of prose and poetry by Ephrem (active until 363 in Nisibis, and thereafter in Edessa, until his death in 373), does Syriac Christianity at last emerge from obscurity. 22 All the evidence for the period prior to the fourth century is exceedingly limited, and usually of uncertain interpretation. The main witnesses for this early period, apart from the account of Addai's mission in Eusebius and the Teaching of Addai, are the following passages: (1) The Chronicle of Edessa, dating from the mid sixth century, opens with an account of a flood in Edessa in November 201 CE, during the reign of Abgar (VIII). 23 In the course of this narrative, which is certainly derived from the town archives, it is mentioned that the flood waters damaged "the sanctuary [haykla] of the church of the Christians." Although it has been suggested24 that the words are an interpolation, since there is no mention of EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 221

a Christian church in a similar account of a flood in the Chronicle of Ps.Dionysius of Telmahre,25 the passage should be accepted as original since the account in the other chronicle probably refers to another flood (the local river Daisan caused a number of serious floods until it was diverted round the town by Justinian in the mid sixth century). The only other references to Christianity prior to the fourth century in the Chronicle of Edessa are: (a) the expulsion of Marcion "from the catholic church" (without reference to Edessa) in 137/138 CE; and (b) the birth of Bardaisan on 11 July 154.26 Only with Bishop Qona's "laying the foundations of the church of Edessa" in 312/313 CE do references to the Christian history of Edessa become the norm. The silence concerning Addai and the conversion of Abgar in this important local source is significant. (2) In the course of his account of the Paschal controversy (ca. 190 CE) Eusebius has a passing reference to the presence, at a meeting in Palestine, of bishops "in Osrhoene and the cities there" (HE 5.23.4; the Syriac translation has "of the churches of Mesopotamia and the cities there"). Since, however, the words do not feature in Rufmus' Latin translation (made in 402/403), they could be an early interpolation into the extant Greek text of EusebiusP (3) The inscription of bishop Abercius of Phrygian Hierapolis (died ca. 200) describes in symbolic language his travels to Rome and to Nisibis, thus providing evidence for the existence of a Christian community in that town at the end of the second century; although it is likely he would have passed through Edessa, no mention is made of it. (4) The chronographer Julius African us, whose floruit belongs to the early decades of the third century, has two passages where mention is made of King Abgar (VIII), with whose court he was clearly very familiar: (a) In an excerpt on the subject of archery, derived from his Kestoi, 28 Julius Africanus mentions Abgar, his son Ma'nu, and Bardaisan "the Parthian." The passage shows that Bardaisan (whose skill at archery is praised) frequented Abgar's court, and that Julius Africanus was probably tutor to Ma'nu, and so would have known the royal family well. No mention of Christianity is found in the passage. (b) The Byzantine chronographer George Syncellus quotes Julius Africanus as describing Abgar (VIII) as tEpov dv8pa, "a holy man. " 29 This has often been taken as a reference to Abgar's conversion to Christianity, but this is by no means a necessary inference; indeed LEpov would be a rather surprising term to be used for a prominent convert.

222

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

(5) The Syriac Book of the Laws of the Countries, 30 composed in the early third century by a pupil of Bardaisan, contains the following passage (§ 45): In Syria and in Edessa people used to cut off their privy parts for Tarcata [Atargatis]; but when King Abgar believed, he gave orders that anyone who cut off his privy parts should have his hand cut off. And from that day until the present no one cuts off his privy parts in the region of Edessa.

On the surface this looks like a clear reference to Abgar's conversion (it is usually assumed that the Abgar in question is Abgar VIII), but the words "when he believed" are absent from Eusebius' quotation of the passage (PE 6.10.44); this means that it is very likely that they represent an interpolation in the Syriac text, made by some copyist familiar with the Teaching ofAddai (who would have identified the Abgar as Abgar V). In the next section (46) of the Book of the Laws of the Countries there is an important testimony to the extent to which Christianity had spread in the East: What should we say about the new family of us Christians, whom Christ established at his coming everywhere and in every region: we are called Christians after the single name of Christ, and we assemble on the same one day of Sunday, and on fixed days we abstain from food. Our brothers in Gallia [Gaul] do not take males as consorts, nor do those in Parthia marry two wives, nor are those in Judaea circumcised, nor do our sisters among the Geli and Cushans sleep with strangers; those in Persia do not marry their daughters, and those in Media do not run away from their dead, or bury people alive, or give them as food for dogs; and those in Edessa do not kill their wives or sisters who commit adultery, but they simply distance themselves from them, handing them over to the judgment of God; nor do those in Hatra stone to death thieves. In every place they happen to be, the local customs do not cause them to depart from the law of their Christ.

(6) Of the local Edessene martyr acts, two are entirely fictional: the Acts of Sharbel and the Acts of Bishop Barsamya 31 both claim to be contemporary accounts of events under Trajan and in the reign of "Abgar the Seventh," dated to September 104; in fact both texts are clearly from the same circles that produced the Teaching of Addai and belong to the early fifth century. Much more impressive for the historian are the Acts of Shmona and Gurya, martyred probably in 297, and of the deacon Habbib, martyred probably in 309.32 Although the two Acts in their present form present some problems, there is no serious doubt that these martyrdoms took place. It is significant that Ephrem knows of these three (Carmina EUSEBJUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 223

Nisibena 33:13), but nothing of Sharbel and Barsamya (or, for that matter, of Addai); likewise the calendar of martyrs preserved in a manuscript written in Edessa in November 411 includes only Shmona, Gurya, and Habbib as martyrs of Edessa.33 (7) One other source has often played an important part in the discussion of early Syriac Christianity, i.e., the Chronicle of Arbela.34 This work, available only in an early twentieth-century manuscript, purports to relate the history of Christianity in Arbela, capital of Adiabene, up to the mid sixth century; included in this is a (suspiciously) detailed account of the succession of bishops of Adiabene going back to Peqida "upon whom Addai the apostle personally laid hands." Some scholars have given credence to this account (notably P. Kahle in his influential book The Cairo Geniza) 3 5 and have gone on to suppose that Christianity reached Adiabene at an early date, as a result of the conversion of the Jewish ruling family, and that the Edessene Abgar legend really had its origin in Arbela and was only adapted to Edessa at a later date. The Chronicle of Arbela, however, which is the main basis for this speculative reconstruction, is a highly problematic text, and even if it turns out to be a medieval compilation rather than a modem forgery (as has been claimed),36 it is generally agreed now that its account of Christianity in the Parthian period (up to 226) is little more than wishful thinking; even for the account of the local fourth-century martyrs, for whom independent accounts survive, the evidence of the Chronicle proves unreliable. (8) Many other later sources, such as the Acts of Mari (a disciple of Addai) and the various later chronicles,37 offer information on the early spread of Syriac Christianity, but their evidence is either problematic or manifestly an elaboration of the Addai tradition. Account also needs to be taken of extant early Syriac literature, much of which has been connected with Edessa by modem scholars. It is, however, essential to remember that these connections which have been adduced with Edessa often rest not on any secure evidence, but solely on speculationspeculation, moreover, which has largely been invited by the assumption that the Abgar narrative contains an element of historicity. There is thus a clear danger here of circularity of argument. The only early texts for which an Edessene origin is assured are: (a) the account of the flood at Edessa in October 201, preserved in the Chronicle of Edessa; (b) the scant fragments of Bardaisan's works preserved by later polemicists from Ephrem onwards; and (c) the Book of the Laws of the Countries, from the School of Bardaisan. As we have seen, these are in fact the texts which provide the earliest unambiguous evidence for Christianity at Edessa (all belong to the early third century).

224

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

Other texts for which an Edessene origin is often posited, but without the support of any real evidence, are: the Peshitta Old Testament, the Diatessaron, the Old Syriac Gospels, the Odes of Solomon, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Acts of Thomas. Each of these may be considered briefly. The Peshitta Old Testament is of course not a unified work, and the origins of its various constituent parts remain extremely obscure. 38 All that can be said, on our present knowledge, is that an Edessene origin for at least some books is a possibility (but no more). Although the Syriac Diatessaron was the standard Gospel text in Edessa in the third quarter of the fourth century (assuming that Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron dates from his last years in Edessa), there is no evidence that it must also have been composed there. 39 Similarly, the Old Syriac Gospel text, preserved in two famous fifth-century manuscripts (the Curetonianus and Sinaiticus), was quoted occasionally by Ephrem in his Commentary on the Diatessaron, but again there is no positive evidence that this translation was made in Edessa: this is certainly a possibility-but nothing more than that. 4 0 As far as the Odes of Solomon are concerned, everything remains totally uncertain: they are variously dated by scholars, ranging from the late first to the late third century, and it is far from assured that their original language was Syriac (though this is the majority opinion at present). 41 In any case, the suggestion that Ode 6 alludes to the flood at Edessa in 201 is entirely misguided. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Book of Thomas the Contender, preserved in Coptic among the texts from Nag Hammadi, all display features which suggest a Syrian origin, or links with Syria. The only specific evidence which might point to Edessa is the use (in the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas) of the name "Judas Thomas," for this occurs in the narrative common to Eusebius (HE 1.13.11) and the Teaching ofAddai, and is otherwise only to be found in pre-fourth-century literature in the Acts of Thomas. It is very unlikely, however, that this double name was confined just to Edessa. 42 The Acts of Thomas, which are usually dated to the third century, may have been among the "certain texts pertaining to St. Thomas" which the western pilgrim Egeria states that she read at Edessa during her visit there in 384, and already in Ephrem's lifetime Edessa boasted the presence of the apostle's bones, brought there by a merchant from India (Carmina Nisibena 42: 1-2). But even though the Acts of Thomas may have been well known in Edessa in the fourth century, there is no real evidence that they were written there (Edessa certainly does not figure in its contents).

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I

22S

One last piece of evidence requires considering: that of the Syriac language itself. Syriac is nothing other than a literary dialect of Aramaic which possesses its own distinctive script. Early Syriac writers use a variety of terms to refer to the language, but besides the more general terms "Aramaya" (Aramaic) and "Suryaya" (Syriac), a third term stands out, "Urhaya," the dialect of Urhay/Edessa, or "Edessene (Aramaic)." The existence of this term must indicate that Syriac, which came to be adopted as the literary and cultural language of Aramaic-speaking Christians throughout the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire and over the border in the Sassanid Empire, started out as the local Aramaic dialect of Edessa. This consideration might then lead one on to claim that all the early Syriac texts enumerated above can, after all, validly be linked with Edessa. Such an assumption, however, is unwarranted, for we now know from pagan inscriptions of the first, second, and third centuries CE from the Edessa region, and from the Syriac document of sale written in Edessa in 243, that written Syriac underwent some dialectal changes between the epigraphic texts of the first to third centuries (termed "Proto-Syriac") and the standard Syriac common to all the literary texts which have come down to us. 43 In view of this epigraphic evidence it is likely that the few surviving literary texts written before ca. 300 have had their dialect "updated" to conform to the standard literary Syriac of the fourth century onwards; this means that we have no means of saying whether their original dialect was that of the early Edessene inscriptions ("Proto-Syriac"), or not 44 Conversely, neither can we claim that, because an early text such as the Acts of Thomas is in standard, or Edessene Syriac, that it must accordingly have originated from Edessa. The importance of the specification of standard Syriac as "Edessene" in fact lies elsewhere, for it provides us with clear evidence that, at the time when standard Syriac/Edessene emerged out of Proto-Syriac (perhaps by about 300) and became the literary language of Aramaic-speaking Christianity throughout the Middle East, Edessa must have been the most prominent Christian center in the whole area. We are now in a position to return to the narrative of Addai's mission common to Eusebius and the Teaching of Addai. The silence concerning Addai in all the early sources enumerated above is highly significant; in particular, had the document preserved in Eusebius and the Teaching of Addai really been kept in the archives of Edessa, it is inconceivable that use would not have been made of it by the Chronicle of Edessa, which definitely did draw on the town's archives. Equally telling is the silence of Ephrem, who spent the last ten years of his life in Edessa. 45 Outside Eusebius, the earliest mention of the legend is in the diary of Egeria (384; she in fact never mentions Addai, only Abgar and his emissary Ananias).

226

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

Though attractive at first sight, the attempt by Burkitt and others to rescue an element of historicity in the Addai legend by supposing that it reflected the conversion of Abgar VIII, rather than Abgar V, likewise runs into serious trouble, for the evidence for Abgar VIII's conversion also proves to be extremely flimsy: if we accept, as surely we must, that the words "when he believed" are an interpolation in the Book of the Laws of the Countries, then everything hangs on Julius Africanus' ambiguous description of Abgar VIII as "a holy man." Here again silence is significant: if Abgar VIII had really converted, Julius Mricanus (who, as we have seen, knew him personally) would certainly have mentioned this dramatic event in his Chronography in much clearer terms, and it is idle to suppose that such a mention simply happened not to be preserved among the surviving fragments of this work, for later Syriac chroniclers clearly drew on his work, and if any such passage had ever existed there, they would undoubtedly have taken it over into their own chronicles. Important too in this connection is the negative evidence of the coins of the kings of Edessa, none of which bear any hint of a Christian symbol; 46 similarly none of the funerary mosaics of the Edessene nobility, dating from the late second and the third centuries, offers any indication that Christianity had reached these families yet (one of these mosaics may even include a portrait of Abgar VIII). 47 In the light of the evidence set out above there seems to be no choice for the historian but to reject Eusebius' account of Thaddaeus' mission to Edessa as a legend without historical basis. We can only speculate on the reasons why it was invented and promoted (with immense success, as it turned out!). One quite likely suggestion is that early Christianity in Edessa covered a wide spectrum of groups, some of whom (such as the followers of Marcion and of Bardaisan) later came to be regarded as heretical; according to this view, members of the group which emerged in the late third and early fourth century as "orthodox" sought to promote their authority by circulating a narrative concerning Addai's mission to Edessa in order to provide themselves, not only with a respectable apostolic origin, but also with a direct link with Jesus himself. 48 Whether or not the promoters of the legend also intended to provide Christian counter-propaganda to early Manichaean missionary work 49 is hard to say: while it is possible that Addai of the legend was created to counterbalance the historical Addai/Adda, one of Mani's chief missionaries, it is also conceivable that Mani, who saw himself as the paraclete promised by Jesus (John 16:7), deliberately gave his own apostle the name of Addai in order to counter the Edessene legendary tradition (to which Mani would then be the earliest witness). When the Addai legend was taken up and expanded by the author of the Teaching of Addai, some slightly different interests can be discerned, two of which deserve mention here. First is the concern to establish a link with the EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I

2£7

see of Rome, which is achieved by the statement50 that Addai's second successor, Palut, was consecrated bishop by Serapion of Antioch (190/191211/212), who was in turn consecrated (a patent anachronism!) by Zephyrinus of Rome (198-217), whose priesthood went back to Simon Peter. Such a concern with the Petrine apostolic succession also finds expression in what must be a nearly contemporary letter by Pope Innocent I (402-417);5 1 its occurrence in an eastern writer from the patriarchate of Antioch must point to a date of composition for the Teaching of Addai after the reconciliation between Rome and Antioch, which took place during the episcopacy of Alexander of Antioch (acceded about 414).52 Exactly the same line of succession reappears at the end of the Acts of Barsamya. 53 A second special interest of the Teaching of Addai concerns the nobility of Edessa, several of whom are named as being the first converts to respond to Addai's preaching. 54 The appearance of exactly the same names in the legendary Acts of Sharbel and of Barsamya 55 suggests that all three documents in fact emanate from the same circles. Since several of these names appear on second- and third-century pagan inscriptions from the Edessa region, 56 and are rarely if ever found in Syriac sources of the fifth century and later, it may safely be deduced that the names are genuine names of ancestors of the people who produced the Teaching of Addai and the Acts of Sharbel and of Barsamya; what is not likely to be genuine, however, is their alleged conversion to Christianity. Since the Acts of Sharbel and of Barsamya both make use of motifs to be found in the Acts of Shmona and Gurya and those of Habbib, it looks as if the authors of the Acts of Sharbel and of Barsamya were seeking to promote the view that (a) their pagan ancestors had converted to Christianity at a much earlier date than was in fact the case, and that (b) the upper classes of Edessa had produced a martyr and a confessor long before the (historical) martyrdoms of Shmona, Gurya, and Habbib, who all came from surrounding villages. The first of these aims is clearly shared by the author of the Teaching of Addai. It emerges, then, that the Syriac document used by Eusebius and the expanded form of this document as it appears in the Teaching of Addai are both the products of tendentious propaganda. Standing a little over a century apart, their intentions are different, and this means that, when dealing with the Teaching of Addai, it is important to keep these two elements apart. It is of course disappointing to see our single detailed source of information about early Christianity in Edessa relegated to the realm of unhistorical legend, leaving us with only a few scattered hints concerning the early spread of Christianity in the area. We can only speculate about the date when Christianity first reached Edessa: a late first-century date is of course possible, but no satisfactory evidence for this survives; 57 all that can be said with certainty is that by the end of the second century Christianity 228

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

was well established in Edessa (probably in various forms), and that by the end of the third century it had spread to the surrounding villages. With the fourth century one particular form of Christianity emerges as "orthodox" and from that date on we become much better informed, since later generations were only concerned to transmit literature of this particular provenance.

Notes 1Edited, with English translation, by G. Phillips, The Doctrine of Addai, the Apostle (London: Triibner, 1876). A new translation, with Phillips' text reproduced, is given by George Howard, The Teaching of Addai (SBLTT 16, Early Christian Literature Series 4; Chico: Scholars, 1981). Several excerpts in fifth-century manuscripts survive besides the one complete manuscript in Leningrad; for the latter there is also a photographic edition by E. N. Mescerskaya, Legenda ob Avgare (Moscow: Akademiya Nauk SSSR. Institut Vostokovedeniya, 1984) 119-84. Papyrus fragments of what appear to be a Greek version survive, edited by R. Peppermiiller, "Griechische Papyrusfragmente der Doctrina Addai," VC 25 (1971) 289-301. There is also an expanded Armenian translation. See further H. J. W. Drijvers, "Abgarsage," in W. Schneemelcher, ed., NeuJestamentliche Apokryphen (5th ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1987) 389-96. A new edition of the Syriac text is being prepared by A. Desreumaux. For the date, see n. 52. 2This was in fact the opinion of E. Schwartz, "Zu Eusebius Kirchengeschichte: II, Zur Abgarlegende," ZNW 4 (1903) 64; for the view expressed here see also H. J. W. Drijvers, "Facts and Problems in Early Syriac-Speaking Christianity," The Second Century 2 (1982) 160; reprinted in idem, East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity (London: Variorum, 1984). The earliest surviving manuscript of the Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical History dates from 461/462 CE. 3This is usually thought to be 311 CE; thoughT. D. Barnes has argued for an earlier date (late 290s), he thinks the excerpt on Edessa may not have featured in the first edition; see his Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 128. 41n Eusebius he is described as a Taxu8p6110S', "courier" (likewise Egeria calls him a cursor), whereas the Teaching of Addai calls him an "archivist" (tabulara = tabularius). The source of the difference lies in a confusion between tabularius and tabellarius (to which Taxu8p61lOS' corresponds). 5 rt is possible that the Teaching of Addai preserves an older stage of the legend on this point; it is certainly surprising to find this in a document which must postdate the visit of Egeria (384), when she was given a copy of both letters. Further evidence that the two letters, and especially the second, were soon transmitted separately is provided by the five inscriptions of the fifth/sixth centuries (Edessa, Ephesus, Philippi, and two from the Pontus region), and by later texts on papyrus. Normally Eusebius' text is followed, but with the protective blessing added at the end (see n. 12). The most detailed study of the development of the literary transmission of the letters remains that by E. von Dobschiitz, "Der Briefwechsel zwischen Abgar und Jesus," ZWT 43 (1900) 422-86. 6 Although some have seen this as a deliberate omission by Eusebius (who is known to have held views hostile to the portrayal of Christ), it is more likely that this episode represents a later development. Subsequently the portrait was upgraded to an icon

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 229

"not painted by human hand," and eventually into the mandylion, transported to Constantinople in 944. This last has recently been identified, on no solid grounds, as the Turin Shroud: for a refutation of this see Averil Cameron, The Sceptic and the Shroud (London: King's College Inaugural Lecture, 1980); reprinted in her Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London: Variorum, 1982) chap. 5. The sixth-century developments are illuminatingly discussed by A. N. Palmer, "The Inauguration Anthem of Hagia Sophia in Edessa," Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988) 117-67, esp. 119-30. The relevant texts, accompanied by a fundamental study, are given by E. von Dobschiitz, Christusbilder: Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende (TU 18, n.F. 3; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899). 7 This story also exists independently in some later Syriac manuscripts; it is an early variant of the legend of the finding of the cross by Queen Helena, a narrative which first emerged at the end of the fourth century and which quickly took on many forms. 8 This is also found in an early Syriac form of the history of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary (W. Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents [London: Williams & Norgate, 1864; reprinted, Amsterdam: Oriental Press, 1967] 111), and elsewhere. 9For interest in the succession, see below. Palut is likely to be a historical person and, to judge by Ephrem's mention of him (Hymns against Heresies 22:5-6), he was at one time leader of the group which eventually emerged as the "orthodox" church in Edessa. 10The translation by Kirsopp Lake in the LCL has been slightly modified here and there in order to bring out material common with the Teaching of Addai. liThe following differences are the most notable: Eusebius may have added "toparch" and changed "Doctor" (a common title of Christ in early Syriac literature, e.g., Act. Thom. 143, and common in Ephrem) to "Savior" for the benefit of his Greek readers; on the other hand the Teaching of Addai adds to the anti-Jewish element. 12The most notable differences are at the end, where the Teaching of Addai adds the famous blessing. Most of the later Greek texts of the letter, whether literary, or in inscriptions and on papyri, contain the blessing (with various forms of wording). It may be deduced that a blessing had already been added by 384 when Egeria visited Edessa, for she noticed that the form of the letter with which she was already familiar at home (Spain?) was shorter than the text she read at Edessa; see P. Devos, "Egerie a Edesse: S. Thomas l'apotre, le roi Abgar," AnBoll 85 (1967) 381-400, esp. 397-99. By the mid sixth century the letter had been inscribed on the very walls of Edessa according to Procopius, History of the Wars 2.12.26 (this cannot be the surviving inscription from Edessa). 13Not biblical; evidently an anti-Jewish development based on John 20:29. 1 4 The word "again" may have in mind the events of 259/260 when Edessa was probably briefly in the hands of Shapur I after his capture of the emperor Valerian nearby. 15 The same variant, 10n2. occurs at Luke 10:1, 17, on which see B. M. Metzger, "Seventy or seventy-two disciples," in his Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish and Christian (NTIS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 67-76. 16 It is important to note that this is absent from Eusebius, for several scholars have used it as the basis for their hypothetical reconstruction of the earliest mission from Palestine to Edessa. See the entirely justified criticisms of J. C. L. Gibson, G. Quispel, L. W. Barnard, and others in H. J. W. Drijvers, "Jews and Christians at Edessa," JJS 36 (1985) 92.

230

I

SEBASTIAN BROCK

17Never specified in either text; later forms of the legend transfer 'Abdu's gout to Abgar, or offer other identifications. 18 This is language characteristic of much early Syriac theology, e.g., Od. Sol. 7:3, Act. Thorn. 80, and often in Ephrem. 19The Se1eucid era dates here represent 29 (probably) and 32 CE as the date of the Passion; several different dates for the Passion were current (a more commonly found one was 31). 20walter Bauer, Rechtgliiubigkeit und Ketzerei im iiltesten Christentum (BHT 10; Tiibingen: Mohr, 1934; 2d ed. 1963); ET: R. A. Kraft and G. Krodel, eds., Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971; London: SCM, 1972) chap. 1 (quoted below from the English edition). F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London: John Murray, 1904) chap. 1. Notable followers of Bauer's basic position are H. Koester, 'TNOM.A.I AI.A.ci>OPOI," HTR 58 (1965) 279-318, and H. J. W. Drijvers (in many studies); British and American scholars tend to follow Burkitt (who took his cue from R. A. Lipsius), notably H. E. W. Turner, Patterns of Christian Truth (London: Mowbray, 1954) 39-46, 85-94, and L. W. Barnard, "The Origins and Emergence of the Church in Edessa during the First Two Centuries A.D.," VC 22 (1968) 161-75 (both of which are unreliable on many points). Some recent variations of this second approach, none carrying conviction, are J. J. Gunther, "The Meaning and Origin of the Name 'Judas Thomas,"' Le Muse on 93 (1980) 113-48; E. Peretto, "II problema degli inizi del cristianesirno in Siria," Augustinianum 19 (1979) 197-214; and J. B. Segal, "When Did Christianity Come to Edessa?" in B. C. Bloomfield, ed., Middle Eastern Studies and Libraries: A Felicitation Volume for Professor J.D. Pearson (London: Mansell, 1980) 179-91. 21 0lder writers (and some more recent ones) refer to Abgar the Great as Abgar IX; the revision of Edessene chronology, made possible by the discovery at Dura Europos of a parchment deed of sale written in Edessa in 243 CE (P. Dura 28), shows that he should be called Abgar Vill: see A. R. Bellinger and C. B. Welles, "A Third-Century Contract of Sale from Edessa in Osrhoene," Yale Classical Studies 5 (1935) 93-154. 22For an excellent orientation see R. Murray, Symbols of Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), and idem, "The Characteristics of the Earliest Syriac Christianity," inN. G. Garsoi:an, T. F. Mathews, and R. W. Thomson, eds., East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982) 3-16. For Ephrem, S. P. Brock, The Luminous Eye: The Spiritual World Vision of St. Ephrem (Rome: Centre for Indian and InterReligious Studies, 1985). 23There are several editions, the most accessible being that of L. Hallier, Untersuchungen uber die Edessenische Chronik (TU 9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1892). An English translation of the passage will be found in J. B. Segal, Edessa, 'The Blessed City" (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) 24-25. For the date of the chronicle (soon after 540), see W. Witakowski, "Chronicles of Edessa," Orientalia Suecana 33-35 (1984-1986) 487-98. 24 By Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 13-14 (but with weak arguments). 2 5 Latin translation by J. B. Chabot, /ncerti Auctoris Chronicon PseudoDionysianum Vulgo Dictum I (CSCO, Scriptores Syri 3.1; Louvain: Durbecq, 1927) 98. 2 6Bardaisan (154-222) is known from many other sources and is the one personality to loom out from the fog of uncertainty surrounding early Syriac Christianity. A cultured Christian belonging to the aristocracy of Edessa, he was evidently a familiar figure at the court of Abgar the Great (see n. 28). Owing to their speculative nature, his

EUSEBIUS AND SYRIAC CHRISTIANITY

I 231

writings (in Syriac) were not transmitted by later generations who regarded his views as heretical; as a result, only hostile accounts of his teaching survive. A good account is given by H. J. W. Drijvers, Bardaisan of Edessa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966). 27Thus Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, 9 (probably correctly). 28 Kestoi, fragment 1.20, in J.-R. Viellefond, Les "Cestes" de Julius Africanus (Firenze: Edizioni Sansoni Antiquariato; Paris: Didier, 1970) 183-85. 29Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (ed. A. A. Mosshammer; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984) 439 (Dindorf, p. 676). Later writers (such as Epiphanius, Pan. 56.1) elaborate on this. In the past some scholars, taking (b) as referring to Abgar's supposed conversion, have gone on to suggest that the document common to Eusebius and the Teaching of Addai was known to, or ultimately derived from, Julius Africanus, thus taking it back to the early third century. Such suggestions are willful and irresponsible, and have rightly been abandoned by more recent scholars. 30There is a convenient English translation by H. J. W. Drijvers, The Book of the Laws of Countries (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965). 31 An English translation is given by Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, 41-72. 3 2English translation in F. C. Burkitt, Euphemia and the Goth with the Acts of Martyrdom of the Confessors of Edessa (London: Williams & Norgate, 1913) 90--128. 33F. Nau, Un martyrologie et douze menologes syriaques (PO 10/1; Paris: FirminDidot, 1912) 7-26 (Habbib, 2 Sept.; Shmona and Gurya, 15 Nov.). 34 There is a recent photographic edition, with German translation, by P. Kawerau, Die Chronik von Arbela (CSCO, Scriptores Syri 199-200; Louvain: Peeters, 1987). 35p, Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (London: The British Academy, 1947; 2d ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) chap. 3C. 36 By J.-M. Fiey, "Auteur et date de Ia Chronique d'Arbeles," OrSyr 12 (1967) 265302. The matter must be considered as still sub judice. 3 7 A survey of some of the later Syriac texts can be found in F. Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte nach orientalischen Quellen (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1925) 70--73. The Addai legend is imaginatively adapted to Armenian interests in Moses Khorenatsi's The History of the Armenians 2.26-35 (probably a work of the eighth century): see R. W. Thomson, Moses Khorenats Ci: History of the Armenians (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978) 39-41, 163-77. 38see S. P. Brock, "Bibeliibersetzungen 1.4, Die Ubersetzungen ins Syrische," TRE 6 (1980) 181-85, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Syriac Versions" (ed. David N. Freedman; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, forthcoming). 39It is still disputed whether Tatian wrote his Diatessaron in Greek or in Syriac. If he wrote it in Syriac, then his epithet 6 'h.a>.:~ews drrE'Lv], Moses came later than they. "26 Eusebius' rejection of a well-entrenched precedent was not a trivial one. In order to achieve it, he not only had to abandon an apologetic topos important for the defense of the church against pagan detractors. He was also required to depart from chronographic tradition in sharply abbreviating the interval from the exodus up to the building of Solomon's Temple. The crux of the problem lay in the different durations assigned to this period in the Bible. At 1 Kgs 6: 1, the Hebrew Bible assigned it 480 years. The Old Greek translation of these verses, however, recorded this period as 440 years. Now regardless of which version was preferred, both conflicted with the sum that could be derived by independent reckoning; by his own calculations, Eusebius determined that the period of the Judges required some 450 years. As he noted, this 450-year period was confmned by Paul's speech in Acts 13:18.27 But if this were true, then the entire period from the exodus to the building of the Temple would amount to about 600 years, leaving an excess of either 120 or 160 years. Predictably, earlier chronographers were divided on the subject. Josephus counted the whole interval as 592 years, Clement as 574 years. 28 Africanus, possibly in order to make up for the 130 years lost by excluding the post-diluvian Cainan from his biblical genealogy, counted 744 years.29 EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I

471

In his own solution, Eusebius chose a different path. As he recognized, only five generations elapsed from Nahshon to David. So Africanus could not possibly have been correct in assigning over 700 years to this period. For if true, each of these five generations would have lived, on average, 140 years. "But no one of sound mind would be able to grant this .... Thus Africanus has in this matter gone astray."30 What Eusebius proposes is that the 450 years for the period of the Judges should not be treated as consecutive; the years when Israel was said to serve foreign rulers should be counted collaterally with the rule of the Judges. 31 By excluding these years of foreign rule, Eusebius believed he could demonstrate that the total number came to only 480, in complete harmony with 1 Kgs 6:1. But the foreshortening of years required his independence from patristic tradition. Even the accuracy of Paul was cast into doubt, who, Eusebius opines, "has not given, as it were, a treatise on chronology, nor has he delivered a reckoning with precise accuracy." 32 At the same time, it meant that Moses could not have been, as earlier authorities maintained, a contemporary of Inachus; rather he lived some 150 years later, at the time of Cecrops, the first king of Attica. The opinions of his predecessors notwithstanding, Eusebius writes, the "present history will show that Cecrops was a contemporary of Moses and preceded the Trojan War by 350 years." 33 Ninus, Semiramis, Inachus, Phoroneus, and Ogyges were all predecessors to him. At least on this one crucial subject, then, Eusebius was encumbered neither by the weight of tradition nor by apologetics.

1.3. Eusebius and Comparative Chronology

When he later had occasion to reflect upon his chronicle in the Praeparatio evangelica, it was his novel dating of Moses that Eusebius remembered as his most significant achievement. 34 Several hundred years later, Syncellus, one of Eusebius' sharpest critics, would reproach him for his arrogant departure from ecclesiastical tradition. But the one thing that Syncellus could say in favor of the Chronicle was the industry of its author in gathering sources. 35 Indeed, if only for its scope, Eusebius' chronicle marked a significant advance of the discipline which would secure his reputation for generations. In none of his Christian predecessors' works was comparative chronology the subject of as much sustained effort as in Eusebius' chronicle. Apologists like Josephus, Tatian, and Clement did not compose chronicles in the strict sense; for them, chronology figured only as a kind of adjunct to a more general defense of Judaism or Christianity and indictment of Greek culture. In this respect, their works were more akin to Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica than they were to the Chronicle. While it is true that Africanus' 472

I

WILllAM ADLER

universal chronicle treated comparative Greek and Hebrew chronology, sacred history, not apologetics, was uppermost in his mind. At least to the extent that it is possible to infer from the surviving fragments of his chronicle, secular history was only of incidental interest to him. 36 Eusebius was much more the comparativist and a far more diligent collector of secular chronological records. This approach to chronography entailed a complex arrangement of sources. In the first book, Eusebius assembled a wide range of material from what he considered the major world civilizations: the Babylonians, Hebrews, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. The breadth of his learning is striking. Some of his sources were, of course, well known in Christian and pagan historiography, for example, Castor of Rhodes, Apollodorus, Diodorus, Thallus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Porphyry. But alongside these common sources, Eusebius furnished extracts from more obscure works, for example, Manetho's Aegyptiaca and Berossus' Babyloniaca. However familiar these latter histories were to Jewish and Christian historians, they hardly created a sensation in learned Greco-Roman literary circles and were rarely used by them. 37 To be sure, we should not be overawed by Eusebius' erudition. Quotation of sources need not imply his acquaintance with the original works in their entirety. As Eusebius himself readily admits, he only knew Berossus' history of Babylonia through extracts collected by the antiquarian Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE) and his successor Abydenus (second century CE?).38 Even where he does not acknowledge them, Eusebius often relied on handbooks and digests of longer works.39 Universal historians and chroniclers customarily worked in this way, and Eusebius was no exception. Although Eusebius seeded throughout these excerpts his own ruminations on various matters of chronology, he clearly considered this first book only a prolegomenon to a more ambitious project. In his subsequent description of this segment of the chronicle, Eusebius states that the sources collected there were meant to serve as a "kind of raw material for a future work. " 40 The "future work" to which he was referring was the Chronological Canons. Since the preserved recensions of the Canons often diverge widely, we cannot in all cases be precise about the original structure of these tables. What we do know, however, is that the plan of the Canons was synoptic: "to set dates alongside one another and count the years of individual peoples." 41 Using the material from the first book, Eusebius organized it into a chronology of world history, commencing from the birth of Abraham and arranged in several parallel columns. Imbedded into these columns were what Scaliger termed the "historicum spatium," that is, historical notices of various kinds-the names of kings, famous founders, and important wars. The columnar arrangement of the Canons enabled readers to compare dates, EUSEBIUS' CHRONIClE

I 473

events, and reigns of various peoples-Hebrews, Assyrians, Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Macedonians-and immediately determine who was a contemporary of whom. The format of the Canons shows its intention to combine into one work the traditions of sacred and secular chronology. In Jerome's version, the biblical and nonbiblical historical notices are initially demarcated clearly. Starting with the second year of Darius, however, at which time Eusebius dated the beginning of the restoration of the Temple, these notices are combined into one space. 42 The era that served as the hallmark of these tables was ab Abraham (2016/2015 BCE). In dating events from Abraham, the Canons did not mark individual years, but rather decades. These ten-year periods were marked off to the far left. But Eusebius employed other eras as well. Occasionally and perhaps as a concession to the norm established by Africanus, Eusebius agreed to date events from the birth of Adam, even though he remained unconvinced that pre-Abrahamic history could be securely dated. 43 More systematic, however, was the use of the four-year period reckoned from the first Olympiad(= 776 BCE). Like its predecessor, the chronicle of Julius Africanus, the Canons conformed to this dating convention, placing the number of the Olympiad alongside the dates ab

Abraham. It is notable that at least in the Latin version of the Canons, Assyrian, not Hebrew, chronology is given priority. Here too the Canons reflect the norms of Hellenistic historiography. Since the appearance in the first century BCE of the influential world chronicle of Castor of Rhodes, there was an axiom among universal historians and chroniclers that Assyria was the first real empire in Asia, and Ninus its first datable monarch. 44 Although the various recensions do not agree, Jerome's translation of the Canons adhered to the same rule. 45 The Assyrianfilum regnorum, commencing with Ninus, occupied the first column, followed by columns for the Hebrews, Sicyonians, and Egyptians. The ensuing kingdoms arranged in the first column were organized around a well-known Greek conception that viewed the course of universal history as a succession of world empiresAssyrians, Medes, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans.46 As more empires and peoples appeared on the world scene, the Canons expanded to meet the need. For this reason, the size of the Canons could vary greatly. Columns for as many as nine different peoples might be shown concurrently. On the other hand, by the time the Canons reached more contemporary events, there was only one filum remaining-namely, the one for Roman chronology. The Canons were complex and often difficult to understand; but as their extensive later use attests, they furnished a framework upon which historians could build.

474

I

WILUAM ADLER

II. Eusebius and the Limitations of Chronography

ILl. Chronography as an Inexact Science Eusebius had two purposes in writing his chronicle. The ftrst was to demonstrate, through chronological comparisons, that Moses and Abraham were men of the remote past. Eusebius discusses his second objective at length in the prologue to the first book of the Chronicle. Readers, Eusebius says, are well advised to heed the saying of Christ in Acts 1:7: "it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his authority."47 No one, he warns, should flatter oneself by thinking it possible to date events with documentary precision. Here again, as in the case of Moses' and Abraham's antiquity, Eusebius appears to be uttering a non-controversial commonplace. But its force and novelty come into sharper focus once we see how Eusebius applied it. By Eusebius' time, the inadequacies of Greek chronology were so familiar that chronographers generally preferred to commit large portions of the past to the domain of the prehistoric. 48 For whatever reason, it was not until relatively late that Greek chronographers fashioned a uniform system of dating using a single and universally accepted standard. What they had instead were local records, exemplified in the well-known archon lists of Athens. Chronographers and historians were able to make limited use of these records, especially the archon lists of Athens and the annual ephorate records of Sparta. But for the purpose of chronology, these lists were only marginally useful. They were discontinuous and of limited duration. Above all, they did not constitute a universal standard for dating events, and therefore could not serve as a reliable framework. It was only in the third century BCE that Eratosthenes and Apollodorus established a system of dating-the Olympiad-that could furnish a conventional standard for universal chronography. The Olympiad chronicles of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus proved to be extremely influential, establishing, as Mosshammer has said, a kind of vulgate tradition in chronography. As we have seen, Eusebius, like his predecessors, African us and Clement, made Olympiad dating one of his two chronological standards in the Canons (the other being the era from Abraham). Many of the sources that Eusebius collected in the first book of his chronicle, including a work that he knows only as an Olympiad chronicle, 49 were similarly dependent upon Olympiad chronology. NonGreek historians also found the Olympiad system easy to assimilate to their own records. 5° But even while acknowledging this standard, Christian chroniclers were aware of its limitations. In the first place, it relegated a huge segment of Greek history to prehistory. "Until the beginning of the Olympiads," writes Africanus, "no accurate history has been written by the Greeks, the earlier EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 475

accounts being all confused and in no point agreeing among themselves." 51 Moreover, the chronicles of Eratosthenes and Apollodorus could be considered universal only for Greeks. To be sure, there were subsequent attempts to broaden the frontiers of Greek chronology and include non-Greek civilizations. 52 But such efforts did not succeed in overcoming the problems in archaic Greek chronology. 53 Christian chronographers knew that they had to work on a much broader canvas, one including all the great peoples of Egypt and the Near East. For this purpose Greek chronography was of little use. For Eusebius, the two basic works on Egypt and the Near East were those of Berossus and Manetho. Both were priests, native to Babylonia and Egypt respectively, who undertook to present to Greeks a history of their civilization. Like Josephus' Antiquities, these sources were introductions to Babylonian and Egyptian history and culture, supposedly based on carefully maintained documents. Starting with Josephus, Jewish and Christian apologists found much in them to approve. Not only did Berossus and Manetho supply many suggestive parallels to the biblical narrative and ample documentation for Jewish antiquity; in their critique of the Greeks and their glorification of the antiquity of eastern peoples, both made useful weapons in Jewish/Christian propaganda. 54 But chronographers soon discovered that the celebrated antiquity of the Egyptians and Babylonians was too much of a good thing. The chronological duration of Berossus and Manetho's histories might have served Christian apologetic by making Greek civilization look puny. But it did the same thing to biblical history. To the reigns of the ten pre-flood Babylonian kings alone, Berossus assigned the enormous span of 432,000 years; antediluvian biblical chronology paled by comparison. 55 Greek chroniclers had their own solution to the problem of asymmetry between their own records and Berossus and Manetho. They simply ignored them, preferring instead the more manageable vulgate tradition established for Egypt and the Near East by Ctesias, Castor, and Diodorus. 56 As a result, Christian historians, when they undertook the seemingly impossible task of reconciling Berossus with biblical chronology, found themselves forced to work largely on their own. What made the problems of the chronographer even more intractable was that a single source often circulated in various forms. To facilitate their work, ancient chronographers often eschewed original sources, relying instead on handbooks, epitomes, and anthologies. Eusebius acknowledges as much when he states that his version of Berossus was only an abridged form that he knew through Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus. 57 Even where he is less forthcoming, we can infer the same dependence through source analysis. Eusebius names, for example, Manetho as a source for Egyptian history. But it is clear from a comparison of his excerpts with the longer 476

I WllllAM ADLER

narrative citations from Manetho in Josephus' Against Apion that what Eusebius was using was an epitome of the Aegyptiaca, probably composed sometime in the ftrst or second centuries CE. The purpose of this epitome, which appears to have circulated in several forms, seems mainly to extract from Manetho's more prolix history purely chronological data; what few historical notices remained were chiefly either of antiquarian interest only or meant to assist the work of synchronization. ss To the extent that these epitomes distilled chronological information from longer works, Christian chronographers found them useful substitutes for the original. But they proved to be a mixed blessing; one need only compare African us' version of Manetho's chronology with that of Eusebius to see how vulnerable they were to corruptions. The result of such contamination is equally clear in the various versions of Apollodorus that Eusebius knew and used. As we have observed, Apollodorus' chronicle, which attempted to convert the Olympiad dates of Eratosthenes' chronicle to Athenian archon dates, was immensely influential. The numerous epitomes of his work attest to its popularity. But throughout the course of its long literary history, it suffered numerous corruptions and contaminations from the opinions of other chronographers.59 The conflicting versions of Apollodorus that Eusebius knows reflect the result. Multiple witnesses to the same source were not, as Christian chroniclers recognized, limited to secular works. Even while generally endorsing the authority of the Greek Bible, historians could hardly ignore its many textual and chronological problems. Africanus used a variant LXX text that assigned 2,262 years to the pre-flood period.60 Eusebius' version, however, gave this period as only 2,242 years.61 But this was a minor discrepancy compared to the variant chronologies in the different versions of the Bible. In his own chronicle, Eusebius catalogued divergences in the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint. As he recognized, the problems were especially acute for pre-Abrahamic history. The Greek Bible included a second Cainan, unattested in the Hebrew, thereby adding an additional 130 years to genealogical computation. Moreover, up to the time of Abraham, the Greek Bible regularly assigned an additional hundred years to the date of the birth of a patriarch. Since chronographers performed their calculations on the basis of the age at which the patriarchs fathered the succeeding patriarch, the cumulative discrepancy between the Greek and Hebrew Bibles became progressively larger. For the period up to Abraham, Eusebius calculated the difference as a full1,235 years.62 So no one with any familiarity with the subject could object to the probity of Eusebius' admonition to his readers about the complexities and imprecision of chronography. Its full implications only emerge, however,

EUSEBIUS' CHRONICU:

I 477

once we compare him with his single most important and influential Christian predecessor, Julius Africanus. There is no doubt that Africanus was aware that large swaths of secular history were impenetrable. Because of the deficiencies of archaic Greek history, he writes, "I shall collect and briefly run over the most celebrated of the mythical histories down to the first Olympiad." 63 As for the tremendous antiquity of Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, Africanus pronounced even harsher judgment. Their extreme claims were empty exaggerations, intended only to bring undeserved prestige to the peoples about whom they had written. Chaldean chronology is, he says, "an absurdity" (Aflpov), belonging in the same category of folly as the Egyptians' idle boasting about their own antiquity. 64 But at least to the extent that we can infer from what survives of his work, African us did not entertain the same doubts about sacred history. A sharp-minded critic, he was certainly cognizant of many famous cruxes in biblical chronology. 65 But none was apparently of such magnitude as to divert him from his own set purpose of fashioning a continuous chronology from Adam. Compared to the Chaldeans, the Jews, writes Africanus, "have been taught a modest mind [ciTvcfl6n:pov ... 8L8axSlvTES], and one such as becomes human beings [civSpwrr(vws], with the truth by the spirit of Moses, they have handed down to us, by their extant Hebrew histories, the number of 5,500 years as the period up to the advent of the Word of Salvation." 66 11.2. Eusebius and Historical Uncertainty Eusebius pursued a far more cautious path. He exempts no one from historical suspicion. "Neither from the Greeks, nor from the barbarians, nor of any others, not even from the Hebrews, can one learn with security the general chronography of the world. "67 As a result of this conviction, Eusebius tolerated a degree of doubt impermissible in his millennialist predecessor. Unlike Africanus, Eusebius without hesitation consigned whole periods of history to the chronologically indeterminate. One of these periods involved Adam's time in paradise,68 of which, he writes, "no one is able to determine its length." This was so because Moses, in his narrative of Adam and Eve, was "hinting at an age better than our own, of a thrice blessed life beloved of God, which he calls paradise. "69 Earlier Origen, Eusebius' master, had also spoken of Moses' narrative of paradise as an allegory of the fall of the soul.70 In excluding for chronological purposes the period before Adam's expulsion, Eusebius, therefore, only derived a chronological inference from his mentor: Adam's life in paradise was an allegorical account of

478

I

WILUAM ADLER

the collective conditions of humanity, outside of the constraints of space and time. 71 But it is clear that Eusebius also intended to criticize other chronographers with more grandiose ambitions, who "supposed that it is possible to date events from the creation of the heaven and the earth and the universe.''72 His chronicle, however, will commence at Adam's expulsion, when his mortal life begins.7 3 In the Canons, Eusebius is even more circumspect. There, the first secure date in world history, and the era from which subsequent events were dated, was the birth of Abraham, and the fortieth year of the reign of the Assyrian king Ninus.7 4 Now it is true that Eusebius, in order to appease his readers' curiosity, occasionally agreed to give dates from Adam.75 But as he himself states, he is generally inclined to refrain from dating events ab Adam, if for no other reason than that before the birth of Abraham and the accession of Ninus "nothing can be ascertained about Greek or barbarian, and generally speaking, gentile history. n76 The personality of the author that is revealed throughout the Chronicle is that of a writer both acutely aware of the difficulties attending the use of historical documents, and one entirely satisfied to live within the constraints imposed by them. Eusebius observed these practices throughout all of his work. Because of "the great disagreement among the ancients" concerning the date of Homer, Eusebius elects not to commit himself on the subject, offering instead several dates without expressing a preference_17 Similarly, for the Athenian lawgiver Lycurgus, Eusebius furnishes three different dates, a fact which seems to reflect his knowledge and use of different versions of Apollodorus synchronized with other chronological systems. Eusebius simply reports all three dates without committing himself to any one.78 The same conservatism marks Eusebius' handling of Chaldean and Egyptian antiquities. As we have seen, the central question facing the chronographers was the enormous duration of archaic Babylonian and Egyptian history. It is interesting, therefore, to compare African us' dogmatism with Eusebius' reserve. In his notice about Egyptian and Chaldean chronicles, Africanus states that some Egyptian priests, to make Egyptian chronology appear more moderate, proposed that the ancient Egyptian year might have represented a smaller interval, such as a month. In keeping with his overall perspective, however, Africanus could find little merit in the proposal; reducing the Egyptian year to a month was in his view simply an artificial contrivance concocted by Egyptian priests and astrologers.7 9 Eusebius' approach was far more cautious. Yes, he says, there is a great chronological disagreement. But perhaps some method can be found to resolve the difference. And he mentions a few, including the possible definition of a year as a month or a season. 80 Or if this does not prove satisfactory, then the reigns of some of the ancient Egyptian kings may have EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 479

overlapped. 81 But these were only suggestions. Eusebius apparently felt in no way constrained to offer a definitive solution. Probably the best example of Eusebius' departure from Africanus' precedent is what his critics saw as his equivocating treatment of biblical chronology. When Eusebius first broached the matter of the differences between the chronology of the Greek and Hebrew Bibles, he initially sounded a strong note of partisan support for the Septuagint. Defending the integrity of its chronology was something expected of Eusebius the apologist. The Septuagint translators, he says, were in perfect agreement in their translation, and the final work was deposited in the Alexandrian library by Ptolemy Philadelphus with painstaking effort. So if the Hebrew chronology consistently assigns 100 years less than the Greek, the difference must be attributable to some self-serving motive on the part of the Jews. 82 What Eusebius suggests is the far-fetched explanation that the Jews tampered with the chronology in order to legitimize early childbirth. 83 But it is striking that in the actual computation of dates, Eusebius often appears to abandon the chronology of the Greek Bible. Now there is no doubt that some of the apparent deviations from the Old Greek simply arose from his use of an idiosyncratic text. In his Canons, for example, Eusebius notes that although the rule of the judge Elon (Gr. AtM..IIJ.; Lat. Aealon) was included in the Hebrew Bible, it was not found in the Septuagint. For that reason, Eusebius chose to exclude the ten years of his rule. 84 Eusebius' critics rightly disputed this assertion, but we can surmise that he made the inference from a Hexaplaric version of the Septuagint. 85 In the SyroHexapla, Judg 12:11-12 are annotated with an asterisk, Origen's siglum for verses not found in the Greek. Eusebius was a disciple of Origen and in this case he apparently used Origen's Hexapla as an aid in comparing the chronology of the Greek and Hebrew scriptures. Use of an aberrant text of the Greek Bible may also account for Eusebius' treatment of chronology from the flood to Abraham. In listing the three chronological versions for this period, he reports that the Septuagint agreed with the Hebrew in not naming Cainan as the son of Arpachshad. 86 Here again, Eusebius' opponents were certain that he intentionally misrepresented the Septuagint in order to justify his own preference for Hebrew chronology. 87 But Eusebius was usually quite forthcoming when he preferred the Hebrew chronology and there is every reason to suppose that he believed he was adhering to a traditional chronology. Indeed, Africanus before him and several copies of the Septuagint at Gen 11:12-13 also did not include this second Cainan. 88 Eusebius' critics were right, however, in noting that when he reckoned the period from the exodus to the building of Solomon's Temple, he appealed to the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition. As we have noted, the 480

I

WilliAM ADLER

480 years that Eusebius assigned to the period was derived from the traditional Hebrew text. And as he freely acknowledges, his proposed solution concerning the length of the period of the Judges, i.e., to discount years of foreign rule, was borrowed from "Jewish sages." 89 When Eusebius' successors considered his treatment of this matter, they were sure that it gave more evidence of his equivocal attitude towards the Greek Bible and his excessive dependence on Jewish chronology. In Eusebius' mind, however, this selective use of Hebrew tradition was required by the perceived inadequacies of other chronologies. Eusebius' motives in pursuing his work so cautiously have been subjected to much speculation. A self-avowed opponent of Christian chiliasm, Eusebius was known to ridicule millennialists like Papias as men of limited intelligence for holding to such "obtuse" notions.9° It has thus been suggested that by assigning certain segments of the remote past to the chronologically indeterminate and by leaving others in doubt, Eusebius was hoping to undermine the underpinnings of millennialist chronography, especially as it had been established by his predecessor Julius Mricanus.9 1 While Eusebius might have been waging a silent campaign against Africanus, we should not define his motives so narrowly. He knew that the saying of Christ in Acts 1:7 had, in its original context, eschatological import. But as he tells his readers, Christ's warning is broadly descriptive of the reckoning of all times.

III. The Later Redaction and Reception of Eusebius' Chronicle

111.1. The Textual History of Eusebius' Chronicle Few works from antiquity have a more complicated textual history than Eusebius' chronicle. Starting with Scaliger, scholars have poured immense effort into reconstructing the original chronicle.92 Owing to sharply conflicting textual witnesses, however, the shape of that text still remains elusive. We can propose several factors behind this complexity: (a) Multiple editions: Eusebius refers to the Chronicle in the Praeparatio evangelica and the Eclogae propheticae, both of which were composed well before 325. But in the prologue to his translation, Jerome asserts that his Greek exemplar extended up to the vicennalia of Constantine (325). One explanation for this contradiction is that an interpolator inserted extra material. Eusebius might, however, have published more than one edition, which would account for the wide divergences between the Armenian and Latin recensions. In Jerome's version, as we have noted, the far left column consists of a succession of empires, arranged according to the Greco-Roman theory of world monarchies. This scheme is entirely lacking in the Armenian version, EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 481

which assigns the left column to Hebrew chronology, with historical notices set in the margins. It has been suggested, therefore, that the Armenian draws on an earlier version of the Chronicle, composed by Eusebius before the official enfranchisement of the church. The version that Jerome used, on the other hand, published after Constantine's vicennalia and after the official recognition of the church, emphasized the universality of history by its arrangement into a succession of world empires.93 (b) Textual corruption and mistranslation: In the prologue to his chronicle, Jerome laments the thankless task set before the copyist. Because of the complex format of the chronicle, especially the second book, it is "more difficult," he writes, "to learn the sequence for reading than arrive at a knowledge of the text." Not only did the Canons contain "many parts, and foreign names, things unknown in Latin, numbers that are difficult to untangle, critical notations interwoven equally with facts and numbers.'' 94 What especially troubled him were the "courses of the kings.'' Because they were arranged in columns, the names were often mixed together, greatly impairing the work of decipherment. The exigencies of translation helped to increase the probability of error. Keseling has identified numerous confusions in the rendering of proper names by Syriac translators: Novatian and Novatus, Gaul and Galatia, Sicily and Cilicia, Constantine and Constantius.9 5 Jerome himself did not observe the best habits in translating the Chronicle. Given the complexity of the Canons, it is hard to fathom why he proceeded with the haste that he did. His translation was "dictated with great rapidity to an amanuensis."96 Some predictable errors ensued. Thus, for the year ab Abraham 570, Jerome attributes to a historian "Paradius" the report that "Minos seized control of the sea and gave laws to the Cretans ... which Plato proves is false." From the parallel notice in Syncellus, we now know that what he thought was a proper name-Ilapci8tos-was actually two words: rrapa llt6s.97 (c) Revision and condensation: An influential chronicle like that of Eusebius was highly vulnerable to reworking, especially as it passed from Greek into other language versions. Already by the late fourth century, Jerome recognized that the work needed updating. Apparently, Jerome found the first book unimportant; for he chose only to translate the Chronological Canons. And in his preface he acknowledges that the complex and unfinished quality of the work required him to exercise a role not normally permitted a translator. Some of Jerome's innovations were cosmetic, strictly in the interests of legibility. In order to relieve later readers of difficulties, Jerome devised a system of color coding, intended to identify clearly which dates belonged to which kings.9 8 But for recent history, he admits that he had to act as both "translator and author," especially in order to supplement Eusebius' spotty 482

I

WILUAM ADLER

treatment of recent Roman history. There will be some purists, he writes, who would charge that by adding to the original, he had failed to discharge the responsibility of the "faithful interpreter." These critics, he says, "need not read unless they choose," but he hopes that "they may attribute to the Greek author the credit which is his due, and may recognize that any insertions for which we are responsible have been taken from other men of the highest repute ... 99 What this meant was that since Eusebius appeared to slight Roman history, Jerome allowed himself the privilege of augmenting the Canons with more recent events from Roman history, so as to make the work more contemporary.lOO It is in the East that Eusebius' chronicle was subjected to the most thoroughgoing reworking and analysis. From Syncellus, we know of two Alexandrian chroniclers, Panodorus and Annianus, who in the early fifth century undertook to correct and expand the chronicle of Eusebius. Given the extensive later use of these sources, it is likely that the version of Eusebius that was known to many of the Byzantine and Syriac universal chroniclers derives from this Alexandrian redaction. lOt Antiochene chronography must have had its own idiosyncratic version of Eusebius' chronicle. For in the sixth century, the Antiochene John Malalas attributes to Eusebius a great body of narrative, much of it based loosely on Jewish apocrypha. Later Byzantine chroniclers, influenced by Malalas, committed the same misattributions. Indeed, it was not until the discovery of better witnesses to Eusebius' chronicle that modem editors were able to identify this material as pseudepigraphic. 102 As we have noted, several of the sources that Eusebius cited were not based on the originals; rather they were epitomes meant to assist in the work of synchronization and chronological comparison. In the hands of his successors, Eusebius' chronicle endured the same fate. We have several examples of such epitomes in Syriac and Greek, including the so-called Epitome Syria, the Chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, and in Greek the Ekloge Historion. 103 All of them bear the distinctive trademarks of the genre to which they belong; it is not unusual to find, for example, separate historical notices from the Canons combined under one lemma and extensive interpolations.104 The existence of many different redactions of the Chronicle precludes the possibility of identifying a single surviving witness that can be consistently preferred over all others. A further complicating fact is that surviving witnesses to the Chronicle cannot always be identified as belonging to a single and uniform redaction. Since the Armenian version is the most complete, nineteenth-century scholars were inclined to see it as the textually most reliable. On the basis of the pages missing from the Armenian text, however, it is likely that the two books of the Chronicle EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 483

circulated separately and were only brought together at a later date. 105 And as Karst has shown, the Armenian by no means represents a pure text-type. Although the translation may have been based in general on a Greek exemplar, there is clear evidence of secondary use of a Syriac version as welt.I06 III.2. Eusebius' Critics One of the most striking features of Eusebius' legacy is the intensity of scrutiny and criticism to which his chronicle was subjected soon after its publication. This was especially true in the Christian east. According to the Syriac chronicler Elias of Nisibis, Diodore, the bishop of Tarsus, near the end of the fourth century, set about demonstrating the errors of Eusebius. 107 Some of the harshest criticisms came from the Alexandrian monks Panodorus and Annianus. As Syncellus reports, they were convinced that Eusebius' vacillating and inconclusive treatment of Babylonian and Egyptian antiquities exposed his own inadequacies as a chronographer. If he had truly understood these histories, they maintained, he would have been able to demonstrate their total harmony with Scripture. 108 What they found equally unacceptable were Eusebius' equivocations on biblical chronology. Eusebius claimed to champion the chronology of the Greek Bible, so it was mystifying to them that he neither mentioned the second Cainan nor followed the Septuagint in his chronology of the Judges. By their calculations, the cumulative effect of this error was 290 years. A sample of Annianus' criticisms survives in Syncellus.109 Panodorus and Annianus were extremely influential in the Greek- and Syriac-speaking East, and it is not surprising, therefore, to find later chroniclers reiterating and augmenting many of the same criticisms. From the twelfth-century Syriac chronicle of Michael Syrus, we know that in the seventh century, the Syriac polymath Jacob of Edessa, probably under the influence of his Alexandrian authorities, was highly critical of Eusebius, whose chronicle he undertook to revise. 11 0 Among the Byzantine chroniclers, the most outstanding critic of Eusebius was Syncellus. He liked to parade abuse as sharpmindedness, and in Eusebius he found a convenient victim. It is true that Syncellus once describes Eusebius as a polymath.11 1 But this praise was more than balanced by his own acerbic and often intemperate invective. There are, he admits, some chronographers who praised Eusebius for being "sensible" (cflp6vqJ.os). But the application of such an epithet amazes him, and he is sure that whoever had spoken of Eusebius in such terms must have meant it as "antiphrasis"-that is, describing something by its opposite. 112 Eusebius was a reckless man, Syncellus writes, who set himself up against both Scripture and tradition. To be sure, Africanus' chronicle was, in Syncellus' opinion, also flawed; but 484

I

WilliAM ADLER

where the two works could be compared, Africanus' chronicle usually came out better. 113 Like his predecessors, Syncellus was especially disturbed by what he saw as Eusebius' duplicity in abandoning the chronological tradition of the church. If, as Eusebius asserted, Cainan was not found in any copies of the Greek Bible, Syncellus asks, "how is it that the sacred books of Genesis read in all the churches clearly mention him? How is it that the most divine Luke, trained in every kind of philosophy, both human and divine, and incomparably superior to countless Eusebiuses [I.UJp(wv 'EvaE~(wv ciavyKp( TWS' rrpouxwv], mentioned him in the holy book of his gospel as the 13th from Adam?" 114 Eusebius was dependent on Jewish sages for his chronology of the Judges; but "as for me," Syncellus writes, "I follow divine Paul and the Book of Judges."115 Nor was Syncellus much impressed by what Eusebius considered his achievement in chronography, namely his dating of Moses as a contemporary of Cecrops. It was not only that in doing so Eusebius had, by his own words, departed from the tradition established by all his predecessors, "men well known for their learning." 116 But what Syncellus found most telling was that Eusebius disproved himself. Syncellus knew that in the prologue to the Canons, Eusebius asserted that Moses, although later than Semiramis and Inachus, was still older than "all those who are recorded in the ancient histories of the Greeks, and the deeds of Zeus himself memorialized by the Greeks."117 What Eusebius failed to realize was that this assertion contradicted his own chronology. In the Canons he recorded a notice about the union of Niobe and Zeus and the birth of Apis also known as Serapis. 118 Syncellus immediately recognized that the union of Zeus with Niobe, the daughter of Inachus, would, by Eusebius' own chronology, have occurred in the time of Jacob; it thus preceded Moses' birth by several hundred years. "Eusebius vainly lies again," he writes, "about Moses and the Greeks. If Moses lived after Phoroneus, at the time of Cecrops Difyes, he is not older than the deeds of Zeus and all those people recorded in the ancient histories of the Greeks. For if, as Eusebius himself and his predecessors attest, Moses was older than Zeus, then it must be accepted that he was a contemporary of Inachus and Phoroneus, and older than all the Greeks." 11 9 Apparently, Eusebius was reiterating a standard piece of Christian apologetic without thinking much about its implications. His critics rightly took him to task for doing so. In the study of the Christian universal chronicle, nothing ensures the reputation of a work more than being lost. If Africanus is still assumed to be a more original historian than Eusebius, it is because he was earlier and his work no longer survives in anything but excerpts. Eusebius' posterity EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 485

has been equally stigmatized. No matter how critical Syncellus was of Eusebius, it did not dissuade Scaliger from his firm conviction that in general Syncellus had done little more than transcribe material from him.120 Scaliger formed this opinion only on the scattered remains of Eusebius that were then available to him, and it was disproved by subsequent manuscript discoveries. They have not, however, dispelled the tendency among source critics to view surviving chronicles as impoverished descendants of earlier (and usually lost) originals.121 Now it is certainly true that many later universal chronicles were poorly wrought copies of earlier and more original sources. But chronography after Eusebius did not stagnate into mere scribalism. Each generation of chronographers understood that the merit of the work of its predecessors was chiefly that it furnished a historical and chronological scaffolding upon which to build. This was how Eusebius' chronicle was used, and this was how Eusebius himself treated the legacy passed down to him from his predecessors.

Notes I wish to acknowledge the suppon of the Annenberg Research Institute in the preparation of this anicle. 1In his EP l.l, Eusebius refers to the whole work as XpovLKOl KQVOVES Kal tm TOIJ.Tl travTo8anijs taTop(as 'E>.h~vwv TE" Kal Jmp~dpwv. Unless otherwise

specified, citations from the Canons are from Jerome's Latin translation, ed. Rudolf Helm,

Vol. 7: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (GCS; 3d ed.; Berlin: Akademie, 1984). For the purposes of the present study, the first book is referred to as Chronica (abbreviated Chron.). Quotations from the first book are from the German translation of the Armenian version by Josef Karst, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 5: Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen iibersetzl mil lextkritischen Commenlar (GCS 20; Leipzig: Akademie, 1911). 2on the Syriac transmission of Eusebius, see P. Keseling, "Die Chronik des Eusebius in der syrischen Oberlieferung," OrChr series 3, 1 (1927) 23-48, 223-41; 2 (1927) 33-56. In English, the most thorough recent study of the textual history of Eusebius' Chronicle is by Alden A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1979) 29-83. 3See below, sect. III.2. 4canons 6, 11-15 (ed. Helm). 5Eusebius, HE 6.1. 6on Africanus' millenarianism, see Heinrich Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die byzantinische Chronographie (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1880-1898; reprinted in 1 vol., New York: Franklin, 1967) 1.24-26. 7The quotation from Africanus is preserved in the ninth-century Byzantine chronicle of George Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica (ed. A. A. Mosshammer; Leipzig: Teubner, 1984) 393, 25-27 (cited hereafter as Syncellus, Eel. Chron.). Eusebius Werke,

486

I

WlillAM ADLER

8See Amaldo Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.," in The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963) 85. 90n Eusebius' anti-millenarianism, see below, sect. 11.2. lOsee Otto Neugebauer, Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus (Sitzungsberichte der Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 347; Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979) 8. One of the earliest attested examples of a universal chronicle meant to assist in the computation of the Easter celebration is that of the fifth-century Alexandrian chronographer Annianus. Commencing from the creation of the universe, Annianus arranged his worlc in tabular form according to the 532-year Paschal cycle; see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 35, 20-31. 11 The Hellenistic chronographer Eratosthenes (third century B CE) is the historian usually credited with establishing these conventions. On his work, see E. Schwartz, Die Konigslisten des Eratosthenes und Kastor mit Excursen uber die lnterpolationen bei Africanus und Eusebios (Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen 40.2, 1894-1895) 1-96, esp. 2-54. 12see, for example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.3 § 16-18; Clement, Strom. 1.21-29; Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks 36-40. 13 Chron. 2.23-28; cf. Plato, Timaeus 228. Clement quotes the same Timaeus passage approvingly at Strom. 1.29. 14rn Eusebius, PE 10.10 (490c). All citations are from E. H. Gifford's English translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903). l5p£ 10.9 (483b). 16canons 9, 11-17. 17 For the synchronism of Moses with Inachus and Phoroneus, see Clement, Strom. 1.21; Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks 39; Africanus, in PE 10.10 (488a). 18In Censorinus, De die natali 21.1-2 (ed. F. Hultsch; Leipzig: Teubner, 1867). 19Tatian, Discourse to the Greeks 39. 20 canons 7, 11-18. 21 Ibid., 8, 1-7. 22 sanchuniathon was said to have composed a history of the Phoenician people and their culture. Philo of Byblos (64-141 CE) later claimed to have translated the work into Greek. (For the text and a discussion of critical problems, see Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History [CBQMS 9; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981]). 23 cf. Diodorus Siculus, Bib/. Hist. 2.4: "The first to be handed down by tradition to history and memory for us as one who has achieved great deeds is Ninus, king of the Assyrians." 24canons 8, 5-6; see alsoP£ 9.9 (484bc). 25 Eusebius quotes all of the relevant witnesses in Book 10 of the Praeparatio evangelica. 26Greek text of Eusebius quoted in Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 74, 7-12; see also Canons 9, 5-13. 2 7In Acts 13:18, Paul says that after God "destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance, for about 450 years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet." Although it is difficult to comprehend

EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 487

precisely the underlying chronology, Eusebius (Chron. 48, 11-30) concluded from it that Paul assigned 450 years for the period from the exodus to Samuel, 40 years for Samuel, 40 years for David, and 4 years before Solomon built the Temple. This, added to the 40 years in the wilderness and the 27 years of Joshua, would produce a number slightly in excess of 600 years. 28see Josephus, Ant. 8.3.1 § 61; but in Ag. Ap. 2.2 § 19, Josephus gives the period as 612 years. See also Clement, Strom. 1.21. 2 9For Africanus' reckoning of this period, see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 90, 1-4; Eusebius, Chron. 47, 6-21. 30chron. 47, 33-48, 8; cf. 50, 35-37. 31Ibid., 50, 9-17; 51, 1-17. 32Ibid., 50, 17-18. 33 Ibid., 10, 2-4. 34PE 10.9. 35syncellus, Eel. Chron. 197, 5-6. 36on this point see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 149; see alsop. 157. 3 7See below, sect. !1.1 38see, for example, Chron. 4, 9-10. 39see below, sect. ILl. 40canons 8, 9-10 ("quasi quandam materiam futuro operi"). 41 Canons 8, 16-19. 42 Ibid., 105a. 43see below, sect. Il.2. 44 see above, sect. I.l. 45 But see below, III. I. 46on the theory of the four monarchies in Greco-Roman historiography, see J. W. Swain, "The Theory of the Four Monarchies: Opposition History under the Roman Empire," Classical Philology 35 (1940) 1-20. 47chron. 1, 30-2,6. 48"Greek chronography had become too much for mere mortals to cope with" (Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 112). 49chron. 89.11-103.33; Mosshammer (The Chronicle of Eusebius, 157-58) identifies the author of this chronicle as Cassius Longinus. 50See the remarks of Dionysius of Halicamassus on synchronizing Roman history and Olympiads, in Roman Antiquities 1.74.2 (trans. E. Cary, LCL; London: Heinemann, 1937). 51 PE 10.10 (488a). 5 2Most notably in the chronicle of Castor of Rhodes (first century BCE); building upon the work of Apollodorus, Castor endeavored to construct a chronology of Sicyon that could rival that of the Assyrians. Fragments from Castor's chronicle are collected in F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923-1927) 28, 250 FF 1-20. 5 3While all the antiquities of the Greeks, writes Dexippus (third century CE), are contradictory, the situation is especially bad for the period before the first Olympiad (in Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 109, 24-26). 488

I

WILliAM ADLER

54see, for example, Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.14-15 § 73-102; 128-153; Eusebius, Chron. 9, 31-10, 3; Tatian, Discowse to the Greeks 36. 55see Eusebius, Chron. 4, 28-30; Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 17, 16-19. 56Josephus as much as acknowledges this fact when he first introduces the Babyloniaca in Ag. Ap. 1.19 § 129. For although he cites Berossus as a historian, he admits that in learned Greek circles Berossus was known as a philosopher and sage, not as a historian. 57 Cf. Chron. 4, 9-11; 14, 27. 58English translation of the chronological epitomes of Manetho surviving in Christian chronography can be found in W. G. Waddell, Manetho (LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1940). For discussion, seeR. Laqueur, "Manetho," PWRE 14.1, 1080-89; Jakob Krall, Die Composition und die Schicksale des manethonischen Geschichtwerkes (Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Akademie, Phil.-hist. Classe 95; Vienna: Gerold, 1879 [1880]; reprinted, Wiesbaden: LTR, 1981) 208-21. 59For detailed discussion of the pre-Eusebian literary history of Apollodorus, see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 159-Qti. 60see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 20, 8-13. 61Chron. 38, 14; see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 20, 14-25. 62chron. 42, 32-33; 43, 24-25. 63In PE 10.10. 64In Syncellus, &/. Chron. 18, 3-9 (adapted from trans. in ANF 6.131). 6 5Thus, he wonders about the meaning of Gen 6:3, when God pronounces judgment on humanity: "My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." The difficulty, also noted by later commentators, was that many of the patriarchs subsequently lived much longer than that. What Africanus concludes is that the 120 years refer to the age of the sinners at the time of the flood (in Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 21, 28-22). 6~ Syncellus, &/. Chron. 18, 6-10. 61 Chron. 2, 10-16. 68 lbid., 36, 16-37, 9; a Greek extract from Eusebius' chronicle dealing with this subject survives in the Ekloge Historian, in J. A. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca (4 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1839) 2.166, 17-167, 5. 69Ibid., 2.166, 23-26; see also Chron. 36, 16-21. 70 see, e.g., Origen, Homilies on Genesis 1.13 (ed. W. Baehrens; GCS 29; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920). 71 For discussion of Origen's influence here, see Glenn Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodore!, and Evagrius (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1965) 68. 72 Cited in Ekloge Historian 2.166, 30-31; cf. Chron. 36, 27-29. 7 3Chron. 37, 1-10. 74 According to Eusebius' reckoning, this occurred 3,184 years after Adam. 15canons 14, 20-15, 1. 76 Ibid., 15, 5-8. 77 Ibid., 63b(d); 66a.9-26. 7 8lbid., 79e, 83d, 84f; see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 128, 17391. EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 489

79In Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 17, 30-18, 2. 80cr. Chron. 9, 22-30; 64, 16--25. 81 Ibid., 64, 26--65, I. 821bid., 37, 31-36. 831bid., 40, 8-20. 84canons 60a, 17-20: "Post Esebon in libro Hebraeorum fertur iudex Aealon rexisse populum annis X, qui non habetur apul LXX interpretes." 85For discussion, see below, sect. III.2. [See also the essay by E. Ulrich in this collection. Eds.] 86see Chron. 42, 1-4, where, in giving the chronology according to the LXX, Shelah is named as the offspring of Arpachshad. 87syncellus, Eel. Chron. 197, 24-30; 395, 26--27. 8 8on Africanus' omission of the second Cainan, see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 132, 18-20. 89see Chron. 50, 9--20. 90 HE 3.39.12-13; for discussion, see Chesnut, The First Christian Histories, 164-74. 9lsee, for example, E. Schwartz, "Eusebios (24)," PWRE 6.1, 1379. 92see especially Scaliger's Animadversiones in his Thesaurus Temporum (2 vols.; Leiden, 1606; reprinted, Osnabrock: Otto Zeller, 1968) 2.3-238. 93see Karst, Die Chronik, Einleitung, xxi-xxv. 94canons 5, 1-4. 95Keseling, "Die Chronik des Eusebius," 137. 96canons Praef. 2, 20. We need not necessarily take Jerome's statement at face value, however. Given his own anxiety about errors that readers might discern in his translation, it is possible that Jerome made this assertion only as a way of forestalling criticisms of its accuracy. 97Jerorne's Latin text reads as follows: Minos mare optinuit et Cretensibus leges dedit, ut Paradius rnernorat (57b, l-3). Cf. Syncellus (under the heading ~tropdBrw): Mlvws !6a>.acrcroKpdT£L Kat Kpl)crtv Ws- trapa ~LOs fLIOIJ.o6lT£"L ... 1Str£"p b IIM.Twv !v TOLS N6~J.OLS fAEYX£"L (Eel. Chron. 191, 5-7). 98canons Praef. 15, 11-16. 99 1bid., Praef. 6, 3-8. 10°For Jerome's additions from "Tranquillus and other famous historians," see ibid., Praef. 16, 17-7, 3. lOlsee Mossharnmer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 77-78. lOZOn these (ps.-) Eusebius passages, see Malalas, 1.6 (11); 2.43 (53-54); 3.1 (57); ET of Malalas by E. Jeffreys et al. (Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 1986). Among the Byzantine chroniclers who follow Malalas, see, e.g., George Cedrenus, 1.81.14ff. (ed. I. Bekker; CSHB; Bonn: Weber, 1838-1839). 103 Greek text of the Ekloge in Cramer, Anecdota Graeca 2.165-230; Syriac text and Latin translation of the chronicle of Pseudo-Dionysius by I.-B. Chabot (CSCO, Scriptores Syri 43, 53, 66; Louvain: Durbecq, 1952-1959); text and Latin translation of Epitome Syria by E. W. Brooks and I.-B. Chabot, Chronica Minora If (CSCO Scriptores Syri 3, 4; Louvain: Durbecq, 1955) 3.77-155; 4.61-119.

490

I

WILUAM ADLER

104 Along with the notices from Eusebius preserved by the Syriac epitome of (Ps.-) Dionysius, Keseling ("Die Chronik des Eusebius," 225) has also identified historical material originating from, among other works, Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Julius Africanus, an Edessene chronicle, Josephus, and the Syriac Cave of Treasures. 105see Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius, 74. 106see Karst's introduction (Die Chronik, xxxviii-liv). l07In Elias of Nisibis, ed. and Latin trans. by E. W. Brooks and I.-B. Chabot (CSCO Scriptores Syri 21-24; Louvain: Durbecq, 1954) 99 (Latin trans. 111.7-12). Because the work was not translated into Syriac, Elias can unfortunately say little about its contents. 108see Syncellus, Eel. Chron. 36, 5-9; 41, 29-42, 1. 109Ibid., 36, 31-37. 11. llOsyriac text and translation of Michael by I.-B. Chabot (3 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1899-1901; reprinted in 4 vols.; Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1963); on Jacob's treatment of Eusebius, see esp. 4.6 (33); 4.14 (42); 7.2 (127). lllsyncellus, Eel. Chron. 17, 22. 112 Ibid., 197, 18-19. 113see Syncellus' comparison of Eusebius and Africanus on Manetho at ibid., 65, 18-20. 114 Ibid., 197. 25-30. 115Ibid., 205, 16. 116Ibid., 70, 26-71, 3. 117 Cf. Jerome's translation: "omnibus quos Graeci antiqutssunos putant ... (et) ceteris dis gentium sacrisque vel vatibus, ipsius quoque lovis gestis" (Canons 9, 12-19). 118 canons 30b, 8-11. 119syncellus, Eel. Chron. 15, 25-31. l20syncellus, wrote Scaliger, "transcribed in his own work the whole chronology of Eusebius without any alteration of words" (Thesaurus Temporum, 2.241). 121 Critics simply shifted responsibility from Eusebius to other lost sources. Thus, Heinrich Gelzer proposed that Syncellus' chronicle was mainly a poorer transcription of his Alexandrian authorities. See Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, 2.19193.

EUSEBIUS' CHRONICLE

I 491

19 The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical Histocy

ARTHUR J. DROGE

Eusebius begins his Ecclesiastical History with the following statement: "I have proposed to record in writing the successions [8La8oxat] of the sacred apostles, covering the period stretching from our Savior to ourselves" (HE 1.1.1).1 Even a casual reading, however, reveals that the Ecclesiastical History is much more than this modest statement would suggest. In addition to attempting to describe chronologically "what actually happened," Eusebius also endeavored to explain what Christianity was and to place it within the general history of humankind. The task was far more ambitious than the one Eusebius set out to accomplish in his Chronicle. The aim of that work was to synchronize biblical and extra-biblical history and to provide chronological lists containing precise dates for significant persons and events, from the birth of Abraham down to Eusebius' own day .2 The goals of the Chronicle indicate clearly enough its apologetic intentions. Even so, Eusebius did not feel compelled to render explicit (much less justify) the interpretation of history underpinning the Chronicle. Eusebius set forth his historical views in greatest detail in the Preparation for the Gospel and Proof of the Gospel. But these two apologetic works, composed after the first editions of the Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical History, merely amplify and render more explicit a historical perspective Eusebius had long maintained.3 If the Chronicle provided the structural framework for the Ecclesiastical History, then the mortar holding the edifice together was a particular interpretation of history. In the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius attempted to construct, on the basis of the evidence available to him, a narrative of events from the time of Christ down to his own day. But Eusebius believed that this story could only be told after it had been placed within the broader sweep of history. Interwoven with his history of Christianity, therefore, were also three other histories: of the pagans, Jews, and heretics. In the Ecclesiastical History we 492

I ARTHUR J. DROGE

encounter Eusebius not only as a historian, but also as an apologist, seeking to defend the truth of his religion against its detractors and competitors on historical grounds. For Eusebius, the truth of Christianity was inextricably linked to history. In the preface to the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius attempted to respond to certain opponents of Christianity who had charged that "it was recent [v€av] and outlandish [€KTETomu~€vrJV], appearing no earlier than yesterday" (HE 1.2.1). Eusebius countered these charges by insisting on "the real antiquity and divine character of Christianity" (HE 1.2.1). In part, this claim was a response to Greek intellectuals such as Celsus (second century) and Porphyry (232/233-ca. 305 CE) who argued that Christianity was a recent phenomenon and had therefore contributed little or nothing to the advance of civilization. Such a criticism was tantamount to asserting that Christianity was historically insignificant. It was a general conviction of the age, and one shared by both pagans and Christians alike, that nothing could be both new and true, that the most ancient was always the best. 4 Related to this criticism of Christianity was the objection that Christ had appeared only recently in history. Since the second century CE, pagan critics had ridiculed the doctrine of the incarnation and in particular the relative lateness of Christ's appearance on earth. "Is it only now after such a long age," Celsus asked sarcastically, "that God has remembered to judge the human race?'' 5 Indeed, Celsus went on to compare the God of the Christians with the "slumbering Zeus" of comic poetry: If God, like Zeus in the comic poet, woke up out of his long slumber and wanted to deliver the human race from evils, why on earth did he send his spirit that you [Christians] mention into one corner? He ought to have breathed into many bodies in the same way and sent them all over the world. The comic poet wrote that Zeus woke up and sent Hermes to the Athenians and Spartans because he wanted to raise a laugh in the theater. Yet do you not think it is more ludicrous to make the Son of God to be sent to the Jews?6

Even at the beginning of the fourth century, when Christianity had been around for some three hundred years, its critics repeated the same charge. In his notorious treatise Against the Christians Porphyry asked: If Christ says he is the way, the grace, and the truth, and he places in himself alone the approach of believing souls to him, what did the men of so many centuries before Christ do? To pass over the times before the kingdom of Latium, let us trace the beginning of the human name from Latium itself. In Latium, before the foundation of Alba, there was a cult of gods. In Alba, religion and worship were equally in honor. In the long stretch of centuries-not a few-Rome itself existed without

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

493

the law of Christ. What became of the innumerable souls, who were entirely guiltless, if he in whom they could believe had not yet lent his presence to men? The world, also, as well as Rome, was devoted to the religious rites of its temples. Why did he who is called the Savior hide himself for so many ages? But let them not say that the human race was saved by the ancient Jewish law, since the Jewish law appeared and flourished in a small part of Syria, a long time after, and still later it made its way into Italian lands, after the reign of Gaius Caesar, or probably during his reign. What, then, became of the souls of Romans or Latins who were deprived of the grace of Christ not yet come until the time of the Caesars??

In the preface to the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius attempted to answer these objections by means of an analysis of the history of culture. Although Eusebius may have been the "first" to undertake the task of composing a history of Christianity (HE 1.1.3), the interpretation of history underpinning his work owes much to his predecessors. The writings of Luke in the New Testament and above all the Christian apologists of the second and third centuries provided the foundation on which Eusebius constructed his interpretation of history and Christianity's place in it.8 The preface to the Ecclesiastical History (1.1.1-1.4.15) comprises about one half of the first book and is described by Eusebius as "the necessary preparation" (n1v Blouaav TTpoKaTaCTKEtn'jv) for the narrative that follows (HE 1.5.1).9 In it Eusebius seeks to demonstrate "that the practice of piety handed down by the teaching of Christ is not new or strange, but ... primary, unique, and true" (HE 1.4.15; cf. 1.2.1). How could Eusebius make such a claim when Christ himself had lived less than three centuries before Eusebius wrote? His answer, put simply, is that the Christ, who was executed during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, was the divine Word (Logos), Son of God, and Wisdom of God, responsible for the creation of the world and active since the dawn of history. As proof, Eusebius cites a number of scriptural passages, the most important being the opening lines of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God, all things came into being through him, and without him was no single thing" (HE 1.2.3; cf. John 1:1, 3). Eusebius uses this passage as a key to unlock the Logos theology of the Old Testament, for he goes on to declare that This, indeed, is also the teaching of the great Moses, as the most ancient of all the prophets, when by divine inspiration he described the coming into being, and the ordering of the universe, that the creator and fabricator of all things gave up to the Christ himself, and to no other than his divine and first-born Logos, the making of subordinate things and communed with him concerning the creation of man. "For,"

494

I ARTIIUR J. DROGE

he [Moses] says, "God said, 'Let us make man in our own image and likeness."' 10

Eusebius' point is that while the incarnation may have occurred only a short time ago, Christ, as the eternal Logos, has been active since the beginning. Indeed, it was Christ who was responsible for the creation of the world. In addition to Christ's role as the agent of creation, Eusebius goes on to document his activity in history (prior to the incarnation) in a series of theophanies. Once again, Eusebius builds his case out of a pastiche of scriptural citations. For example, Christ "appeared as an ordinary man to Abraham, while he was seated by the oak of Mamre" (HE 1.2.7; cf. Gen 18:1-3). He appeared in the same way to Jacob (HE 1.2.9; cf. Gen 32:28, 30), Moses (HE 1.2.13; cf. Exod 3:4-6), and Joshua (HE 1.2.12; cf. Josh 5:13-15). "Thus," Eusebius concludes, "let this be our short proof that the divine Logos preexisted, and appeared to some, if not all, men" (HE 1.2.16). Having argued for the preexistence of Christ and his activity in history before the incarnation, Eusebius attempts next to explain why the incarnation occurred at the time it did and not earlier. His answer is given in the following resume of the history of culture: The life of the men of old was not capable of receiving the complete wisdom and virtue of the teaching of Christ. For in the beginning, after the first life in blessedness, the first man, despising the command of God, fell at once to this mortal and perishable life, and exchanged the former divine delights for this earth with its curse; and after him those who filled all our world were manifestly much worse, with the exception of one or two, and chose some brutal habit of life, unworthy of the name. They gave no thought to city or state, to arts or sciences, they had not even the name of laws and decrees or virtue and philosophy, but they lived as nomads in the wildernesses like savage and unbridled beings; they destroyed by their excess of self-chosen wickedness the natural reasonings and the seeds of thought and gentleness in the human soul; they gave themselves up completely to all iniquity so that at one time they corrupted one another, at another they murdered one another, and at another they were cannibals; they ventured on conflicts with God and on the battles of the giants famous among all men; they thought to wall up the earth to heaven, and in the madness of a perverted mind prepared for war against the supreme God himself. While they were leading this life, God, the guardian of all, pursued them with floods and conflagrations ... ; he cut them off with perpetual famines and plagues, by wars and by thunderbolts from on high, as if he were restraining by bitter chastisement some terrible and grievous disease of their souls. Then, indeed, when the great flood of evil had come nigh overwhelming all men ... , the first-born and first-created Wisdom of God, the preexistent Logos himself, in his exceeding

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

495

kindness appeared to his subjects at one time by a vision of angels, at another personally to one or two of the God-fearing men of old, as a saving power of God, yet in no other form than human, for they could not receive him otherwise. But when the seeds of true religion had been strewn by them among a multitude of men, and a whole nation, sprung from the Hebrews, existed on earth, cleaving to true religion, he handed on to them, through the prophet Moses, images and symbols of a certain mysterious Sabbath and of circumcision and instruction in other spiritual principles, but not unveiled initiation itself, for many of them had still been brought up in the old practices. Their law became famous and spread among all men like a fragrant breeze. Beginning with them the minds of most of the pagans were softened by the lawgivers and philosophers who arose everywhere. Savage and unbridled brutality was changed to mildness, so that deep peace, friendship, and mutual intercourse obtained. Then, at last, when all men, even the pagans throughout the world, were now fitted for the benefits prepared for them beforehand, for the reception of knowledge of the Father, then again that same divine and heavenly Logos of God, the teacher of virtues, the minister of the Father in all good things, appeared at the beginning of the Roman Empire in a human body which in no point differed essentially from that which our nature wears. (HE 1.2.17-23)

This passage was worth quoting at length because it presents in nuce Eusebius' overarching view of the process of history. In the beginning, according to him, the wickedness of humans was such that only a succession of divine revelations could instruct them. At first these carne in the form of divine chastisements: flood, fire, famine, plague, and war; then revelations to a few select individuals (the patriarchs); and finally the "images and symbols" delivered to Moses. In the course of time these benefits spread to the surrounding world, so that lawgivers and philosophers arose everywhere. Thus, he says, "a savage and unbridled brutality was changed to mildness." In other words, the rise of civilization was a preparation for the appearance of Christ himself "at the beginning of the Roman Empire." Eusebius states that the earliest humans (Adam and his descendants) lived an uncivilized existence indistinguishable from the animals (HE 1.2.19). This description indicates that Eusebius did not regard the condition of primitive humanity as a Golden Age. That is, he did not subscribe to the mythological account of Hesiod, and those writers who followed him, which viewed humankind's earliest existence as blessed and free from toil, plague, and war. 11 On the contrary, Eusebius believed in the gradual development and progress of humanity. Although he refers to the Garden of Eden, for him this lay outside the realm of history proper: "For in the beginning, after the first life in blessedness, the first man, despising the command of God, fell at 496

I ARTHUR J. DROGE

once to this mortal and perishable life, and exchanged the former divine delights for this earth with its curse" (HE 1.2.18). For Eusebius, the fall represented the beginning of human history, and instead of tracing the ineluctable decline of humanity, as Hesiod and others had done, Eusebius was concerned to demonstrate historical progress, culminating in the appearance of Christ (and Christianity). Eusebius' historical perspective represents a modification or reinterpretation of a view expressed by many ancient writers on the history of culture. According to this view, the course of human history was not, as Hesiod and others had claimed, a process of decline and corruption from pristine beginnings. On the contrary, in the beginning the condition of human beings was indistinguishable from that of the animals. Only slowly did humankind progress toward civilization. 12 Eusebius' description of humankind's primitive condition as "bestial" (&r]pLw811s) was not unique to him; it was a common term in Greek accounts of the history of culture. A fragment attributed to the fifth-century BCE Greek philosopher Democritus states that "the first men to be born led an unordered and bestiallife." 13 The Sisyphusfragment of the po'et-politician Critias, a contemporary of Democritus, contains the remark that "there was a time when the life of man was unordered, bestial, and the slave of force." 14 Indeed, the frequency of the term's occurrence indicates that its use was characteristic of a particular school of thought on cultural history. 15 More important, however, for understanding the intellectual context of Eusebius' view of the history of culture is a passage from the fourth-century BCE Athenian orator !socrates. In his Nicocles (5-9) !socrates praised logos or "speech" as the primary agent that led humankind from barbarism to civilization. "Not only have we escaped the life of wild beasts [ToiJ &r]pLw8Ws- (wv]," !socrates wrote, "but we have come together and founded cities and made laws and invented arts; and generally there is no institution devised by man which the power of speech [Myos] has not helped us to establish." I6 The importance !socrates attached to logos in the rise of civilization sounds strikingly similar to Eusebius' view of the Logos. However, whereas !socrates believed civilization arose as the direct result of humankind's putting to use of an innate ability, "speech" (Myos), Eusebius, retaining the term but changing its meaning, attributed the progress of civilization to Christ. In Eusebius' perspective, !socrates' logos became the divine Logos, which "planted the seeds of true religion ... among men" (HE 1.2.22) and was responsible for introducing humankind to the benefits of civilization: law, philosophy, peace, commerce, and so forth (1.2.23). Robert M. Grant is surely correct, therefore, when he suggests that "!socrates provided

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

497

Eusebius with his basic ideas about primitive man, whether directly or, indeed, through some manual ofrhetoric." 17 In the preface to the Ecclesiastical History Eusebius presents a distinctive interpretation of the idea of progress, a much discussed topic among ancient historians, and it is not difficult to discern the reasons why he found the idea of progress in history attractive. In the first place, it provided him with a defense against the charges raised by Celsus, Porphyry, and no doubt others who maligned the "late" appearance of Christ and accused Christianity of being a historical novelty. But just as important, Eusebius welcomed the idea of progress as pointing toward the ultimate triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire. In his view the movement away from a bestial and nomadic existence entailed a movement toward monarchy and, in particular, the monarchy of the Roman Empire. 18 For Eusebius, it was no mere happenstance that the birth of Christ coincided with the establishment of the Roman Empire under Augustus. According to Eusebius, the destinies of the church and the empire were bound together in the providence of God. This was not a new idea among Christian writers. Its beginnings can be traced to the writings of the New Testament, especially in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. 19 (Indeed, with the exception of the Apocalypse of John, the writings of the New Testament are decidedly pro-Roman.)20 The second-century apologist Melito of Sardis also thought it significant that the birth of Christ coincided with the establishment of the Pax Romana by Augustus. 21 Like Eusebius, these writers claimed that, as Christ's incarnation coincided with the improvement of secular affairs, so the mission and expansion of Christianity would bring about further progress. Thus, the belief in progress, usually deemed so typical of the Constantinian and post-Constantinian eras, was actually present before the political reality of a Christian empire. 22 Of course, Eusebius' conception of progress should not be understood in the "Isocratean," evolutionary sense, but as a process clearly initiated and controlled by the God of the Christians. Whereas other cultural historians attributed the advancement of civilization and technology to necessity, humankind's accumulated experience, or to its innate and natural endowments (e.g., speech, intelligence, hands, etc.), Eusebius claimed that insofar as there was progress in history it was due to the activity of God through his Logos. Eusebius' interpretation of history, set forth briefly in the preface to the Ecclesiastical History, was fully developed and articulated in his monumental Preparation for the Gospel. Composed sometime between 314 and 318 (that is, after the "great persecution" of Diocletian), the Preparation is more than a refutation of the charges raised by Porphyry in his fifteen books

498

I ARTIIUR J. DROGE

Against the Christians; it is also an attempt to provide a definitive statement about the place of Christianity in the general history of culture. 23 The first five books of the Preparation discuss the history of pagan religion. The earliest stage in the religious history of humankind-except among the Hebrews-was the worship of the heavenly bodies found among the most ancient Phoenicians and Egyptians. At this time humans had no knowledge of the names of the gods or of the existence of demons, and their worship was devoid of statues, altars, temples, and animal sacrifices. These were later corruptions introduced by the Phoenicians and Egyptians themselves and later transferred to the Greeks.24 In other words, according to Eusebius, contemporary Greek religion had no independent status or originality; it was rather a secondary superstition, a "mixture" of Phoenician and Egyptian mythologies. 25 The religion of the Hebrews, on the other hand, had both a different origin and a different history from that of pagan religion. In the earliest period of human history there were some men, admittedly few and all of one race, who, in distinction from their contemporaries, recognized that God transcended the created world: For only some, one or two perhaps, or at most a very few others, whose memory is recorded in the oracles of the Hebrews, could not adapt their idea of God to any of the things that are seen, but with unperverted reasonings raised their thoughts from visible things to the Creator of the whole world and the great Maker of the universe; and with purified eyes of the understanding perceived that he alone is God, the savior of all, and the sole giver of good gifts. But the rest wandered about in all kinds of mental blindness, and were carried into an abyss of ungodliness, so that like wild beasts they limited the beautiful and useful and good to the pleasure of the eyes and the flesh.2 6

The "few" Eusebius has in mind, of course, are the patriarchs of Genesis. As we shall see, this argument is picked up and developed in Books 7 to 9, where, as in the Ecclesiastical History (1.4.6-10), Eusebius identifies the patriarchs as the original Christians. In the present context, however, Eusebius is primarily concerned to demonstrate that "the unenlightened contemporaries of the patriarchs were the original pagans, and from their ... religion derived all the varieties of pagan religion and superstition which filled the Greco-Roman world."21 Eusebius' achievement as a historian was revolutionary, for it marked the beginning of a new understanding of history within the thinking of the early church and, ultimately, western antiquity as a whole. In addition to recording the history of the church, Eusebius invested Christianity with a past history in an attempt to legitimize it in the eyes of its detractors. In the APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

499

process he produced a new kind of national history. For Eusebius, Christianity was not just a religious movement but a "nation" (l6vos), distinct from Greeks and Jews. Such a notion was not entirely new within Christianity. As early as the Preaching of Peter we find humanity divided into three "races" (ylVT)): "That which has reference to Greeks and Jews is old," the author says, "but we are Christians, who as a third race worship [God] in a new way." 28 The second-century apologist Aristides also speaks of three races: Christians, Jews, and pagans.29 Likewise, the Epistle to Diognetus refers to Christians as a "new race" (KaLvov ylvos) in distinction from Jews and Greeks. 30 Eusebius also maintains that Christians comprise a distinct race or nation: "For when the advent of our Savior, Jesus Christ, recently shown forth on all men, it was admittedly a new nation [vlov l6vos] which has thus appeared in such numbers, in accordance with the ineffable prophecies of the date, and is honored by all by the name of Christ" (HE 1.4.2).31 Although Eusebius admits that Christianity is a "new nation," he insists that it is such in name only. Even though it is clear that we are recent in point of time, and that this undoubtedly new name of Christians has but lately become known to all nations, nevertheless, we shall proceed to show as follows that our manner of life and mode of conduct, together with our religious principles, have not been just now invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, were established by the instinctive ideas of those men of old whom God loved. The Hebrew nation is not recent; on the contrary, it has been held in honor for its antiquity by all men, and to all men it is known. It is a fact that its books and writings speak within its pages of men of ancient times, scanty indeed and few in number, yet all the while excelling in piety and righteousness and every other virtue. Of these there were various examples before the flood, while others carne after it, for example, some of the sons and descendants of Noah, yes and Abraham also, whom the children of the Hebrews boast as their own founder and forefather. All these, to whose righteousness witness has been borne, going back from Abraham to the first man, it would be no departure from the truth to style as Christians, in point of fact if not in name. For surely, as regards the meaning of the name, that the Christian man should, through the knowledge and teaching of Christ, excel in self-mastery and righteousness, in steadfast conduct and manly virtue, in confession of piety towards the one and only God over all-all this was their earnest endeavor no less than ours. They cared not, then, for bodily circumcision; neither do we: nor for the observance of sabbaths; neither do we: nay, for the abstention of certain kinds of foods, nor for distinctions in other matters, the symbolic observance of which Moses was the very first to commit it to subsequent generations; neither do Christians now observe such things. But they also knew clearly the

500

I ARTHUR J. DROGE

Christ of God, since it has been shown before that he appeared to Abraham, gave divine instructions to Isaac, spoke to Israel [i.e., Jacob], and held converse with Moses and the later prophets. Hence you will find that those same men whom God loved have been deemed worthy of even the name of Christ, according to the voice which speaks thus of them: "Touch not my Christs, and do my prophets no harm" [Ps 105:15]. So then, it is evident that we must regard as the first and most ancient and primitive of all that religion which was discovered by Abraham and his followers, men dear to God, and which has recently been proclaimed to all nations through the teaching of Christ. (HE 1.4.4-1 0)32

As this passage indicates, Eusebius maintains that Christianity is not a historical novelty. Although Christianity had existed for less than three centuries, acquiring its name from Christ's ministry on earth, its teachings and practices are ancient, indeed, more so than all other religions. For Eusebius, Christianity is identical to the religion of the patriarchs, those admittedly few but ancient men who worshiped God correctly from Adam to Moses. They were Christians, according to Eusebius, "in fact if not in name," because they practiced true religion without the external props of circumcision, Sabbath observance, and dietary regulations characteristic of Judaism. Thus, Christianity is not a new and strange religion; it is as ancient and as authentic as the religion of Abraham. In order to support this historical view, Eusebius appeals once again to the scriptures for evidence. Like Paul, he places a great deal of weight on God's promises to Abraham in Gen 12:3 and 18:18.33 To Abraham, Eusebius writes, was the oracle given by God, who showed himself to him (and this was the Christ himself, the Logos of God), concerning those who in time to come would be justified in the same manner as himself, in the following promise, "And in you shall all the tribes [tj>uAa[] of the earth be blessed" [Gen 12:3], and, "It shall be a great and numerous nation [l8vos], and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in it" [Gen 18:18]. (HE 1.4.12)

By means of an exegetical tour deforce Eusebius interprets this "oracle" as applying to Christianity. Now this is obviously intelligible as fulfilled in us; for it was by faith towards the Logos of God, the Christ who appeared to him, that he [Abraham] was justified, and gave up the superstition of his fathers, and his former erroneous life, and confessed the God who is over all to be one. And him he served by virtuous deeds, not by the worship of the law of Moses, who came later. To him, just as he was then, was it said that all the nations will be blessed in him; and more clearly than any APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

SO!

words do facts show that at the present moment it is only among Christians throughout the whole world that the manner of religion which was Abraham's can actually be found in practice. What objection then can there be to admitting that the life and pious conduct of us who belong to Christ and of the God-loving men of old is one and the same? Thus we have demonstrated that the practice of piety handed down by the teaching of Christ is not new or strange, but, if one must speak truthfully, is primary, unique, and true. (HE 1.4.13-15)

Eusebius drives a wedge between the Hebrews (the original Christians) and the Jews. In contrast to the religion of the patriarchs, Judaism represents a decline in religion, peculiar to the Jewish nation but akin to the corruption of religion among the pagans. This theme is developed in greater detail in Eusebius' later work, the Preparation for the Gospel. In Books 7 to 9 of the Preparation Eusebius traces the history and religion of the Hebrews from Abraham to Moses. It is in this section of the work that Eusebius announces that he will state explicitly what Christianity is: "Since it has been proved that our abandonment of the false theology of the Greeks and barbarians alike has not been made without reason, but with well-judged and prudent consideration, it is now time to solve the second question by stating the cause of our claiming a share in the Hebrew doctrines." 34 As in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius goes on to identify Christianity with the original and true religion of the Hebrew patriarchs. 35 In opposition to pagan critics like Porphyry, who had argued that Christians were apostates from Hellenism and Judaism, Eusebius contends that Christianity embodies the ancient religion of the Hebrews. As such, it is not only more ancient than and superior to pagan religion but also to Judaism, which was established by Moses, the last of the patriarchs, to arrest the decline of religion among the Jews and to allow time for the Old Testament to exert its civilizing influence on all humanity as a "preparation for the gospel." Eusebius contends, on the one hand, that the patriarchs were the original Christians who alone recognized the truth while their pagan contemporaries wandered about in polytheistic error. On the other, he argues that the natural religion of the patriarchs was superior to Judaism because it had no need of the Mosaic legislation. The Hebrews who were earlier in time than Moses, having never heard of the Mosaic law, enjoyed a free and unfettered mode of religion, being regulated by the manner of life which is in accordance with nature, so that they had no need of laws to rule them because of the extreme freedom of their souls from passions, but had received true knowledge of the doctrines concerning God. (PE 7.6.4)

502

I ARTIIUR J. DROGE

In other words, Judaism, according to Eusebius, represents a temporary dispensation in order to ensure the survival of the authentic religion of the Hebrews at a time when their descendants, the Jews, had been corrupted by their association with the Egyptians, and in order to prepare the way for the reconstitution and dissemination of the religion of the Hebrews to all humanity under the auspices of Christianity. For when the light of the salutary preaching of our savior was all but ready to shine forth to all men in the Roman Empire, more than ordinary reason required that the prophecies concerning him, and the mode of life of the pious Hebrews of old, and the lessons of their religious teaching, hidden from long ages in their native language, should now at length come forth to all the nations, to whom the knowledge of God was about to be introduced; and then God himself ... arranged that the predictions concerning him who was to appear before long as the savior of all mankind, and to establish himself as the teacher of the religion of the one supreme God to all the nations under the sun, should be revealed to them all, and be brought into the light by being accurately translated, and set up in public libraries. So God put it into the mind of King Ptolemy to accomplish this, in preparation, as it seems, for that participation in them by all the nations which was soon to take place. 36 What follows are excerpts from the Letter of Aristeas, a Jewish writing of the second century BCE, describing the translation into Greek of the Jewish scriptures during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 37 Eusebius relies on this document as a crucial piece of historical evidence: he uses it as proof that the translation of the Old Testament into Greek was divinely ordained and an important step in the "preparation of the gospel." We have seen that Eusebius weaves together two competing historical perspectives. On the one hand, he contends that present-day religion, whether among pagans or Jews, is decadent, and, on the other, he advocates the idea that Christianity is responsible for progress in history, or more precisely, that it represents the fulfillment and universalization of the ancient and authentic religion of the Hebrews. "Thus," he can declare, "we have demonstrated that the practice of piety handed down by the teaching of Christ is not new or strange, but, if one must speak truthfully, is primary, unique, and true" (HE 1.4.15). The Ecclesiastical History is not only a novel kind of national history. "It is also," as T. D. Barnes points out, "a literary or philosophical history which chronicles the writings and teachings of Christian thinkers and attempts, like some earlier works about philosophical schools, to establish the lines through which correct doctrines have been transmitted from the incarnate Word to Christians of the late third century ... 3 8 In the APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

503

Ecclesiastical History Eusebius not only attempted to invest Christianity with a history from Abraham to Christ, thereby distinguishing Christianity from both paganism and Judaism, he also endeavored to construct an unbroken line from Christ to his own day, thereby distinguishing his own brand of Christianity from its "heretical" competitors. In addition to recording the "successions of the sacred apostles," Eusebius also set out to record "the names, the number and times of those who, driven by the desire of innovation to an extremity of error, have proclaimed themselves as the introducers of knowledge [yv&ms], falsely socalled, ravaging the flock of Christ unsparingly, like grim wolves" (HE 1.1.1). Eusebius is speaking, of course, of the "heretics," those who strayed from the path of "orthodoxy" (i.e., the Christianity Eusebius knew!). Among the things of which Eusebius accuses them is "innovation" (vEWTEporrOL(a), precisely the same accusation hurled at Christianity by pagan critics such as Celsus and Porphyry! According to Eusebius, orthodox Christianity is not only theologically superior to its heretical counterparts, it is also chronologically superior. In other words, Eusebius employs the same historical argument he had used against paganism and Judaism against heretical forms of Christianity. Like paganism and Judaism, Christian heresy was also a secondary phenomenon and a corruption of true religion. Eusebius' treatment of heretics has been called "scanty and unfair," but that is probably an understatement. 3 9 For Eusebius, heretics were the instruments of the devil, and this (orthodox) prejudice prevented him from letting them express their views in their own words. Indeed, he rarely discusses heretical doctrines. With few exceptions, most of his information about heresy comes from Justin and Irenaeus, who often failed to relate the most important aspects of particular heretical theologies. 40 Yet, however lacking Eusebius' treatment of the content of Christian heresy may have been, he did take pains to locate (and thus explain) the phenomenon of heresy within his general view of history. We have seen that Eusebius was concerned to construct historical genealogies for Christianity, Judaism, and paganism. It was important to him to identify their origins in order to set each of them in historical perspective and thereby distinguish them. Paganism and Judaism, according to Eusebius, were secondary corruptions: the former of the theology of the Phoenicians and Egyptians, the latter of the "symbols and images" delivered to Moses. Christianity, by contrast, embodied the ancient and original religion of Abraham. Employing the same historical scheme, Eusebius argues that heresy (a'Lpcow) began with a certain Samaritan named Simon, whom Eusebius (incorrectly) identifies with the Simon Magus mentioned in Acts 8:18-24 (HE 2.13.1-8). 41 Leaving aside the specifics of Simon's heresy, 42 what is important is Eusebius' claim that Simon was "the first 504

I ARTHUR J. DROGE

author of all heresy [miO'T]s d.pxrrybs atp€aEws rrpwTos]. From him, and down to the present time, those who have followed, feigning the Christian philosophy, with its sobriety and universal fame for purity of life, have in no way improved on the idolatrous superstition from which they sought to be set free" (HE 2.13.5-6). With one bold stroke Eusebius has constructed two genealogies. Whereas orthodox Christianity traces its descent in an unbroken line from Christ, heresy, according to Eusebius, derives from its founder, Simon Magus, who functions as a "historical anti-Christ," or perhaps we should say, "anti-Peter." For in the next chapter Eusebius states that the devil "raised him [Simon] up at that time as a great antagonist for the great and inspired apostles of our savior" (HE 2.14.1). Indeed, we find Simon and Peter locked in spiritual battle in the city of Rome, after which, Eusebius says, "the power of Simon was extinguished and perished immediately" (2.14.6-2.15.1). Having identified Simon as the "first author of all heresy" (HE 2.13.6), Eusebius was then in a position to construct a succession (BLaB ox~) of heretical teachers entirely separate from his list of orthodox teachers. For example, he reports that Simon was succeeded by a certain Menander, who "showed himself as a weapon of the devil's power not inferior to his predecessor" (HE 3.26.1). Menander, in turn, was followed by Satuminus and Basilides (4.7.3-4), the founders of Syrian and Egyptian schools of gnosis. The result was a genealogy of heresy that functioned as the negative counterpart to Eusebius' list of orthodox bishops in the greater centers of Christianity: Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. In addition to distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy by fashioning two separate genealogies, Eusebius further claimed that heresy was a secondary phenomenon that did not begin to flourish until after the deaths of those who had heard the apostles. Until then the church remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, for those who attempted to corrupt the healthful rule of the Savior's preaching, if they existed at all, lurked in obscene darkness. But when the sacred band of the apostles and the generation of those to whom it had been vouchsafed to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom had reached the several ends of their lives, then the federation of godless error took its beginning through the deceit of false teachers, who, seeing that none of the apostles still remained, barefacedly tried against the preaching of the truth the counter-proclamation of knowledge [yvwcns] falsely so-called. (HE 3.32.7-8)

In Eusebius' view, heresy was a later corruption of authentic Christianity.43

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

505

It is a measure of Eusebius' success as a historian that his view of early Christian history has proved so durable. From the publication of the Ecclesiastical History down to the modern era the history of early Christianity has been written and rewritten in the terms established by Eusebius. Not until the publication in 1934 of Walter Bauer's Rechtgliiubigkeit und Ketzerei im iiltesten Christentum was the Eusebian view of church history finally deconstructed and reconfigured. 44 Though Eusebius' accuracy and veracity as a historian had been challenged by numerous scholars, from antiquity to the present, his description of the contours of early Christian history had generally been endorsed. It was Bauer who demonstrated that within the first several centuries there was, strictly speaking, no such thing as "orthodoxy" and "heresy," at least not in the sense imagined by Eusebius. On the contrary, there was great diversity among Christian communities and individual Christian thinkers. All the great figures of this early period-Paul, the author of the Gospel of John, Ignatius, Polycarp, Marcion, Tatian, Valentinus, Clement, and Origenwere orthodox or heretical according to the point of view of the critic. The terms "orthodox" and "heretical" were part of the lexicon of polemic, used by individuals and communities to condemn their Christian opponents and adversaries. More precisely, the terms were employed as a means of selfdefinition vis-a-vis the proximate other: to claim for a particular community the privilege of being the "true church" in contrast to the competing claims of other Christians. To continue to use these terms, therefore, is anachronistic and misleading. Indeed, it was Bauer who showed that many of the Christian movements condemned as "heretical" by Eusebius were often the earliest manifestations of Christianity in particular locales: Egypt, Asia Minor, Syria. Bauer's work serves to set the apologetic dimensions of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in sharper relief. Eusebius was not only a church historian but also a church apologist, attempting to impress on his sources and readers a particular vision of history. Eusebius was concerned not just with "the way it was" but, more importantly, with "the way it should have been." One of the uses of history is to control the present and predict the future. Another is to legitimize the authority of an individual, community, or people. The future Eusebius wanted to predict and control and the authority he wanted to legitimize required him to construct a different past. Thus, Eusebius was more than a recorder of history, he was also an inventor of it. "Sometimes," as Bernard Lewis has written, "the purpose of the inventors of history is not to legitimize authority but to undermine it-to assert new claims and new arguments, sometimes even a new identity, in conflict with the old order." 45 We have seen these tendencies at work in the Ecclesiastical History. To express his vision of history and Christianity's 506

I ARTHUR J. DROGE

place in it Eusebius was required to rewrite the past histories of paganism and Judaism, and the recent history of heresy. The result was the establishment of an unbroken line running from Abraham through Christ down to the Christianity Eusebius knew.

Notes 1All references are to the Ecclesiastical History, unless otherwise indicated. In citing the Ecclesiastical History I have used the English translation of Kirsopp Lake and J. E. L. Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (LCL; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926, 1932). On occasion, however, I have altered their translation if it was not sufficiently literal or precise for my purposes. 2see A. A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, PA and London: Bucknell University Press, 1979); R. M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980) 3-9; and T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 111-20. [See also the essay by William Adler in this collection. Eds.] 3 See J. Sirinelli, Les vues historiques d'Eusebe de Cesaree durant Ia periode preniceenne (Publications de Ia section de langues et de litteratures 10; Dakar: Universite de Dakar, 1961 ). 4an pagan criticism of Christianity, see Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984). 5celsus' accusation is preserved by Origen in his response, Against Celsus 4.8 (Henry Chadwick, trans., Origen: Contra Celsum [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965]). 61n Origen, C. Cels. 6.78. The poet to whom Celsus refers is not known. 7 This passage from Porphyry's Against the Christians is preserved by Augustine, Ep. 102.8 (Wilfrid Parsons, trans., Augustine: Letters [FC 12, 18, 20, 30, 32; 5 vols.; New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1951-1956]). 80n Euscbius' apologetic predecessors, see Arthur J. Droge, "Apologetics in the

New Testament," in David N. Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, forthcoming); and idem, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Herrneneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989). 9Eusebius' description of his preface anticipates the title of his later work, the Preparation for the Gospel (trpotrapaaKfvi} fUa'Y'YfMKi)). Indeed, what is found in nuce in HE 1.1.1-1.4.15 is elaborated in considerable detail in the Preparation. 101/E 1.2.4; cf. Gen 1:26. See HE 1.2.14-15, where Eusebius identifies Christ with Wisdom (aocj>(a) in Proverbs 8 to support his contention that Christ was the preexistent instrument of creation. 11 For Hesiod's account of the Golden Age and the subsequent decline of civilization, see his Works and Days 106-201. The Hesiodic view of history had many proponents; see the sources collected by A. 0. Lovejoy and G. Boas, Primitivism and Related Ideas in Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1935).

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

507

12see Thomas Cole, Democritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology (American Philological Association Monograph Series 25; Cleveland: Western Reserve University, 1967). 13 68 B 5 (H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker: Griechisch und deutsch (trans. W. Kranz; lOth ed.; 3 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1960-1961). 14 88 B 25 (Diels-Kranz). l5Further references in Ludwig Edelstein, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967) 24 n. 7; 55 n. 73; see also K. Thraede, "Fortschritt," RAG 8 (1972) 143. l6Isocrates, Nicoc/es 6 (a passage repeated almost verbatim in the Antidosis 254). Cf. Panegyricus 10, where !socrates uses the term ltr(8oats ("advance" or "progress") to refer to the rise of civilization in a context that associates it with >.6yos ("speech"). 17Robert M. Grant, "Civilization as a Preparation for Christianity in the Thought of Eusebius," in F. F. Church and T. George, eds., Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History: Essays Presented to G. H. Williams (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 62-70, quotation from p. 64. In the Nicoc/es, !socrates defended monarchy as the ideal form of government. Since, as Grant notes, Eusebius shared this point of view, we may suppose that he would have read !socrates on at least this subject. Indeed, the influence of !socrates on later writers looms larger than is often suspected. See F. A. Spencer ("The Influence of !socrates in Antiquity" [Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1923) 91-104), on other early Christian writers. 18so Grant, "Civilization as a Preparation," 67. 19It is Luke who tells us that Christ's birth occurred during the reign of Augustus (Luke 2:1). Note too his dating of the appearance of John the Baptist "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (3:1). 20see Droge, "Apologetics in the New Testament." 21see Eusebius, HE 4.26.7-8. 22see further E. Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Munich:

Wild, 1950) 66-88; T. Mommsen, "St. Augustine and the Christian Idea of Progress," Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951) 346-74; and Droge, Homer or Moses? 192-93. 23 See Droge, Homer or Moses? 171-93 and the literature there cited. 24pE 1.6-2.1. 25 see esp. PE 1.9.13-19; 2.1.51-56; and the discussion in Sirinelli, Les vues historiques d'Eusebe, 173-82 and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 180. 26pE 2.6.12 (Edwin Hamilton Gifford, trans.; Preparation for the Gospel [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981 ]). 27Bames, Constantine and Eusebius, 184-85 (my emphasis). 28 In Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.5.41. Cf. 1 Pet 2:9: "But you are a chosen race [ytvos- lKAE"KT6v], a royal priesthood, a holy nation [l9vos dywv]." 2 9 Aristides, Apol. 2; 3.2; 8.1; 14.1; 15.1 (according to the Syriac recension of his work there are four: barbarians, Greeks, Jews, and Christians). 30Diogn. I, 5, 6. 31cf. HE 4.7.10; 9.9a.l, 9.9a.4; 10.4.19. 32Here I have followed the translation of H. J. Lawlor and J. E. L. Ou1ton, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea: The Ecclesiastical History and The Martyrs of Palestine (2 vo1s.; London: SPCK, 1927-1928) 1.15.

508

I ARTIIUR J. DROGE

33cr. Gal 3:15-29, where Paul emphasizes the theological and chronological superiority of the Abrahamic covenant at the expense of the Mosaic. Like Eusebius after him, Paul also interpreted God's promise to Abraham as pointing toward Christ and Christianity. See further Droge, "Apologetics in the New Testament." 34 P E 7.1.2. See the excellent discussion in Sirinelli, Les vues historiques d'Eusebe, 139--63. 35see, for example, PE 7.4.7; 7.15.18; 7.17.2; 8.1.1; 8.1.6; 9.1.1; 9.1.3. Cf. HE 1.4.1 0. 36pE 8.1.6 (trans. Gifford, modified); cf. 7.8.37-40; 7.9.1. 37 The letter purports to have been written by a certain Aristeas, an official of Ptolemy Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates. Scholars are unanimous, however, in regarding it as a piece of Jewish apologetic designed, in part, to legitimate the existence of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This is a good example of the way in which Eusebius exploited Jewish writings for his own apologetic purposes. 38Bames, Constantine and Eusebius, 128. 39Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2.29. [See the discussion of the issue by Birger Pearson in this collection. Eds.] 40see Grant, Eusebius, 84-96. 41 Eusebius is dependent here on Justin and Irenaeus, though only Eusebius made the connection with the Simon of Acts. 42Note that Eusebius himself is unwilling to go into the details of Simon's theology, referring the reader to Irenaeus, Adv. haer. (2.13.5). 431n the preceding passage (HE 3.32.7-8) Eusebius is dependent on Hegesippus, but he has apparently changed the meaning of his source. It seems that Hegesippus was reporting the growth of heresy in Jerusalem after the Departure of the Apostles. See Lawlor and Oulton, Eusebius, 2.105, who suggest that Eusebius "mistook" Hegesippus on this point. I would argue, however, that Eusebius deliberately changed the meaning of Hegesippus' report to bring it into line with his historical view that heresy was a later corruption of an originally pristine Christianity. 44English translation by Robert Kraft et al., Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). 45B. Lewis, History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975) 64.

APOLOGETIC DIMENSIONS

I

509

20 Eusebius and the Posthumous Career of Apollonius of Tyana ALAN MENDELSON

According to the traditions of later ages, during the ftrst century of our era there lived a neo-Pythagorean sage by the name of Apollonius of Tyana. The only full extant account of his life was written more than a century after Apollonius' death by Philostratus, 1 a member of the literary circle of the emperor Septimius Severns and his second wife Julia Damna. Philostratus' work, The Life of Apollonius,2 published after the death of Julia Damna in 217 CE,3 is not an objective biography. It is rather a philosophical and historical romance of Apollonius' life. 4 After the publication of Philostratus' work, the spirit of Apollonius kept alive, but seems to have drawn little attention. Then in 305 C E Hierocles 5 published a treatise entitled Truth-loving Words to the Chris-

tians. This treatise catapulted Apollonius into the limelight because in it Hierocles presumed to compare Apollonius with Jesus. Hierocles' "truthloving words" angered at least one prominent Christian; Eusebius was moved to write a reply, Against Hierocles. Eusebius identiftes the target of his work at the outset: "Hierocles, of all the writers who have ever attacked us, stands alone in selecting Apollonius, as he has recently done, for the purposes of comparison and contrast with our Savior" (AH 1).6 Hierocles' treatise has not come down to us intact, but Eusebius preserves a passage which gives us some flavor of Hierocles' prose. The passage, recorded in the second chapter of Against Hierocles, is central to the concerns of this paper and is quoted here in full: I need not say with what admiring approval he [Hierocles] attributes his [Apollonius'] thaumaturgic feats not to the tricks of wizardry, but to a divine and mysterious wisdom; and he believes they were truly what he supposes them to have been, though he advances no proof of this contention. Listen then to his [Hierocles'] very words: "In their anxiety to exalt Jesus, they [Christians] run up and down prating of 510

I

ALAN MENDELSON

how he made the blind to see and worked certain other miracles of the kind .... Let us note however how much better and more sensible is the view which we take of such matters, and ex-plain the conception which we entertain of men gifted with remark-able powers .... In the time of our own ancestors, during the reign of Nero, there flourished Apollonius of Tyana, who ... worked any number of miracles, of which I will omit the greater number, and only mention a few .... What then is my reason for mentioning these facts [the miracles]? It was in order that you may be able to contrast our own accurate and well-established judgment on each point, with the easy credulity of the Christians. For whereas we reckon him who wrought such feats not a god, but only a man pleasing to the gods, they on the strength of a few miracles proclaim their Jesus a god.... And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind-men who were liars and devoid of education [dtra(8EUTOL] and wizards-the history of Apollonius was written by ... men of the highest education, who out of respect for the truth and their love of mankind determined to give the publicity they deserved to the ac-tions of a man at once noble and a friend of the gods." These are the very words used by Hierocles in his treatise against us [Christians] which he has entitled "Lover of Truth" [cj>LAaAi)lhj]. (AH 2)

From this extract we can speculate with some confidence on the reasons why Eusebius felt called upon to publish Against Hierocles. Before analyzing Eusebius' work in greater detail, however, it is worth noting that Hierocles was not the only author in the fourth century who took notice of Apollonius. In the Life of the Deified Aurelian,1 there is a story that during the latter's victorious eastern campaign, Apollonius appeared to Aurelian on behalf of Tyana which was scheduled for destruction. The emperor recognized the countenance of the venerated philosopher because he had "seen his portrait in many a temple." Stricken with terror, Aurelian promised Apollonius "a portrait and statues and a temple." The author of this account then goes on to explain why he is ready to believe that this incident really happened: basically, he says, it is "because of the reverence in which Apollonius is held." He then continues, For who among men has ever been more venerated, more revered, more renowned, or more holy than that very man? He brought back the dead to life, he said and did many things beyond the power of man [ille multa ultra homines et fecit et dixit].s

Now it may be argued that this passage does not reflect an actual historical event which occurred during Eusebius' lifetime. But even if we cannot say anything with certainty about the authorship, the date, or the historical authenticity of the tale, some pagan author thought it significant EUSEBIUS AND APOUONIUS OF TYANA

I

511

enough to include. And even if it is partly a work of the imagination, the story may have been based on an oral tradition. In any event, more than two centuries after his death, Apollonius still exerted a strong spiritual influence over pagan writers. Indeed, he is mentioned by Porphyry (232/233-ca. 305 CE) and lamblichus (ca. 250-ca. 325 CE) as well as by Ammianus Marcellinus (ca. 330-395 CE) and Eunapius (ca. 345-ca. 420 CE). Even the evidence of writers who lived after Eusebius is relevant here, for it suggests that Apollonius was not a dead letter in the fourth century and that Eusebius' treatise Against Hierocles addressed a real problem. We should now return to the quotation from Hierocles' Truth-loving Words to the Christians. What is immediately apparent from this passage is that Hierocles disagreed strenuously with the Christian view of Jesus as sole claimant to the status of "divine man." Hierocles proposes a conceptually different category, "men who are pleasing to the gods," and consigns both Apollonius and Jesus to this category. To elevate Jesus beyond that point is for Hierocles an error. Eusebius, in contrast, is convinced of Jesus' divinity, and he defends the uniqueness of Jesus' claim against all spurious aspirants. Eusebius apparently had no quarrel with Apollonius himself. In the Preparation for the Gospel the churchman quotes Apollonius with approval on the subject of sacrifices.9 Eusebius even admits that "humanly speaking" Apollonius was a "kind of sage" (aocf>6v nva, AH 5). The problem, for Eusebius, was that Philostratus and others compelled Apollonius "to overleap the bounds of humanity" (ibid.). This superhuman representation of Apollonius threatened the unique stature of Jesus. From this brief sketch, it is evident that Hierocles and Eusebius invoked different concepts of humanity and divinity when they assessed the relative stature of Jesus and his contemporaries. In this paper I shall explore some aspects of their divergent points of view. It is not my intention to try to unearth the historical Apollonius, or to separate the fantastic from the more realistic-sounding elements of his life. 10 Instead, I shall concentrate on the issue of the divine man in the work of Eusebius and his pagan opponents. Eusebius claimed that Philostratus forced Apollonius to overleap the bounds of humanity. To what extent is this view justified by Philostratus' Life of Apollonius? At first sight, there is a good deal of evidence for Eusebius' assertion, for there are numerous passages which seem to portray Apollonius in godlike guise. For instance, before his birth, Proteus, who identified himself as "the god of Egypt," appeared to Apollonius' mother. Proteus had a reputation for wisdom; but Apollonius, we learn from Philostratus, will prove to be more of a prophet than this god (VA 1.4). At the sage's birth swans danced and sang.

512

I

ALAN MENDELSON

The moment Apollonius was born a bolt of lightning which seemed just about to strike the earth hung poised in the air and then disappeared upwards; no doubt the gods were giving a revelation-an omen of his brilliance, his exaltation above earthly things, his closeness to heaven. (VA 1.5)

Of course this passage does not assert that Apollonius was a god or would become one, but the miracle of his birth and the belief that he would transcend the mundane contribute to the theory that he was divine. Philostratus also points out that Apollonius and the Indian Iarchas (whom Apollonius calls a god) participated in a discussion concerning divination by the stars. Philostratus says that he regards this study, which Apollonius undertook successfully, as transcending human nature (im€p n1v dv9pwrrdav ... cpucnv, VA 3.41). At another point Philostratus compares the episodes of Apollonius' life to the visits to mankind paid by the servants of Aesclepius (VA 6.35). The image evoked here is definitely that of an agent coming to men from the outside. Apollonius is linked to the sons of the god of healing. For the ancient reader, Apollonius' frequent acts of exorcism and healing had a divine quality. 11 The portrait of Apollonius as a god is again suggested in the last two books of Philostratus' work. Apollonius is in prison awaiting his trial before Domitian. Seeing into the future, as was his godlike custom, Apollonius remarks to his companion, Damis: "No one will kill us." "Who is so invulnerable as that?" asked Damis. "And when will you be freed?" "As far as my judge is concerned, today," was the reply, "but as far as I run, immediately." So saying, he took his leg out of its shackle and said to Damis, "I have given you proof of my freedom. Be courageous." At that moment, says Damis, he first understood clearly that Apollonius's nature was godlike and more than human. (VA 7.38)

What is particularly significant about this account and a parallel one in VA 8.13 is that Philostratus does not offer a naturalistic explanation of this miracle. Nor does he indicate that he is skeptical about the incident or that it was only hearsay. We find the same editorial silence in Philostratus' account of Apollonius' superhuman disappearance from court (VA 8.5 and 8), his reappearance at a great distance among friends on the same day (VA 8.10), and his unique ability to preach after his death (VA 8.31). The evidence we have seen thus far points to the conclusion that Philostratus presents Apollonius as a god. The case for this is further EUSEBIUS AND APOLLONIUS OF TY ANA

I

513

strengthened by Philostratus' depiction of Apollonius' proclamation before Domitian (VA 8.5). Quoting the Iliad (22.13), Apollonius announces to the emperor: "You will not kill me, since I am not mortal" (oil yap 1-J.E KTEVEELS, ETTEL oihoL ~-J.6paL~-J.6s ELI-J.L). The original speaker of these words, Apollo, may have been the Olympian mentor of Apollonius. Taken in their original context, the words imply that the speaker is divine. To this point we have explored the view that Apollonius was presented as a god. There is other evidence in Philostratus, however, which leads to the opposite conclusion. The way in which Philostratus handles Apollonius' death (VA 8.30), for instance, does not support the view that Philostratus considered Apollonius divine. Philostratus states that his hero was borne up to heaven to the music of a chorus of maidens. But this story is reported as myth, not as truth. In the same chapter, Philostratus records three different versions of Apollonius' last days. One version presents Apollonius' death prosaically, not in a manner befitting a god: "Some say he died in Ephesus in the care of two maidservants." The fact that at this crucial juncture Philostratus resorts to recording different stories is indicative of two things. First, Philostratus was not entirely comfortable with the ascension and apotheosis of his hero. Second, the author was well aware of the extent to which rumor and myth had pervaded his sources.l2 Philostratus' skeptical disposition is apparent in his treatment of an important event-Apollonius' raising a young bride from the dead. At first, the author tells us that Apollonius merely touched her, whispered in secret some spell over her, and she awoke. The comparison between this act and that of Hercules bringing Alcestis to life is drawn. But then Philostratus casts doubt on a supernatural interpretation by suggesting a naturalistic explanation: He may have seen a spark of life in her which her doctors had not noticed, since apparently it was drizzling and steam was coming from her face; or he may have revived and restored her life when it was extinguished; but the true explanation [KaTdATjcjiLs] of this has proved unfathomable [dppTJTOS], to me no less than to the bystanders. (VA 4.45)

Moreover, Philostratus depicts Apollonius' human limitations in another incident: Apollonius' inability either to ease the suffering or to delay the death of a philosopher-friend (VA 8.7.14). Philostratus was well aware that Apollonius' own followers thought of him as godlike. For instance, we read: "All the passersby looked at Apollonius; his clothing in itself drew stares and there was a venerability in his appearance that seemed god-given." (VA 7.31). 13 Because of his appearance, the wisdom of his words, and his reputation for working wonders, some men came to consider Apollonius a 514

I ALAN MENDELSON

god. 14 But Philostratus undermines the effect of this popular tendency to deify Apollonius when he portrays Apollonius himself rebuking his overeager followers for such ideas. Thus, we read at the beginning of Philostratus' work (VA 1.6): "The local people say that Apollonius was the son of Zeus, but he always refers to himself as the son of Apollonius [his natural father's name]." IS Likewise, while discussing his plans for the hours immediately after the trial in Rome, Apollonius remarked that he would appear at a given place: "Alive," asked Damis, "or how?" Apollonius laughed and said, "To my way of thinking, alive, but to yours, risen from the dead" (VA 7.41). Apollonius' passive role in the issue of his own deification is corroborated by the fact that Domitian (allegedly) charged him with allowing himself to be worshiped by his fellow men. In Philostratus' account, Apollonius was not accused of abetting the process or believing in his own divinity. In the speech composed for him by Philostratus, Apollonius explicitly dissociates himself from the practices of candidates for divine honors who solicited support among the people: The accuser [prosecutor in Domitian's court] says that men consider me a god, and avow as much publicly because of the spell I cast on them. But before making that accusation he should have shown what it was that I said, what the amazing speech or act was, by which I induced human beings to pray to me. I did not announce before the Greeks what my soul had changed into or changed from in the past, or what it will in future, even though I know; I have never put out such ideas about myself; I never resorted to predictions or to composing oracles as the swarms of diviners do; and I know of no city in which it was ever decided to assemble and sacrifice to Apollonius. (VA 8.7.7)16

In this speech Apollonius admits that certain cities had esteemed him highly. He insists, however, that they did not entertain the illusion that he was a god. In his defense, Apollonius claims that the good people of these cities did not confer on him any special honors. They only recognized in him the universal law that human beings, alone of all the creatures, speculate on their own nature in relation to god (ibid.). As a human being, then, Apollonius participates in the divine. All good people (and surely Apollonius regarded himself as one) partake of the divine simply by virtue of their being good. Apollonius learned this lesson in India in the following encounter: He [Apollonius] proceeded to ask what they thought they were, and Iarchas replied, "Gods." "Why?" asked Apollonius. "Because we are good men." EUSEBIUS AND APOLLONIUS OFTYANA

I

515

Apollonius thought that this saying showed such enlightenment that later he used it before Domitian in his speech of self-defence. (VA 3.18) 17

Despite Apollonius' participation in the divine, the gulf between human beings and gods remains. Apollonius cannot sway the gods from their purposes. In his references to the gods and in his prayers, Apollonius displays a deep sense of being ruled-as all people are ruled. Humans and gods are different kinds of beings (he-poye-~s ). As Apollonius explains, "I know this much about loving and being loved: gods fall in love with gods, and human beings with human beings" (VA 6.40).18 In Philostratus' depiction, Apollonius does not represent himself as a god. But he is not an ordinary mortal either, for he exhibits special qualities which distinguish him from the majority of humans. For instance, he has prophetic and healing powers; he abstains from women and for a time observes a vow of silence. With these characteristics in mind, Philostratus presents Apollonius as a third sort of being, one who was more than human but less than divine. To this point we have simply referred to Apollonius as a "good man" or a "hero" (two terms used by Philostratus). In addition to these terms, Philostratus uses several other words to denote the same intermediate being. He calls him a "sage" (aocf>6s) and a Batllwv. To accommodate this superhuman kind of mortal, Philostratus employs a three-fold distinction among the inhabitants of the universe: A wise man [o ao.p6s] will not wait for the earth to give off vapours, or the air to be corrupted, if it is from above that the disaster is to fall. He will perceive these events when they are on the threshold, later than the gods but sooner than other men: the gods are aware of things before they happen, men when they happen, and wise men when they are about to happen. (VA 8.7.9)

The term "gods" in this context refers to members of the pantheon, beings like Apollo or Hercules. The intermediate being or wise man is a human who is endowed with certain special gifts, whereas the unqualified term "men" refers to members of the oY. rroAAoL The same tripartite division is assumed in a discussion which, according to Philostratus, took place in Sparta. When Apollonius arrived there, some Spartans asked him how the gods were to be revered. Apollonius answered, "As your lords and masters." Secondly they asked him: "And how the heroes?" "As fathers," he replied. And their third question was: "How are men to be revered?" And he answered: "Your question is not one which any Spartan should put." (VA 4.31)19

516

I ALAN MENDELSON

Understanding the distinction between these beings is the fruit of philosophy. As Sophia once said to the uninitiated Apollonius, "I will so fill your eyes with radiance that you will recognize gods, know heroes, and unmask insubstantial ghosts when they hide in mortal form" (VA 6.11). Although Philostratus uses various terms to refer to the intermediate person, for our purposes the most significant term is the appellation 8a(!J.WV. The generalized meaning of 8a(!J.WV will emerge from the following quotations: The man from Nineveh was amazed, but Apollonius said, "Do not be surprised if I know all that men say: I know all that men conceal too.,. The Assyrian worshipped him when he said this, and regarded him as a daimon. (VA 1.19) He at once struck me as full of wisdom and cleverness and sobriety and of true endurance; but when I saw that he also had a good memory, and that he was very learned and entirely devoted to love of learning, he became to me something superhuman [8aq.L6vL6v TL IJ.OL ly€vno]. (VA 3.43)20 These predictions he made from divine impulse [8aLIJ.OV(~ KLVT)an], and those who think him a magician are wrong in their opinion .... Magicians, who are in my opinion the greatest scoundrels on earth, resort to questioning ghosts or to barbaric sacrifices, or to incantations or anointings.... Apollonius, however, followed the warnings of fate ... his clairvoyance was due not to magic but to divine revelation. (VA 5.12) It would be a stroke of folly in me to associate with slaughter [divination], with entrails which I consider unacceptable and unpropitious. If I had, the voice of my daimon would have deserted me as an unclean being. (VA 8.7.10)21

The word 8aC1J.wv, signifying a being intermediate between humankind and the gods, is not reserved exclusively for Apollonius: Philostratus also applies the term to Socrates (VA 8.7.9)22 and Apollonius is represented as using it to refer to Pythagoras. Nor is this usage of the word BaL!J.WV unique to Philostratus, for Plato employs the same locution in both the Symposium23 and the Cratylus. 24 Thus there are some grounds for inferring that Philostratus' three-fold categorization may represent a more general classical view of the cosmos. At first sight Eusebius' Christian cosmology may not appear significantly different from the cosmology of his pagan predecessors. Like Philostratus, Eusebius views the world in terms of three types of entities: God, ordinary humans, and intermediary beings who command superhuman EUSEBIUS AND APOLLONIUS OF TYANA

I

517

powers. But an examination of Eusebius' remarks about such intermediate beings reveals a fundamental difference between the pagan and Christian outlook. The contrast is most evident in Eusebius' usage of the word 8al1J.wv, for he categorically rejects the classical meaning of 8a(1J.wv which we have documented in Philostratus and Plato. Although Eusebius employs the same word found in Philostratus, he uses the term only in negative contexts. In Against Hierocles, for instance, 8al1J.WV is associated with the polymorphous sea-god Proteus,25 with people who are possessed by evil spirits, 26 and with numerous incidents which Eusebius regards as the opposite of miraculous.27 Furthermore, in his work The Preparation for the Gospel, Eusebius explicitly repudiates the notion that mortal men can possess 8al1J.wv-like powers which are godlike in a positive sense: Our [Christian] divine oracles never call any daemon (8a(IJ.ova) good, but say that all are bad who share this lot and even this appellation, since no other is truly and properly god except the One Cause of all.. .. The gentle and good powers, as being in their nature created, and following far behind the uncreated God who is their Maker, but nevertheless separated also from the mischievous race of daemonsthese the Scriptures deem it right to name neither gods nor daemons, but as being intermediate between God and daemons they are accustomed to call them by a well-applied and intermediate name, angels of God, and "ministering spirits," and divine powers, and archangels .... But the daemons, if indeed it behoves us to declare the origin of their name also, are called according to their nature daemons, not as the Greeks think in consequence of their being knowing (Ba~IJ.OVas), and wise, but because of their fearing and causing fear (BniJ.a(vnv). (PE 4.5, p. 142a-b)28

Mortals cannot acquire divine powers, for such attributes are reserved for God and the angels. Humans can become wizards by cultivating "demonic" powers, but these powers are defined as intrinsically evil. At the other end of the spectrum, there is nothing to prevent a divine nature from associating itself with humans (AH 6). Thus at the summit of Eusebius' hierarchy stands Jesus, "the only man of whom it was prophesied ... that he should once come among humankind" (AH 4). Jesus converted many, formed a group of disciples, established "a school of sober and chaste living," proved himself to be mightier than those who persecuted him, and displayed godlike attributes by casting out "evil demons" (cf>avAovs 8a( IJ.Ovas, ibid.). "Having cleansed his understanding and dissipated the mist of mortality" (AH 6), Jesus transcended his human stature. But his unique example only underscores the limits of human nature. In the ordinary course of events, human nature "cannot lawfully transcend its bounds, nor with its wingless

518

I

ALAN MEI'.'DELSON

body emulate the bird, nor being a man must one meddle with what appertains to demons" (TCI Twv 8aq.16vwv, ibid.). Where does Eusebius place Apollonius in this Christian hierarchy of God and humankind? If Apollonius is regarded as an ordinary mortal, Eusebius is willing to concede that he may have been a sage, better and wiser than the majority of people. The trouble arises for Eusebius when Apollonius' biographers try to foist a spurious godlike stature upon him: If anyone wishes to class him [Apollonius] with any philosopher you like, and to forget all the legends about him and not bore me with them, I am quite agreeable. Not so if anyone ventures, whether he be Damis the Assyrian, or Philostratus, or any other compiler or chronicler, to overleap the bounds of humanity and transcend philosophy, and while repelling the charge of wizardry in word, yet to bind it in act rather than in name upon the man, using the mask of Pythagorean discipline to disguise what he really was. For in that case his reputation for us as a philosopher will be gone ... and we shall detect in him a sophist in the truest sense . . . and a wizard, if there ever was one, instead of a philosopher. (AH 5)

In Eusebius' estimation, Apollonius was a good, but ordinary, man. Apollonius' followers have mistakenly raised him above his true terrestrial station. As Eusebius asserts, "Apollonius was not fit to be classed, I will not say among philosophers, but even among men of integrity and good sense." (AH 4). 29 For Eusebius the status of Apollonius amounts to a simple disjunction, "whether we ought to rank him among divine and philosophic men or among wizards." Since only one man, Jesus, can correspond to the first category, Eusebius is forced to conclude that Apollonius belongs to the class of "wizards and falsely wise men" ('YOTJTOv Kat tJ;e:u8oa6cpov, AH 38). Thus, whereas Apollonius' biographers assumed the existence of benign godlike powers among some mortals, Eusebius categorically refused to consider the possibility of such powers except in one case, that of Jesus. Eusebius' Christian worldview allowed for no other human competitors to challenge Jesus' unique status. We may conclude that Eusebius did not simply fail to appreciate the classical meaning of the word Bat~wv. Instead, he rejected the entire classification of humankind which provided the context for the pagan understanding of that term. In so doing he bore witness to the profound philosophical gulf which divided the pagan world from the Christian.

EUSEBIUS AND APOLLONIUS OF TYANA

I

519

Notes 1For useful secondary sources on Apollonius and Philostratus, see M. Dzielska, Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History (Problemi e Ricerche di Storia Antica 10; Rome: Bretschneider, 1986) 9-10. For a discussion of Apollonius' dates, see ibid., 185. 2Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana will be cited hereafter as VA. The Greek text used is that published by F. C. Conybeare, Philostratus (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1912). Unless otherwise noted, the English translation quoted in this paper is that of C. P. Jones, Philostratus: The Life of Apollonius (ed. G. W. Bowersock; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970). 3 See E. L. Bowie, "Apollonius of Tyana: Tradition and Reality," ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1669-70; and Dzielska, Legend and History, 14 n. 27, and 188-92. 4cf. remarks of J. S. Phillimore, Philostratus: In Honour of Apollonius of Tyana (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1912) l.xxii: Philostratus "was writing ds- 'Atro>.AWvLOv, not tre-pl 'Atro>.Awv(ou nor !J(ov 'Atro>.Awv(ou, an Aretalogy, if you like, a glorification, not an account or a biography." Other scholars have made the same point, as M. A. Canney in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. James Hastings; 13 vols.; New York: Scribner, 1967) 1.609-10. On the literary form of VA see Dzielska, Legend and History, 12. 5Hierocles Sossianus, proconsul of Bithynia from 293-303 CE, later served Rome in the city of Alexandria. Cf. T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 165; Dzielska, Legend and History, 15 and 99. 6Eusebius' treatise Adversus Hieroclem will be cited hereafter as AH. The Greek text and translation used in this paper are published in Conybeare's edition of Philostratus (see n. 2, above). 7This work is part of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, concerning which historians recently have raised myriads of questions. The life of Aurelian (d. 275 CE) is attributed to one Vopiscus about whom little is known. Some scholars claim that a real Vopiscus wrote this life of Aurelian early in the fourth century. Others claim that the true author hid behind "Vopiscus" (and other names) and wrote considerably later. (For the latter view, see Ronald Syme, The Historia Augusta: A Call for Clarity [Beitriige zur Historia Augusta Forschung 8; Bonn: Habelt, 1971].) None of these considerations alters the fact that Apollonius' renown persisted. Also see Dzielska, Legend and History, 17476. 8 see the Life of Aurelian (24.8) in D. Magie, ed. and trans., Scriptores Historiae Augustae (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1932). 9some modem commentators question whether Apollonius actually wrote a treatise on sacrifices. For our purposes it is sufficient to note that Eusebius thought that he did. Eusebius mentions Apollonius in PE 4.12-13. Also see Eusebius' DE 3.3. Cf. Dzielska, Legend and History, 136-47. 10It is by no means clear what criteria one would use to separate the historical Apollonius from the myths which surround him. On the feasibility of such a project, scholarly opinion during the past century has been divided. At one pole, we find the conviction that there is nothing to prevent the "real" Apollonius from stepping forwardonce, of course, he has been disentangled from some "incidental" miracles. (Cf. D. M. Tredwell, A Sketch of the Life of Apollonius ofTyana [New York: Tredwell, 1886] 35253 ). At the other, more skeptical pole, we fmd the belief that Apollonius was nothing but a figment of Philostratus' imagination. Historians who have held this latter opinion have

520

I

ALAN MENDELSON

shifted the object of their investigations from Apollonius to Philostratus. See the remarks of G. W. Bowersock in his introduction to Jones' translation of VA, esp. p. 16. 11 For example, see VA 2.4; 4.10; 4.20. 12 Cf. VA 8.15. 13cf. L. Bieler, 9EIOE ANHP: Das Bild des "giittlichen Menschen" in Spiitantike und Fruhchristentum (2 vols.; Vienna: Hofels, 1935-1936) passim. 14Let us consider, for instance, the case of Tigellinus, an important official in the service of the emperor Nero. At one point, Apollonius allegedly made a remark which some regarded as prophetic, whereupon Tigellinus began to fear Apollonius "as one who must have supernatural knowledge" (VA 4.43). Tigellinus clearly regarded Apollonius as someone who was more than human. In his account, however, Philostratus does not suggest that Tigellinus was correct; certainly Apollonius does nothing to encourage Tigellinus' beliefs. 15 An interesting instance of a naturalistic explanation (used to explain away a gift which may have appeared too godlike) occurs in Philostratus' treatment of Apollonian foreknowledge. How does Apollonius explain his having seen a coming disaster at Ephesus? "My food is light and more pleasant than the luxurious dishes of others. This ... keeps my senses in a kind of mysterious clarity, and prevents cloudiness from affecting them; and causes me to discern everything that is and will be, as if it were reflected in a mirror" (VA 8.9). For a rather clumsy attempt to see Apollonius in terms of natural phenomena, see Tredwell, Sketch, 344. 16 cf. the epigram recently discovered with Apollonius' name on it: Bowie, "Apollonius of Tyana," 1687-88; C. P. Jones, "An Epigram on Apollonius of Tyana," JHS 100 (1980) 190-94; N. I. Richardson and P. Burian, "The Epigram on Apollonius of Tyana," GRBS 22 (1981) 283-85; and Dzielska, Legend and History, 64-73 and 159-61. For Apollonius' relationship to the cities in general, see ibid., chap. 2. 17For Apollonius' use of this idea before Domitian, see VA 8.7.7: "I affirm the Indians' doctrine and believe that men who are good have some share in godhead." 18Trans. Conybeare. 19Trans. Conybeare. 20Trans. Conybeare. 21The word BalJ.l.WV also appears in Apollonius' Ep. 50 where it refers to Pythagoras. Cf. Robert J. Penella's commentary on this letter in The Letters of Apollonius of Tyana (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 116. In this note Penella lists several other passages from VA in which the term BalJ.J.WV and its cognates are applied to Apollonius himself: VA 1.2; 4.44; 6.3; and 8.8. Note: in the quotations given here I have substituted the Greek term BaLJ.J.WV for a variety of misleading translations. 2 2Whether neo-Pythagoreans thought that Socrates was a Bal J.l.WV or was only indebted to BaL J.l.WV-like forces is an intriguing question which goes beyond the scope of this paper. To address this issue properly it would be necessary to ask how both the historical Socrates and Plato understood Socrates' inner voice. Cf. Apology 31d: J.l.OL 8E'L6v n Kal BaLJ.l.6vwv yl yvnaL (LCL). 23In Symposium 202D-E, Diotima says that between the divine and the mortal there is a 8alJ.J.WV J.J.(yas-. 24Cratylus 398B-C: "so I assert that every good man, whether Jiving or dead, is of spiritual nature (8aLJ.l.6VLOV), and is rightly called a spirit" (BaLJ.J.ova). Plato presents a

EUSEBIUS AND APOLLONIUS OF TYANA

I 521

fascinating etymology in this passage. The translation of the Cratylus used here is that of H. N. Fowler (LCL; London: Heinemann, 1926). 25AH8. 26AH22. 27 AH31. 28 Translation of E. H. Gifford, Preparation for the Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903; reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981). Elsewhere in the same work Eusebius alludes to the wickedness of daemons: 164b, 169c, 173d, 181b, 181d, 182a, et al. (Slight changes in punctuation are mine.) In PE 142a-b, Eusebius explicitly rejects the etymology given by Plato in Cratylus 3988 (cf. n. 24, above). 29Eusebius repeats the same sentiment in AH 32: "We need not devote too much attention and study to the gentleman's [Apollonius'] career, seeing that those of our contemporaries among whom his memory survives at all, are so far from classing him among divine and extraordinary and wonderful beings, that they do not even rank him among philosophers."

522

I

ALAN MENDELSON

21 Eusebius on Jesus as Deceiver and Sorcerer

FREDERICK W. NORRIS

Eusebius of Caesarea cannot be avoided by any serious student of early Christianity. Much of what little we know about the church before the fourth century is in some way dependent upon his efforts. As the inheritor of the great Caesarean library, enriched if not established by Origen and enlarged by Pamphilus, Eusebius had at his fmgertips what historians adore: texts. He also developed in his history a method for making his points that has been hated and admired by all historians: direct quotation. We have a few words from many lost sources because he followed that plan. But we also find him maddening when he stops quoting exactly at the place where the information we want should come. For example, he notices that the Gospel of Peter was first accepted by Serapion of Antioch because it was Petrine and then rejected because of its content. Yet Eusebius neither quotes any passages from that gospel which would indicate its contents nor gives a detailed summary that adequately portrays its thought; indeed he fmishes his quotation where Serapion's work evidently began to list the errors the Antiochene bishop found in the Gospel of Peter.l Recent students of Eusebius' history also have noted how tendentious it can be. 2 Their point is not that good historians are positivists, but that Eusebius' perspectives sometimes distort his presentation of materials, even the scope of a particular project. He was so concerned to tell about Christian penetration into the upper classes of Roman society that he took the quite ambiguous information concerning the exile of Domitian's niece, Flavia Domitilla, on charges of "atheism and Jewish customs" and turned her belief into Christian faith. 3 His interest in presenting a pedigree for orthodoxy at times overpowers his concern for accuracy in the use of his sources; he adopted what came to be known as the classical theory of heresy: that it was always later and less influential than orthodoxy. 4 In fairness, however, his failings are not always as large as those attributed to him by earlier EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

523

generations of historians, those too often involved in their own ecclesiastical squabbles. Presently Hegesippus rather than Eusebius is seen as the creator of lists of bishops in order to sustain the argument about the continuity of orthodoxy, lists that themselves are not necessarily inaccurate. 5 Two other features of his works, however, make his contribution difficult to assess. First, he is fawning in his praise of Constantine. Descriptively, politically, and theologically he can hardly contain his joy. Doubtless Eusebius was influenced by the imperial persecution personally known to him, particularly that of Diocletian after years of peace. His whole apologetic corpus arises from those years of terror. The great opportunity which Constantine's reign presented was not merely a return to the calm that Eusebius had known in his youth, but the creation of new support and privilege. The Life of Constantine is also an encomium, which by definition concentrates on the praiseworthy characteristics of its subject. Yet Eusebius' ignorance of or suppression of evidence concerning Constantine's vices (including the murder of members of his family), his submission of much within the church to the political powers, and the suggestion of the emperor's position as a bishop for those outside the church hardly appear to be strengths worth imitating. 6 Church/state relationships deserve more cautious and diligent attention. Second, the problems that surround Eusebius' place at the Council of Nicaea are exasperating. He may have been either quite self-serving in his efforts to help the church come to some settlement on christological positions or he may have been one who worked carefully for a peaceful solution in which all, including himself, would make some kind of accommodation. The exact situation is impossible to reconstruct, but it appears that when his views were not accepted as orthodox by the majority of those present, he changed his own position. That may have been to save himself or to create a broad base that more members of the pro-Arian and anti-Arian parties could claim.? Not unexpectedly in the midst of this context, his apologetic efforts are of mixed quality. 8 Two works, Against Porphyry and Refutation and Defense, are lost. Jerome, Socrates, and Philostorgius knew of the first; Photius mentions the second as not entirely satisfactory.9 Against Hierocles, the first of his apologies, is clearly a rushed work written by one who had enjoyed the peace of the church and was not prepared to respond to persecution when it arrived. This piece attacks the Roman governor Sossianos Hierocles' claims that Apollonius of Tyana was a man of God whose life was reported by trustworthy educated men, not the lying cheats who make the trickster Jesus of Nazareth into a God. It is not, however, particularly penetrating philosophically or historically. The General 524

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

Elementary Introduction is better fonned and historical in character, although we have only four-or perhaps five in some fonn-of its ten books. Books 6--9, the Prophetic Extracts, rehearse Old Testament texts that bear on the truth of Christianity. Barnes states that fragments of Book 10 are to be found under the title the Second Theophany. They deal with the second coming of Christ. 10 The extant books and possible fragments show the signs of persecution's toll on the Christian community, and may have been a type of catechism for converts. Without doubt the better writings are the Preparation for the Gospel and the Demonstration of the Gospel. The first is intended for recent converts from paganism and thus treats pagan conceptions of the gods, oracles, and fate and gives reasons why Christians follow Hebrew Scripture rather than Greek philosophy and religion. The Demonstration attempts to answer charges made by Jews and taken up by pagans that Christianity is false at its core. The two works apparently fonn a unified plan and thus can be seen as one massive apology. The first contained fifteen books, all extant, and the second twenty, of which only ten still exist. In them Eusebius wants to show that the best aspects of Greco-Roman culture and Christianity are compatible-indeed identical-and that charges brought against Christianity by its opponents are poorly fonned arguments. The last of his apologies, the Theophany, exists in a few fragments and a full Syriac translation. In five books, it appears to represent a reworking of the Preparation and the Demonstration-perhaps also parts of the Introduction. It may represent a synopsis or an abridgment of Eusebius' apologetic works. At least in 4.37 the author says that Book 5 is taken from an earlier work, in this instance Demonstration 3. 11 Thus the section of the Demonstration which deals with the charges that Jesus was a deceiver and a sorcerer is repeated, perhaps by Eusebius himself. That section is also seen by at least one major modem critic as "the liveliest and most eloquent" part of the Demonstration. 12 Eusebius stands in a tradition of apologetics that attempted to deal with objections made by those defending Judaism and Greco-Roman religion. Although he was much concerned with Roman persecution, he doubtless faced strong opposition in Caesarea from the Jewish community. Thus his response in the Demonstration of the Gospel to the charges taken up by pagans that Jesus was both a deceiver and a wizard has two opposing communities in focus, both pagan and Jewish. These charges had been made quite early. The synoptic gospels record an exchange in which the Pharisees claim that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul; Jesus responds that the charge is false because the prince of demons would not help another destroy his own forces. 13 The Gospel of Matthew contains a story its author says was known among the EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

525

Jews of his day that insisted Jesus' body was stolen by the disciples in order to give the impression that he had risen from the dead, a clear act of deception. 14 Justin Martyr knew both positions. 15 Furthermore Celsus' attack on Christianity included the two charges, perhaps again formed on the basis of Jewish sources, which he accepts only selectively. He ridicules parts of the Jewish Scriptures as coming from a similar tradition of fraud and sorcery. His wilting attack on Jesus and the Christian community in the second century is perhaps the most forceful known to us. In some places it is more scathing than that of Porphyry during the third century. We cannot make an overall judgment about the two pieces because Porphyry's work is only extant in small fragments. For Celsus Jesus was the bastard son of Panthera and Mary who learned the arts of deception and magic in Egypt. The earliest Christian community was filled with uneducated, immoral wastrels who either came from the worst professions and depended on lies and sorcery in making their own claims or were ignorant women and children who could not resist such blather. 16 Eusebius, in his Demonstration of the Gospel 3.1-7 (87-141), responds directly to this tradition. He depends upon people like Justin Martyr and particularly Origen. Ivar Heikel, the editor of the Demonstration in the GCS series, suggests thirteen places in 3.1-7 where Eusebius' arguments are similar to those of Origen 17 and six places where the positions resemble those of Justin. 18 Although Origen's Contra Ce/sum is probably the most learned and effective challenge to this tradition that portrays Jesus and the early Christians, particularly the disciples, as deceivers and magicians, Eusebius supplies some new wrinkles. He follows both Justin and Origen in suggesting that ancient prophecy, specifically Jewish prophecy, had indicated who Jesus would be and what he would do. His miracles are not to be put aside as based on magic but are to be accepted as predicted by prophets. But Eusebius knows that there is an audience to which Christianity must speak that does not accept the ancient oracles of Israel and still claims that Jesus was a deceiver and a magician; therefore the defender of Christianity must describe the life of Jesus in terms of Jesus' own words and the earliest descriptions of him. In speaking to this audience Eusebius addresses not only worshipers of Greco-Roman religions but also newly converted or floundering Christians who are not certain how to answer such an attack. The first question to ask this audience is whether they know of any other "deceiver" who taught such virtue, such meekness, reasonableness, and purity. Jesus revived interest in the ethical life of ancient Hebrew saints who are respected by both barbarians and Greeks. He taught the worship of one high God, not the deception of many gods-a position honored by the Greek 526

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

Sibylline Oracles-and refused sacrifice even as the famed Greeks, Porphyry, and Apollonius of Tyana, have done. Furthermore, he not only taught such commendable doctrines, he also performed acts consistent with his teaching so that his followers could serve God according to right reason. A number of his specific teachings are similar to those of Plato as well as the devout Hebrew heroes. Jesus' miracles were numerous and can stand the test of reverent reasoning and critical judgment. Those who disbelieve the accounts of Jesus' marvelous deeds must somehow explain the relationship between the master and his disciples. The instructions that link them are those that guide a philosopher's life: take no gold and silver, do not kill, do not commit adultery or steal. But more than that, Jesus' students were taught to live a life free of passion, to cut away at the roots of anger, lust. pride, and malice. How is it possible to suggest that those who were taught these precepts, those who handed on these teachings, had themselves agreed to lie about the character and lessons of their master? If they were skilled deceivers who knew that their leader was evil, how did they conceive their plan and keep it together? All know the saying: "The rogue is neither dear to rogue nor saint." There appear to be no reasonable grounds for thinking that such scoundrels would be able to say that Jesus was virtuous, even the Son of God, both in the face of his death, their punishment, and finally their own martyrs' suffering. Moreover, the inner circle of twelve and seventy were uneducated, common people. Yet they went throughout many lands outside their own country and preached with intellect and power. Had they stayed within their own milieu, they well might be accused of being deceived and deceiving as the uneducated often are, but they went abroad. It also seems most odd that, having seen the death of this mean and untrustworthy master, these uneducated people would be able to construct such a fine story, keep it together, and then give their lives for it. With a scorching sense of irony Eusebius suggests a scenario that might fit the situation assumed by pagan critics of Jesus and the disciples as masters of deception. Dear friends, you and I are of all men the best informed with regard to the character of him, the deceiver and master of deceit of yesterday, whom we have all seen undergo the extreme penalty, inasmuch as we were initiated into his mysteries. He appeared a holy man to the people, and yet his aims were selfish beyond those of the people, and he has done nothing great, or worth a resurrection, if one leaves out of account the craft and guile of his disposition, and the crooked teaching he gave us and its vain deceit. In return for which, come, let us join hands, and all together make a compact to carry to all men a tale of deceit in which we all agree, and let us say that we have seen him

EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

5Z7

bestow sight on the blind, which none of us ever heard he did, and giving hearing to the deaf, which none of us ever heard tell of: (let us say) he cured lepers and raised the dead. To put it in a word, we must insist that he really did and said what we never saw him do, or heard him say. But since his last end was a notorious and well-known death, as we cannot disguise the fact, yet we can slip out even of this difficulty by determination, if quite shamelessly we bear witness that he joined us after his resurrection from the dead, and shared our usual home and food. Let us all be impudent and determined, and let us see that our freak lasts even to death. There is nothing ridiculous in dying for nothing at all. And why should we dislike for no good reason undergoing scourging and bodily torture, and if need be to experience imprisonment, dishonor, and insult for what is untrue? Let us now make this our business. We will tell the same falsehoods, and invent stories that will benefit nobody, neither ourselves, nor those we deceive, nor him who is deified by our lies. And we will extend our lies not only to men of our own race, but go forth to all men, and fill the whole world with our fabrications about him. And then let us lay down laws for all the nations in direct opposition to the opinions they have held for ages about their ancestral gods. Let us bid the Romans first of all not to worship the gods their forefathers recognized. Let us pass over into Greece, and oppose the teaching of their wise men. Let us not neglect the Egyptians, but declare war on their gods, not going back to Moses' deeds against them of old time for our weapons, but arraying against them our Master's death, to scare them; so we will destroy the faith in the gods which from immemorial time has gone forth to all men, not by words and argument, but by the power of our Master Crucified. Let us go to other foreign lands and overturn all their institutions. None of us must fail in zeal; for it is no petty contest that we dare, and no common prizes lie before us-but most likely the punishments inflicted according to the laws of each land: bonds, of course, torture, imprisonment, fire and sword, and wild beasts. We must greet them all with enthusiasm, and meet evil bravely, having our Master as our model. For what could be finer than to make both gods and men our enemies for no reason at all, and to have no enjoyment of any kind, to have no profit of our dear ones, to make no money, to have no hope of anything good at all, but just be deceived and to deceive without aim or object? This is our prize, to go straight in the teeth of all the nations, to war on the gods that have been acknowledged by them all for ages, to say that our Master, who (was crucified) before our very eyes was God, and to represent Him as God's Son, for Whom we are ready to die, though we know we have learned from him nothing either true or useful. Yes, that is the reason we must honor Him the more-His utter uselessness to us-we must strain every nerve to glorify His name, undergo all insults and punishments, and welcome every form of death for the sake of a lie. Perhaps truth is the same thing as evil, and falsehood must then be the opposite of evil. So let us say that He raised the dead, cleansed lepers, drove out daemons, and did many other marvelous works, knowing all the time that he did nothing of the kind, while we invent everything for ourselves, and deceive those we can. 528

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

And suppose we convince nobody, at any rate we shall have the satisfaction of drawing down upon ourselves, in return for our inventions, the retribution for our deceit.l9 Surely all will see that it is not just remarkable but totally ridiculous that such "poor and unlettered men" would go against the strong human sense of self-preservation and for no reason at all go to their deaths, particularly since they had been imprisoned, released, then taken prisoner again and beaten, and finally killed as Stephen was. If this was all based on a lie that they knew to be false, why did not at least one of them blow the whistle? Even Judas who betrayed him took his own life because of his betrayal of Jesus. The hypothesis of deception (a leader known to be a liar by his disciples who nevertheless taught universally accepted truths about eternal things and the moral life), if applied broadly to traditions that record Greek philosophers and other honored teachers, would slander all good figures. No history could be believed. Thus this hypothetical scenario has shown the inconsistency of the contrary proposition. If that contrary is applied evenly to all human records, there will be no good persons anywhere. No one is silly enough to follow that route. It is not sufficient, however, to argue in this way against those who call Jesus a deceiver and a magician. The character of Jesus' disciples must be recounted from sacred writings. They loved "holy and philosophic instruction" and lived "a strenuous and laborious life." They abstained from wine and meat, did not marry, were indifferent to money and possessions; they uttered "gloomy prophecies" and bore up under persecution just for the sake of his name. There is a general reticence among the gospel writers to aggrandize themselves coupled with a tendency to honor others. Matthew admitted his former life as a publican, revealed his previous shortcomings, and put himself second to Thomas. Luke, however, does not call Matthew a publican and presents him as more significant than Thomas. Peter's brilliant confession of Jesus is in Matthew's Gospel, not in the Gospel of Mark, who recorded Peter's reminiscences. On the contrary Mark's writing details Peter's denial and his tears. Again it is odd that men who write about their own faults so plainly and do not show an egotism in their accounts of their own actions should be accused of being deceivers, "rascals and clever sophists." It seems more likely that, as has been said, "We must put complete confidence in the disciples of Jesus, or none at all." And if we must distrust such witnesses, then we surely must distrust all histories of other persons and times. In this same line of argument, why would deceivers include in their records the passion of Jesus, his betrayal by one of the disciples, the insults, EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

529

the beatings, the mockery, even the crucifixion itself? Why is it that, according to the detractors, here the disciples are telling the truth, but in the other instances they are lying? Surely no deceivers would admit that their leader was in such pain, so deeply troubled, that they fled, that Peter even denied him three times without being tortured. And if their good faith is evident in their gloomier passages about him, it is far more so in the more glorious. For they who had once adopted the policy of lying would have the more shunned the painful side and either passed it over in silence, or denied it, for no man in a later age would be able to prove that they had omitted it.20

Their evidence is trustworthy on its own accounts. But according to Eusebius' reading of the text, the Jewish historian Josephus also claimed that Jesus was the Messiah and agreed with the apostles' depiction of Jesus as a miracle worker and teacher of truth, one who was raised from the dead and whose followers continue to grow. Josephus also indicates (as do other sources) that both Greeks and Jews believed in Jesus; indeed a large JewishChristian congregation existed in Jerusalem before Hadrian's siege of the city. Opponents who suggest that Jesus was a sorcerer must respond to what has been said above, or at least take seriously arguments similar to those presented. It seems strange that teachings of virtue would be handed down from a master determined to make money and do the opposite of those teachings. Sorcerers are famous for "notoriety and ostentation," yet Jesus showed no such traits. Moreover, Christians do not practice sorcery; they even forbid charms and amulets. Indeed, as Acts 19 indicates, many Gentiles who had been sorcerers gave up their magic arts and brought their expensive magic books to be burned. Surely both the apostles and Jesus himself must have taught such strictness or Christians would not have followed that course to such a loss. The great Plato found it hard to discover the Father and creator of the universe and impossible to talk about him. Yet this band of sorcerers has been able to make that teaching known in many lands to myriads of people. What sorcerers! Indeed if Jesus himself was a sorcerer untaught by others, he must be divine. Others need teachers to learn a trade, to grasp the power of logic or any kind of knowledge. If, on the contrary, he had learned all from previous masters of deceit. why are none of his tutors as great as he? What sorcerer ever taught such doctrines, did so many great deeds, influenced so many people, even had his inner circle die for him? No others have so set up a nation under their own name, have so attacked idolatry even when rulers legislated it, so fought polytheism, and have spoken out against immoral 530

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

laws, customs, indeed even "heralded a new and real religion." And yet all that has been done without "libations, incense, and the invocation and presence of daemons." Certainly any person entirely committed to sorcery would lead an unholy life: "scandalous, base, atheistic, unjust, irreligious." The foregoing has offered "temperate argument and logical consistency of thought," "probable proofs" brought forward by one who is not interested in being a "special pleader." But if that is not strong enough to persuade you, says Eusebius to his pagan opponents, then it is time to look at evidence from your own works, particularly Porphyry's Concerning Philosophy from Oracles, where the oracle says that the gods declare Christ to be "holy and immortal." They say his soul is in heaven and speak of him reverently, even though Porphyry still finds Christian worship ignorant. It is only such a leader with divine power who could have taught unlearned fishermen both the content of his philosophy and the methods by which they could convince so many people in so many cultures to forsake so many religions. Indeed the content of this gospel was that the Word, God by nature, came in a man's body and did miracles only a god could do. And that kind of divine power was given to the apostles, so much so that on at least one occasion some of them were mistaken for Zeus and Hermes (Acts 14). It is that power which is behind the success of Christianity, its preaching and doing wonders "in his name." For in the end "I myself, when I frankly turn the account over in my own mind, have to confess that I fmd in it no power to persuade, no dignity, no credibility, not even enough plausibility, to convince just one of the most simple." Only "the evidence of the power of the Word" has brought conviction, evidence which now includes multitudes of people from all walks of life in both the countryside and the great urban centers. These arguments should not be avoided in the modern era when it is clear that enlightened critics of Christianity still claim, with the early Jewish tradition and with the pagan Celsus, that Jesus was a deceiver and a magician, and that somehow "orthodox" Christianity cleaned up its earliest records to create the faith which it propagates today. Morton Smith's efforts and Hoffmann's new translation of Celsus' work indicate that such a critique is not dead. 21 Any serious student of the nature of Christianity should at least pause to look at Eusebius' arguments. Yet that return uncovers, as does any look at Eusebius' other works, both weaknesses and strengths. First, his quotation from Josephus' Antiquities concerning both the fine character of Jesus and the claim that he was the Messiah is most probably a Christian interpolation. The extant manuscripts of Josephus all have this so-called Testimonium Flavianum intact within them, but none of them was copied before the eleventh century. According to both style and vocabulary the passage is essentially Josephan in character, but some EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

531

important particulars, such as the way the text refers to Jews, are decidedly odd. The primary problem is that Origen does not use that quotation at the appropriate places; indeed he specifically states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. 22 The most plausible explanation is that sometime between ca. 248 when Origen wrote and the tum of the century when Eusebius began his history, one or more Christians-perhaps struck by what they regarded as the blasphemy of Josephus' position-tampered with the text. 23 The same kind of circumstance is involved in Eusebius' quotation of the Sibylline Oracles; it also probably depends upon Jewish additions to or revisions of that text, similar to those found in Book 3.218-94. The exact words, however, do not appear in what we now know as the Sibylline Oracles. 24 Second, Eusebius' acceptance of legends concerning the apostles' missions in lands other than Palestine and their death by martyrdom is suspect. Few if any of the claims that the eleven made their way out of the confines of ancient Israel can be substantiated.25 Peter went to Antioch but Eusebius seems convinced that the Peter whom Paul confronted in Antioch was one of the seventy, not the apostle. 26 Eusebius himself is the one who connects Andrew with Scythia, Bartholomew with India, John with Asia, Thaddeus with Edessa, and Thomas with Parthia-perhaps on the basis of earlier tradition.27 He has an expanded version of the Acts 12:1-2 report that James the brother of John was martyred, but such a report means that James did not leave Palestine. Commenting on James, Eusebius states in his history that the apostles were banished from Judaea and went to other lands because of the commission in Matt 28:20. 28 But a careful analysis of his own claims within his history indicates that he cannot place all the apostles in other lands: he says nothing of James the lesser, Philip, and Simon the Zealot and only connects Matthew with Hebrew-speaking people. 29 Furthermore he does not mention any martyrdom stories for eight of the eleven: Andrew, Bartholomew, James the lesser, Matthew, Philip, Thaddeus, Thomas, and Simon. Therefore, his insistence that the apostles can be believed because they left Judaea and thus were not so easily deceived as those who are culturally landlocked and that they all gave up their lives for what they believed cannot be substantiated on his own grounds. He knew that some had left Palestine and some had suffered martyrdom for their faith, but he expanded those truths to cover the apostles as a group. He seems to attribute such actions to the seventy as well, but he knows little or nothing about the seventy.30 Third, Eusebius' interpretation of the incident in Acts 19 contains errors. He argues that people who had become Christians knew that they must put aside books of magic even though those volumes had great value. 532

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

The Acts passage, however, notes that it was those previously converted, not those considering conversion, who brought their books to be burned. Ephesus had Christians who were practicing magic and turned from it after they gained what Luke views as a deeper understanding of their faith. The example actually offers evidence that might go directly against Eusebius' arguments. Here was a Christian leader, Paul, who convinced his hearers that as Christians they should give up their reliance on magic. The Acts passage indeed suggests that Christianity also suffered syncretistic pressures which brought inconsistent practices along with converts. People often come to new understandings beyond those present at their initial conversions; as a rule they do not see all the inferences immediately. People in the ancient world were accomplished in carefully covering their bets, in using all avenues to deity that were available. This is the only extended reference in the New Testament to such magical practices among Christians; other passages support a Christian aversion to such things. 31 The clear evidence that some Christians practiced magic does not demonstrate that Jesus was a magician. But the line of purity which Eusebius hoped to create through the use of Acts 19 does not exist. That is extremely important because it is precisely such a line of purity that he used to attack heretics. It is also the case that not all the disciples were ascetics in the sense that they abstained from marriage, wine, and meat. Peter was married (Matt 8: 14); others may have been. There is no particular evidence that all the apostles followed strict food laws. At times they broke those laws and ate either the wrong things or the right things at the wrong times (Luke 5:336:5). Paul took a Nazarite vow for a season, but he did not abstain from wine; either he or a disciple writing in his name suggested its use for specific purposes. 32 Again Eusebius has romanticized his sense of the earliest church by giving it a character that is appealing to him, not one that the earliest evidence supports. In spite of these glaring deficiencies, there are certain strengths in Eusebius' presentation. He had some success with the quotation of sources revered by his opponents. At his time it was probably not an atrocious error to quote the interpolated Sibylline Oracles as a Greek source. It showed that Eusebius knew he must at least make part of his case from authorities accepted by his opponents and not expected to be favorable to Jews or Christians. The use of the Testimonium Flavianum is quite difficult to assess as anything but a blatant error since Origen had not used it and Eusebius clearly knew Origen's work. Yet if he found it in a manuscript in the Caesarean library, it surely would have appeared too good to be true-as indeed it was. The final judgment must be that had Eusebius been a more careful scholar, a more hard-nosed critic of his sources, he could have avoided a number of difficulties in his works. EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

533

The employment of Porphyry's Concerning Philosophy from Oracles, however, was an excellent choice, one later affirmed by Augustine in his City of God. 33 To have one of the most renowned pagans of his time indicate that Jesus was not a deceiver or a wizard, but a holy man praised by the gods, one whose soul became immortal, was remarkable. Even Porphyry knew that his own circles would be shocked by such praise, even though he insisted that Christians worshiped Jesus ignorantly. He noted that his view would be surprising to some. Eusebius' quotation of Porphyry let pagan sources war with each other on the basic points of Jesus' deception and wizardry. In terms of his plan, Eusebius puts that quotation at the opening of the last section of this book in a place of emphasis, the final set of quotations in Book 3. Eusebius also wisely concentrates on the good deeds and worthy teachings of Jesus. Jesus revived the moral views of the ancient Hebrews and strengthened them through his own words and examples. It hardly seems likely that a sorcerer, one noted for money grubbing and publicity seeking, would have chosen to live the way and to teach the things that Jesus did. His miraculous deeds might be conceived as a connecting point with money and fame, but they were not done to bring attention to him. He was not wealthy and he did not accept the fame that came his way. The Caesarean also concedes the claim of Jesus' wizardry for the sake of argument. If Jesus was a sorcerer, taught by masters in Egypt, why do we know so little about those masters who were considered greater than he and so much about him? Why is Jesus so superior to those who went before him whether they be prophets or sorcerers? Perhaps he was indeed divine and thus had resources unavailable to his teachers. The conclusion of his argument is neither valid nor ultimately persuasive. But it does offer an interpretive scheme that would let Jesus' miracles stand without attributing them to sorcery, a necessary move if the record of those deeds was to be both credible and not self-serving. The center of Eusebius' plausibility arguments about Christianity, however, appears to be his concern for the circle of the apostles. In countering the claims for deception, he often hits the mark. Is it likely that a group of uneducated people with little experience in discussing ethical teachings would be able to create such a body of moral learning? The probability is minimal that such roughly hewn men could conceive of and then argue for the good life that is only seen within Judaism or Hellenism among a small group of prophets and philosophers. In fact, if the apostles were such rogues, then the common proverb, "The rogue is neither dear to rogue nor saint," comes into play. Here Eusebius apparently refers to a proverb also known to Plato, as Lysis 214B-C and Phaedrus 255B indicate.34 That allows Eusebius once more to 534

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

claim certain aspects of the Hellenic heritage in his effort to support the truth of the gospel accounts. He had already found Hellenistic support for the Christian aversion to sacrifice in the writings of two pagan writers, a lost work on theology which he attributes to Apollonius of Tyana35 and Porphyry's On Vegetarianism 2.34. Although he is definitely attacking pagan representations of Jesus' life, ones taken over from earlier Jewish arguments, both as a debater and as a Hellenist he enjoys pointing out similarities within Greek writers to the points he wishes to make. His precise argument, however, moves away from the proverb to its logic. How is it that there was enough harmony among this rabble that they could present such a life and such teachings? Again probability suggests that some stronger figure, some better informed leader, was behind their approach. And they insisted that this figure was Jesus. Eusebius wonders why deceiving apostles who proclaimed a deceitful master would have kept their faith when they were punished by authorities as scripture itself claims. Would not their sense of self-preservation have moved them to tell the truth concerning the deceit when they were beaten and imprisoned for their plot, released and then taken into custody again? Although his argument cannot apply to all the apostles or the seventy since he has no knowledge that they were all persecuted and imprisoned, he does know that some were. And the argument has weight. It is unlikely-though not impossible-that among those consciously deceiving others at least one would recant under the pressure of punishment and imprisonment. There seems to be no point at all to preaching a gospel that brought about the wrath of all those supporting traditional religions when the inner Christian circle knew that what they were saying and doing was based on a lie. Their efforts brought them no great sums of money and no fame. Why did they do this at the cost of personal pain? Other evidence, moreover, works against the claims that they were deceivers. Within the gospels a rather remarkable combination of blame and praise exists. Matthew calls attention to his work as a tax collector and notes that it was one of the most despised of positions within Palestinian society. He also does not mention his own place within the circle of the twelve. It is Luke who points out that Matthew held a position before that of Thomas. Furthermore, Peter through Mark emphasizes his own failings. It is Mark who presents more information about Peter's impetuousness, his denial of Jesus when there was no physical torture or imprisonment involved. It seems rather unlikely that even bumbling deceivers, aware that their case depended upon deception, would point out their own degraded positions in society and their character faults. Deceivers are not known for being honest about their weaknesses.

EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

535

In the same vein, and just as strongly, the picture of Jesus painted in each gospel when the death of Jesus is described, starkly portrays failure. Why would deceivers depict their leader as a convicted criminal who died through crucifixion? What possible value could be gained from that approach? Surely it would have been better for them to come up with some other tale or some other leader since it is likely that they themselves were the only ones who actually knew much about the events. What an odd set of lies. Why make up stories that depict the central figure as a condemned criminal when it is so clear to all that precisely that information was picked up by Christianity's opponents as scandalous? There is no sense in providing one's opponents with exactly the information they need to ridicule the deception. Moreover, Eusebius' whole effort is important because he relates it to other stories of good people and the methods used to test their veracity. If the ~~-targes of deception brought against Christianity are formed into a general method for dealing with history, it is unlikely that any tales of upright activity among humans will survive. Hidden in these short sentences is a remarkable inference. The gospels must be open to investigation from critical wisdom and reason in the same way that any other stories from antiquity might be. The entire effort of writing history rests on probabilities. And when one works with those who do not accept the sacredness of biblical texts, then the normal procedures for investigating all texts in a reasonable fashion must become the focus of the discussion. And in his time Eusebius thought that the gospels could stand up to those kinds of tests. Indeed his exact point is that the criticism brought against them is so unfair that it would destroy any historical account. On the face of it, then, in spite of numerous errors of argument and judgment, Eusebius does seem to have raised some interesting questions and offered some weighty arguments. It does not seem likely that Jesus was an Egyptian magician whose disciples consciously cleaned up the records of his life and teachings and themselves created the high moral claims attributed to him. Their accounts in the gospels appear to be rather balanced in reporting their own faults and his despicable death. The two points about the disciples' humble presentations of their stories and the nonsense of a deception based in a crucified criminal are not only suggestive; they could also be expanded through other examples. None of the gospels depict the apostles as people of quick and lasting insight into the character of Jesus. James and John or their mother asked for special favors of power when Jesus comes in his kingdom (Mark 10:35-45). Judas appeared never to get the point until it was too late. Perhaps he was a Zealot who wanted to drive the Romans into the sea through an armed revolution.

536

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

But he is portrayed as one who became disillusioned and betrayed the leader (Matt 26:14-16). The eleven did not believe that Jesus was resurrected when Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James told them (Luke 24:1-11). Another aspect of Eusebius' argument also might be given a second look. It is precisely the New Testament which points out repeatedly that some did not believe; even within the apostolic circle, some were offended by the teaching, others were in full-blown opposition. 36 If this is deception, it is a deception of the highest order, one that has carefully included the failings of the apostles, the degrading death of Jesus, and the inability of even Jesus to persuade all. Yet coupled with the concession that the twelve and the seventy were not cunning and well educated, Occam's razor applies. The evidence could be turned to support an elaborate plot worthy of a fine novelist, but probability is against it. The modem reworkings of the Jewish and Hellenistic arguments still fall prey to the strength of Eusebius' claims. It is more likely that Jesus was a remarkable person who changed the lives of his disciples than that he was a deceiver and a magician whose followers cunningly kept the deceptions alive. But those who spend so much effort in trying to create the ultimate apologetic for Christian faith, the final set of proofs that will convince any reasonable person of the truth of the gospel, also become his victims in their attempts to refurbish these ancient claims. An experienced apologist like Eusebius, one who wrote at least six works in that vein, refrained from anything stronger than plausibility arguments. Thus in important ways he should be seen as a precursor of Maurice Blonde! rather than some modern day fundamentalists.37 Apologetic arguments may be strengthened, but they are never strong enough to justify viewing those who refuse them as necessarily either evil or unreasonable.

Eusebius concedes with boldness that it is the power of God which brings conviction, not the arguments of humans. He is strikingly refreshing when he says that he knows of no personal dignity, no sense of credibility, not even any plausible argument that can convince without doubt even the most simple of people. In the end, perhaps Christians do have a treasure in earthen vessels and the transcendent power is God's. Eusebius is willing to include the success of the Christian mission as part of the evidence for God's power. The number of volumes he devoted to the apologetic task, often organizing them on the basis of plausible, historical arguments show that he is no fideist of a simple sort. He does not abandon rationality or argument, but he does know their limitations. He expects both miracle and the holiness of God's athletes to win the contest. Every apologetic system proposed by any Christian thinker can be improved by considering both the

EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

537

power of Eusebius' reliance on plausibility and his own confession of the final powerlessness of such arguments for creating and sustaining the life of faith.

Notes I Eusebius, HE 6.12.3-6. 2 Robert M. Grant, Eusebius as Church Historian (Oxford: Oarendon, 1980), and Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981). 3HE 3.18.4, and Dio Cassius, RoTrUJn II is tory 67 .14.1. 4HE 1.1.1, and passim. 5Thomas Halton, "Hegesippus in Eusebius," StudPatr 17.2 (1982) 688-93. 6vita Const.; liE !0. ?Vita Const. 3.13; Socrates, HE 1.8; Theodoret, HE 1.11-12. See G. C. Stead, "Eusebius and the Council of Nicaea," ITS 24 (1973) 85-100 (reprinted in Substance and Illusion in the Christian Fathers [London: Variorum, 1985]). 8Bames, Constantine and Eusebius, 164-88. 9Jerome, De vir. ill. 81, Ep. 70, Comm. in Dan. Pro!., Comm. in Matt. to 24.16; Socrates, HE 3.23; Philostorgius, liE 8.14; Photius, Bib/. cod. 13. Some fragments of Against Porphyry are extant. IOBarnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 171. The eleventh-century Byzantine author Nicetas of Heraclea has a number of fragments from a work called the Theophany that he has worked into his catena on Luke and Hebrews (PG 24.609-90). He lists them under different titles, one of which is the Second Theophany. Barnes (Constantine and Eusebius, 169) mentions that the General Introduction is extant in five books, the fifth (originally Book 10) called a Second Theophany. I assume he takes that to come from the fragments in Nicetas. Barnes never mentions the Theophany, which is extant in a Syriac manuscript from 411 CE that is located in the British Museum. Hugo Gressmann, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 3.2 (GCS; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1904) treats the fragments from Nicetas as parts of the Theophany extant in Syriac. l!Gressmann, Eusebius Werke, Vol. 3.2, v-xxix, 218. 12Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 184. 13Matt 12:22-29; Mark 3:22-27; Luke 11:14-22. 14 Matt 28.11-15. 15Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 30ff.; Dial. 108. 16 origen, C. Cels. 12.7-8; 1.28-32, 68; 2.49; 8.41 about Jesus himself. Other passages deal with the community: 1.6, 23-24, 62-65; 2.34, 5!-55; 6.38-41. 17Ivar A. Heikel, ed., Eusebius Werke, Vol. 6: Die Demonstratio Evangelica (GCS 23; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913). C. Cels. 1.53 for DE 3.2.33 (p. 101, 23ff.); C. Cels. 1.51 for DE 3.2.47 (103, 23); C. Cels. 2.7, 50, 61ff. for DE 3.2.78 (108, 23); C. Ce/s. 1.31 for 3.4.39 (117, 29); C. Ce/s. 2.45 for 3.5.61 (122, I); C. Ce/s. 2.15 for DE 3.5.92 (127, 30); C. Ce/s. 3.28 for DE 3.5.102 (129, 25); C. Cels. 2.7, 50ff. for DE 3.6.2 (132, 6ff.); C. Cels. 1.29 for DE 3.6.26 (136, 21); C. Ce/s. 3.36 for DE 3.6.35 (138, 30); C. Cels. 1.68 for DE 3.6.37 (139, 11); C. Cels. 1.29 for DE 3.7.9 (141, 26); C. Cels. 1.62 for DE 3.7.22 (144, 6). 538

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

181 Apol. 32.1ff. for DE 3.2.33 (p. 101, 23ff.); 32.12 for DE 3.2.39 (102, 17); 34.1 for DE 3.2.46 (103, 19); 33.1 for DE 3.2.51 (104, 10); 30 for DE 3.2.78 (108, 23); 39.3 for DE 3.6.7 (141, 12ff.). 19Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel (ed. and trans. W. I. Ferrar; London: SPCK, 1920; re~rinted Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981) 3.5 (113c-115c) 131-33. 0DE 3.5 (123c) in Ferrar, 142. 21 Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1977); Celsus, On The True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians (trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). 22c. Gels. 1.47; Comm. in Matt. 10.17 and 13.55. Origen knew Josephus' Ant. 20.9.1 § 200 and used it in his description of Jesus. 23Eusebius, HE 1.11.6--7 first refers to the passage in Josephus, Ant. 18.3.3-4 § 63-65 (trans. Louis Feldman; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969) 48-51. Note a, p. 48, contains Robert Eisler's attempt to restore the text (The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist according to Flavius Josephus' Recently Rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and the Other Jewish and Christian Sources [trans. A. H. Krappe; New York: Dial, 1931] 61-62); note b, p. 49, summarizes the major positions of the debate. Also see Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship: 1937-1980 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984) for an annotated bibliography which includes the literature involved in this debate. D. S. Wallace-Hadrill ("Eusebius of Caesarea and the Testimonium Flavianum [Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII.63f.]," JEH 25 [1974] 353-62) persuasively argues that Eusebius himself did not tamper with the Josephan text. 2 4 DE 3.3 (104). See John J. Collins, "Sibylline Oracles," in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983) 1.317-472. The particular fragment which Eusebius says is from the Sibylline Oracles does not appear in Collins' translation. Robin Lane Fox (Pagans and Christians [New York: Knopf, 1987] 202) indicates that oracles said to be from the Sibyl were far more numerous in the ancient world than the extant collections exhibit. Ferrar (The Proof of the Gospel, 119 n. 4) finds the closest resonances in Sib. Or. 3.218-220. Heikel (Die Demons/ratio Evangelica, 110) notes that Eusebius in his PE 9.9-10 refers to a similar opinion about the Hebrews that appears in Porphyry's Concerning Philosophy from Oracles, Book 1. 25 The Roman martyrology places Matthew's death in Ethiopia; the Hieronymianum says he died in Persia in the town of Tarrium; Greek Gnostic Acts have him die in Pontus. Part of the legend about Thomas the Twin being in India mentions brothers who were kings. Coins indicate that the kings referred to in the tale did indeed rule, but that does not mean that Thomas himself was there during their reign. Little is known of Philip, James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus. 26Gal 2:11; Eusebius (HE 1.1.2) claims that the Peter whom Paul resisted was one of the seventy with the same name as the apostle Peter; cf. HE 2.25.2; 3.1-2; 3.30.2. 27HE 2.1.6--7; 3.1.1; 5.10.3. 28HE 2.9; 5.2. 29HE 3.24.6; 3.39.16; 5.8.2; 6.25.4. 30HE 1.10.7 repeats the scriptural account. 1.12 indicates that there is no list of the seventy, but Paul and Barnabas should be mentioned among them and Oement had said

EUSEBIUS ON JESUS

I

539

that the Peter whom Paul confronted at Antioch was not the apostle but one of the seventy. HE 1.13.4 and 1.13.11 describe Thaddeus as an evangelist in Edessa. 31 Acts 8:9-24; 13:4-12. 32Acts 18:18; 21:17-26; 1 Tim 5:23. 33 Augustine, De civ. Dei 19.23.2. Robert L. Wilken (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984] 159-60) notes that positive acceptance of Porphyry's claims concerning Jesus caused problems for christologies which viewed Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God rather than as a divine figure whose divinity was less than that of God the Father. 34DE 3.5 (111c) is almost exactly like the phrase found in Phaedrus 255B; the sense is much the same in Lysis 214B-C. 35Eusebius (PE 4.13) makes the same reference to this lost work, while section 4.11 also mentions the work of Porphyry. 36 Matt 9:32-34; 15:10-12; 28:16-17; Luke 24:11; John 13:37. 37see Maurice Blonde!, The Letter on Apologetics and History of Dogma (London: Harvill, 1964) esp. p. 91. For Eusebius as for Blonde!, the revealed supernatural is "a truth which is impenetrable for any philosophical theory, a good which is superior to any aspiration of will." Eusebius is not in any way the philosopher of religion that Blonde! was, but he does have that sense of the divine and the need for reasoned argument which marked Blondel's work.

540

I

FREDERICK w. NORRIS

VI

easeBfas as exegeLe

22 The Old Testament Text of Eusebius: The Heritage of Origen EUGENE ULRICH

The purpose of this article is to provide a focus on the nature of the Old Testament text used by Eusebius. What would "the OT text," the Septuagint, 1 have looked like in Eusebius' day? What was the character of the text that he would have picked up and begun to use when he started reading, praying over, preaching from, and writing commentaries on "the Old Testament"? That question necessarily requires a diachronic perspective, for the biblical text that Eusebius used was the product of a historical process. A significant moment in that development took place in Caesarea in the century before Eusebius, in the hands of the influential theologian and biblical critic Origen. We may assume that "the Septuagint text" of Jeremiah, or Psalms, or Daniel cited by Origen early in his career would read differently from "the Septuagint text" cited by Origen late in his career-or subsequently by Eusebius-because he devoted a substantial amount of time to reediting that "Septuagint text." As C. Bigg has noted, Origen was perhaps "the first who distinctly saw that for the theologian, whatever may be [the] immediate object, controversy, edification, or doctrine, the prime necessity is a sound text. "2 Though Origen may have been the first Christian, he was not the "first" to see this, for he clearly followed and built on a long line of Jewish textual scholars. 3 There are several complicating factors in the process of forming the text of the Greek Bible, each of which needs its trajectory carefully charted. The first concerns the transmission of the text during the century between Origen and Eusebius. The oldest extensive MSS of the Septuagint which are extant are dated in the fourth century, at least a century after Origen, so that we cannot always be certain that our "Septuagint text" corresponds to that of his day (either in its pre-Origenian or post-Origenian form).

THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

543

The second complicating factor concerns the transmission of the text during the centuries before Origen. Numerous changes and numerous types of change, both intentional and unintentional, buffeted the Septuagint on its journey from Jewish Alexandria in the third and second centuries BCE, to Christian circles in Egypt and Palestine in the third century of the common Jewish and Christian era. A third complicating factor, only rarely suspected4 prior to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, is the shape of the Hebrew text of which the Septuagint was a translation. For a number of books the variation in the Hebrew text5 was as significant as that in the Greek text between the second century BCE and the late first century CE. Thus, my goal is to study some aspects of the text of the Greek Old Testament and of its use in patristic sources. But since that text is an evolving text, we must first consider its origins and character, secondly its early transmission history, and then thirdly some aspects of Origen, his Hexapla, and his use of the "Septuagint" text, which ultimately formed the basis for the text of Eusebius.

I. The Origins and Character of the Old Greek Text Definitions At the outset it is important to sort out the various entities for which we use the term "Septuagint" and to clarify our terms for them. There is no fully acceptable definition or consistent usage for the term "Septuagint." 6 The term originally designated the pristine translation of the Torah (only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible) by the seventy (septuaginta) or seventy-two elders commissioned to go from Jerusalem to Alexandria for that purpose-but all this as narrated in the Letter of Aristeas. The Letter of Aristeas, however, is legendary in content and, though epistolary in form, is really "a propaganda work." 7 Thus, historically, we cannot document the "seventy-two elders" who were the original translators of the Torah nor, a fortiori, of the entire Hebrew Bible. But the term "Septuagint" in its strictest usage refers only to the Pentateuch and only to the original Greek translation of it. By extension, however, it legitimately 8 designates the original Greek translation of the entire Old Testament, including both the books later accepted as the Hebrew Bible and the Apocryphal or Deutero-Canonical books. But it is excessive elasticity when the term is stretched further to mean "the Greek Old Testament," i.e., any Greek form of the Old Testament without regard to specific Greek textual tradition. More accurate terms would be: (1) the Old Greek for the original, single, or singly influential, translation of each different book (many writers now use "the Old Greek" as 544

I

EUGENE ULRICH

a term preferable to "Septuagint," since "the OG" is not necessarily confined to the Pentateuch, and since it clearly distinguishes from later forms of the Greek text); 9 (2) the early Greek text(s) for the gradually evolving forms which developed from that original translation; (3) the early recensions of Proto-Theodotion (and perhaps Theodotion), Aquila, Symmachus, and possibly of others ("Quinta," etc.); 10 (4) the Hexaplaric recension for the text which Origen produced in his fifth column, indicated by the Greek numeral "o"' (="LXX"= "70"); and (5) the Lucianic recension for the fourth-century Antiochene recension of certain books.ll The ideal object of the quest for many students of the Septuagint is "the text as it left the hand of the [original] translator," or even the Hebrew text behind the LXX. 12 But the practical object of the quest, that sought by the Gottingen critical editions, is the oldest recoverable text of each book, and this would be called "the Old Greek." 13 This leads us to the final, and for the study of Eusebius, Origen, and other ancient writers a very important, distinction: between the text of the Old Greek as the original Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and the text of the Greek Old Testament as the living Bible of the church during the early Christian centuries. The former category signals the translation's importance as a witness, in fact one of the most important witnesses, to the early Hebrew text. The latter signals the text's importance as the living scriptures of the developing church. These are two different foci, the Greek Old Testament at two different points in its history, serving two different historical-theological purposes. The two foci can be clearly exemplified by the works of Emanuel Tov and Marguerite Harl. The aim of Tov's book, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 14 is to understand the LXX and to use a retroversion of it, wherever and insofar as this be possible, as a witness to a form of the Hebrew text-a witness that predates extensive Hebrew MS documentation of the Old Testament. Thus, he studies the LXX to see how it can help us get further and more reliably back to earlier or superior forms of the Hebrew Bible. Harl's project of a French translation of the LXX focuses on the use of scripture in the early church and envisions that Ia Septante sera prise pour elle-meme, non pas comme une traduction mais comme un texte au sens plein du terme: Ie texte de Ia Bible du Judai:sme hellenistique et de l'Eglise ancienne, le texte tel qu'il fut Iu par des Iecteurs qui n'avaient aucunement recours a !'original hebreu pour tenter de Ie comprendre, un texte qui s'explique a l'interieur du systeme Iinguistique grec de son epoque.15

THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

545

From the perspective of Eusebius and his source, Origen, both foci are necessary, for one of the latter's goals was to restore "the translation of the Seventy." Both Origen and Eusebius also intended to interpret and expound the scriptural text of their church. Therefore, we must look at the original Septuagint, and the developed text which Origen used, and thus the intervening evolutionary process which produced the text on which Eusebius relied. Septuagint Origins: The Data from Early Manuscripts and Quotations Rather than beginning with the Letter of Aristeas, which is legendary material, it is preferable to begin with the evidence of Septuagint manuscripts and with quotations of the Septuagint by ancient authors. The evidence usually cited is the following:16 •Demetrius, a Hellenistic-Jewish chronographer, quotes the Greek Genesis in the late third century BCE. •Eupolemos, a Hellenistic-Jewish historian of the mid second century BCE, bases a part of his narrative on the Greek Chronicles. 17 •The Prologue of Ben Sira, written shortly after 132 BCE, refers to "the law ... , the prophecies, and the rest of the books" which had been translated. •The John Rylands Library of Manchester has small papyrus scraps of the Greek Deuteronomy, dated (by C. H. Roberts) to the second century BCE. •Papyrus Fouad 266, also containing small portions of Deuteronomy, comes from the late second or early ftrst century BCE. •Qumran has yielded ftve early Greek MSS of Genesis-Deuteronomy: 4QLXXLeva (late second century BCE), 7QLXXExod (ca. 100 BCE), 4QLXXLevb and 4QLXXNum (probably ftrst century BCE or the opening years of the first CE), and 4QLXXDeut, 18 in addition to the Greek Minor Prophets scroll and a fragment of the Letter of Jeremiah. •Papyrus 967, a MS of the early third century CE, contains portions of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther.l9 For Daniel, this MS displays a "prehexaplaric" text, i.e., a developed form of the Old Greek, such as Origen would have used as a basis for the "o'" column, but which shows no admixture of elements from the Hexapla. In this case, 967 is for the most part very close to what Origen listed as the "o '" text of Daniel (and clearly at variance with the Theodotionic text which became universally used and displaced the older "o'" text); but it does not yet have the demonstrably Origenian hexaplaric changes and additions taken from the Theodotionic text which are now found in the single extant Greek witness to Origen's revised "o'" text, MS 88. The conclusions indicated by the evidence from manuscripts and citations are that the Torah was translated by the late third century BCE and 546

I EUGENE ULRICH

probably by ca. 250, that the Former Prophets were translated before the middle of the second century BCE and probably by ca. 200, because they would have been translated prior to Chronicles which was circulating by the mid second century BCE. The Latter Prophets would very likely have been translated at the same time as the Former Prophets, and of the Writings many books would very likely have been translated about the same time as Chronicles. Septuagint Origins: Hypotheses The Letter of Aristeas purports to be a letter written in the mid third century BCE, sent by Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, describing the events surrounding the original translation of the Hebrew Torah into Greek for the Ptolemaic king's library. It was taken at face value as historical as early as Philo, and continued to be taken as such by Josephus, early church writers such as Jerome, and others all through the centuries until1705. The question of the origins of the Septuagint was considered answered, indeed narrated in detail, by the Letter of Aristeas. But in 1705 Hody studied the letter and declared it legendary. Jellicoe traced the transmission history2° of the Letter, including the steady embellishment as it went from hand to hand, all connected with the inspired and authoritative character of the LXX as the Greek form of God's word to Israel. The current consensus on the text is represented by John W. Wevers, who has recently emphasized that it is legendary in character, and that "it would be methodologically sound not to accept anything stated in the Letter that cannot be substantiated elsewhere. "21 Since late in the 19th century, Lagarde's theory of Septuagintal origins has held sway, except for a brief period when the influential figure of Paul Kahle propounded a diametrically opposed theory. Lagarde thought that the widespread variation in our extant MSS led us back to three major recensions of the Greek text, differentiated geographically, and behind those three recensions one could arrive at a single translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. Kahle, in contrast, thought that the Septuagint arose as did the Targumim-from a plethora of individually produced partial translations, which after a period of multiplication, were supplanted by a single translation now endorsed by rabbinic decision as being authoritative. In 1915 he claimed that the Letter of Aristeas, though fictionally set in the third century BCE, was actually written as propaganda to assure the outcome for one side of a conflict over the authority of competing Greek texts in the late second century BCE.22 Thus, Lagarde saw an original single translation gradually branching out both chronologically and geographically, whereas Kahle saw many THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

547

Targumim being displaced by a single standard translation. Lagarde's view, however, appears confmned by nearly a century of multifaceted research by a wide spectrum of Septuagintal specialists and by the data available from the Qumran and other very early MSS, whereas Kahle's view fmds no support in detailed research by Septuagintalists.23 There remain two schools of thought on the degree of intentional fidelity in the Old Greek translations: one, that the translators generally intended and attempted to render in the Greek language what they perceived to be said in the Hebrew original; the other, that the translators viewed themselves as in a certain measure free to adapt the original meaning to conform with contemporary historical knowledge or theological Tendenz. Though the case differs from book to book, I think that in general the former describes the situation more accurately.24

Summary The Old Greek of the Pentateuch was translated starting near the mid third century BCE, the last of the books (i.e., Daniel) being translated probably by the late second or early first century BCE. Thus the Old Greek of the Pentateuch antedated Origen by about 450-500 years and the latest of the books by about 300 years. The earliest nearly complete codices of the Greek Bible date from the fourth (Vaticanus) and fifth (Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus) centuries CE, a century or two after Origen. But fragmentary MSS are preserved as far back as the second century BCE, and quotations by Hellenistic-Jewish authors apparently document the Greek Genesis as far back as the late third century BCE. Lagarde's view that the present variation in LXX MSS is traceable back through three ancient recensions to a single original translation receives confirmation by nearly a century of multifaceted research by a wide spectrum of Septuagintal specialists and by the data available from Qumran and other very early MSS. For each biblical book there seems to have been an original translation from the Hebrew into Greek. The translations, however, display differing translation techniques, and thus each book's translation should be presumed to derive from a different translator. Though it is often not done, one must carefully consider the relationship of the Old Greek translation to its Hebrew Vorlage. Not infrequently, differences from the MT either in individual words or phrases or even in the form of the larger book (e.g., Jeremiah) 25 are due not to theological tendencies but to faithful translation from a different Hebrew parent text. Thus, as far as we can tell, originally the Old Greek would have been a collection of papyrus or leather scrolls, each normally containing one 548

I EUGENE ULRICH

biblical book, each apparently translated by a different translator, and all (or many) attempting to reproduce in Greek the intended meaning of the Hebrew text (Masoretic, Qumran, or other) from which it had been translated.

II. The Transmission of the Early Greek Text up to the Hexapla

The collection of scrolls produced from the mid third to the early first centuries BCE, containing the original Greek translations from varying Hebrew scriptural texts, traversed a somewhat complex history of transmission, knowledge of which is essential for understanding the work of Origen and the text of Eusebius-a history partly chartable, mostly lost in the darkness of the past. We do not, and Origen did not, have extant for any book what anyone would consider the original form of that translation. All manuscripts display a considerable amount of textual development-certainly unintentional changes, such as the well-known panoply of errors, including omissions, dittographies, and the like, but also intentional changes, such as clarifications, revisions, doublets, and harmonizations. Moreover, for some books, we no longer have even the changed, corrupted, and developed copies of the Old Greek. In these cases all our extant MS evidence is traceable only to a later recension which either by chance or by conscious decision supplanted the original Greek. The Book of Daniel furnishes an example in which this loss and supplantation was complete, except for one manuscript, MS 88, the single extant Greek witness to Origen's "o'" text.26 With regard to the Hebrew Vorlage, or parent text, the transmission history becomes simplified: the evidence suggests that there were no variant Hebrew MSS generating further Greek variants due specifically to correction toward Hebrew readings at variance with the MT after approximately the beginning of the second century CE. The Hebrew scrolls found at Murabbacat, dated prior to 135 CE, conform very closely to the MT and indicate that the rabbinic Bible was already standardized both in general contents and in consonantal text by the Second Jewish Revolt. A number of additional sources help illuminate parts of the transmission history of the early Greek text. Study of sources such as the Vetus Latina,27 quotations of the Hebrew Bible or the LXX in the NT and in Jewish and Christian authors in antiquity. and ancient biblical manuscripts provide us with windows on the past, enabling us to glimpse what the early Greek text looked like in certain places and specific points in time. Regarding the devanciers d'Aquila, as Barthelemy terms them, the "predecessors of Aquila," we should not take the hexaplaric order as a chronological indicator. The text which circulated under the label "TheodoTiffi OLD TESTAMENf TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

549

tion" can more accurately be labeled "Proto-Theodotion"; i.e., the main systematic revision which characterizes that text was done around the tum of the era, early enough to influence possibly Philo, the NT, and Justin. 28 For Proto-Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, it is important to stress that these were not new translations from the Hebrew but recensions, i.e., systematic revisions, of earlier Greek texts. For Proto-Theodotion, the Old Greek (but already in developed form) was used as the basic text, and it was revised according to definite principles. The principles operative in the Proto-Theodotionic recension involve bringing the early Greek text into much closer conformity with the rabbinic Hebrew text (the consonantal text which would later become the vocalized "Masoretic Text"). This conformity embraced both quantitative and qualitative aspects. Quantitatively, material in the Greek not found in the rabbinic Bible was excised, and material in the Hebrew not matched by the Greek was filled in. Qualitatively, there was insistence on much greater, much more literal, fidelity to the details of the Hebrew text: lexically, Greek roots were matched much more consistently and mechanically with Hebrew roots, even if some violence was done to meaning; and the syntax of the Greek, already awash with Semitisms, was forced into even greater conformity to the syntax of the Hebrew, even if some syntactic violence occurred. Aquila's recension was based on Proto-Theodotion but carried the systematic revision of Proto-Theodotion to even further levels of mechanical conformity toward the rabbinic text of the second century CE. Aquila's recension is so systematic that Joseph Reider and Nigel Turner were able to compile An Index to Aquila,29 which gives the Greek equivalents used by Aquila for the Hebrew roots in the biblical text. Symmachus, about whom little is known,30 produced a recension also based on Proto-Theodotion but aimed at good Greek style. Variants in which "the Three" (a' a' e') agree against the Old Greek usually signal words revised in the Proto-Theodotionic recension and adopted but not further revised by Aquila and Symmachus. Thus, the task of tracing the transmission of the Greek OT during the early rabbinic and early church period is a multifaceted task, for that text differed for each century and for each geographical region.3 1 Book by book, we are learning the detailed characteristics of the Old Greek, the developments within the early Greek texts, and the characteristics of the subsequent recensions. 32 Finally, to envision the "Septuagint" text which would have been available to Origen in the early third century one can study Codex Vaticanus or Papyrus 967. Both are codices containing all or many of the biblical books, inscribed in uncial script, with a text that is pre-hexaplaric. Both have numerous errors, and both display expansions clearly attributable to the 550

I EUGENE ULRICH

vulnerabilities inherent in the process of transmission. The "Septuagint" text, in varying forms, was the text used in the churches; the texts of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and others (such as "Quinta" and "Sexta"), mostly known to be Jewish and more closely based on the Hebrew, would also by now have been available.

III. Some Aspects of Origen and His Hexapla

So Origen began with the ordinary, somewhat corrupted, somewhat developed, koine Greek text of his day (called "the Translation of the Seventy" or simply "Septuaginta"), and he produced a text which was neither the original Old Greek translation nor the purified, inspired "Translation of the Seventy." In this third section I would like to bring a Septuagintalist's eye to focus on three aspects of Origen and his work: (1) whether Origen knew Hebrew; (2) whether the Hexapla contained a column with Hebrew characters; and (3) an evaluation of Origen's hexaplaric labors as a contribution to the history of the Greek Bible. (1) First, Origen's alleged knowledge or use of Hebrew centers on three areas: (a) his Hebrew tutor(s); (b) references to "the Hebrew" in his writings; and (c) the ftrst column of the Hexapla. Let me begin by stating what would be a minimalist position on these three points: (a') Perhaps Origen knew no Hebrew or very little Hebrew, so little that it was virtually nonfunctioning. (b ') When Origen speaks of "the Hebrew," the basis of his knowledge is the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, i.e., the Hebrew indirectly, as witnessed by literal Greek renditions, not the Hebrew text itself in Hebrew script. 33 (c') The extant hexaplaric MS fragments contain no Hebrew column, perhaps because there never was a "ftrst" column that contained the Hebrew characters.34 One is hardpressed to move beyond this minimalist position, but let us see what can be established or plausibly conjectured. (a'') Eusebius says that Origen took great pains to learn Hebrew and had copies of the Jewish Scriptures in the Hebrew script. 35 Jerome makes a similar assertion. 36 Now this may be attributed to the panegyric style of Eusebius and Jerome, but just because they are waxing eloquent about their hero, that does not mean that what they say is false; it simply means that we cannot consider the statements accurate without further verification. On the one hand, it is quite possible that Origen learned some Hebrew both from his second teacher in scripture, the unnamed "Hebrew," son of a rabbi, earlier converted to Christianity in Palestine,3 7 and later from learned Jews through direct conversation or debate. On the other hand, that possibility remains nebulous, and it is only possible to determine whether he knew

TilE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

551

Hebrew and how much he knew through his actual uses of it in specific writings. (b") To what specifically is Origen referring in his commentaries, homilies, and other writings when he speaks of "the Hebrew" or when he relates the Christian "Old Testament" to "the Hebrew"? I have not found any loci where Origen uses Hebrew 38 in such a way that he is free of possible dependence on a Greek intermediary, such as Aquila or the Greek transcription of the Hebrew ,39 or possible dependence on well-known early Christian tradition, such as the discussion of Isa 7:14 by Justin, lrenaeus, Tertullian, and others. 40 On the contrary, Origen can be seen referring to the Hebrew at least once41 where his argument founders because the Hebrew of the Masoretic textus receptus is other than he says. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that we may appeal to a Hebrew text different from the Masoretic, because the context demands precisely the word found in the MT. 42 The passage under discussion is Isa 7:14, and the Hebrew quoted is "Aalma" (m:l?ll) which, of course, does occur in Isa 7:14. Origen argues that the word "Aalma" here means "virgin" and not simply "young woman." For support, he appeals to Deut 22:23-26, a legal text in which the point centers specifically on a virgin. Origen says that "the word Aalma, which the Septuagint translated by TTap6€vos [virgin] and others [i.e., Aquila and Theodotion] by ve-dvLs [young woman], also occurs, so they say, in Deuteronomy applied to a virgin, " 43 and he proceeds to quote the full text of Deuteronomy. Immediately, one suspects that Origen's qualifier "so they say" indicates that he is getting his argument second-hand. And yet, one would think that such an indefatigable scholar as Origen on such a much argued point as the virgin-mother of Christ would certainly have checked the passage in Hebrew if he could have. Had he done so, he would have seen that "Aalma" does not occur in that passage, but rather (i!)illl (youth) and the required i!?m::~ (virgin). But it is the presupposition here, not specifically Origen's knowledge of Hebrew, which emerges as problematic: Origen was not sufficiently "indefatigable"-at least not at this point. For even if Origen knew no Hebrew, had he, as presupposed, made the effort to consult even the Greek transliteration, he would have found that his argument from Deuteronomy was baseless. Thus, even this argument where he errs with regard to the Hebrew does not prove that he did not know Hebrew, but rather that he simply did not check his sources, in Hebrew or in Greek transliteration. In sum, one could conjecture from the evidence and the lack of it that Origen may possibly have learned some Hebrew at some time, but that his lack of display of that knowledge quite probably points to at most a

552

I

EUGENE ULRICH

modicum of acquired Hebrew, and that his Hebrew was virtually nonfunctioning. (c") If Origen's knowledge of the Hebrew language is in serious doubt, that would seem to lend support to Nautin and cast serious doubt as well on whether his Hexapla contained a "first" column in the Hebrew script, and to this we now turn. (2) Secondly, then, was there in the Hexapla a column written in the Hebrew script? It is with regard to the Hebrew column of the Hexapla that the minimalist position stated above, echoing Nautin, 44 seems too minimal to me. The Mercati fragments of the "Hexapla," the Ambrosian palimpsest 0 39 sup., contain no Hebrew column, 45 nor do the other Hexaplaric remains. 46 Does this prove, however, that there never was a "first" column which contained the Hebrew characters? Barthelemy, having published his article prior to Nautin's book, assumes with the majority of scholars that there was a Hebrew column. 47 My colleague John WrighfJS is convinced by Nautin, but I am not. Beginning with the data, we note that the ninth- or tenth-century Mercati MS has as its initial column the transliteration of the Hebrew in Greek characters, followed by Aquila, Symmachus, the "o'," and a fifth column, customarily labeled "Theodotion" but in Psalms probably Quinta. The side margins are preserved, and it appears certain that there was no column with Hebrew characters prior to the transliteration column in this manuscript. Similarly, the other three synoptic fragments with excerpts of the Hexapla (the marginal notes in Ambrosian codex B 106, the Cambridge fragment from the Cairo Geniza, and the Vatican codex Barberinus 549)4 9 contain no column in the Hebrew script. Starting from a different angle, it appears that the Greek transliteration column was clearly an element of the original Hexapla. It, with or without the Hebrew first column, is the key to the vertical format of the Hexapla, and also it is implausible that the Greek transliteration would have been added later by Origen or added to Origen's work between the third and eighth centuries had it not been there from the start. The question is whether Origen also had a column with the Hebrew text in Hebrew characters which preceded the transliteration. Nautin bases his assertion that there was no column in the Hebrew script on the format of the four preserved Hexaplaric fragments and a critique of Eusebius' description. 5° But, turning first to Eusebius, Nautin's critique does not disprove Eusebius. Nautin admits that Eusebius had seen the Hexapla, 51 and quotes Eusebius' statement that Origen had learned the Hebrew language and had acquired personal copies of the Jewish Scriptures in Hebrew characters. 52 The statement that Origen had learned the Hebrew language may well be eulogizing praise, founded or unfounded; but the TilE OLD TESTAMENf TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

553

statement about copies of the Hebrew Scriptures sounds more like a statement of fact, a description of something Eusebius had seen in the library at Caesarea. Nautin says that Eusebius "manifestly wants to give a complete description but makes no mention of a column containing Hebrew characters" (314); thus, he concludes, there existed no such column. Now Nautin is correct that in this passage Eusebius does not explicitly state that there was a column with Hebrew characters as the ftrst column of the Hexapla. He is also probably correct that TTlS 'E~patwv v)-only a citation from Hosea 11:1, in connection, as it itself says, with Matthew's quotation of it in his infancy narrative. The Hosea usage is clearly Christian, and the Psalms usage may very well have been. Thus, a minimalist interpretation here would be that the Greek columns of the Hexapla of Psalms were copied and used, and excerpts were occasionally made from a copy of the Hexapla for Christian exegetical purposes. Be that as it may, from a larger perspective the point of the Hebrew column may be of little consequence, if Origen did not know or use the Hebrew. I think that, whether Origen's Hexapla contained a Hebrew column or not, the transliteration column arose earlier as a column in parallel with a column containing the Hebrew characters. Origen borrowed and placed in his Hexapla either the Hebrew text and the transcription (the traditional view) or simply the transcription (Nautin's view). It is quite conceivable that Origen borrowed a Jewish source which already had in parallel columns the Hebrew, a Greek transliteration, and Aquila's exactly corresponding version-and possibly even Symmachus' version as well for intelligibility or elegant style. The picture that emerges is that Origen was confronted with MSS of the Greek Bible used by the church which disagreed with each other, and that he was confronted by argumentation (live or literary) with Jews whose Bible differed significantly from that of the church, and he had enough balance to understand that the Hebrew had a certain priority. So he took "the Hebrew" (probably in Hebrew script and also in Greek transliteration, possibly only the latter), Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and whatever other EK86ans were available, plus the "Septuagint" in forms then current in Alexandria or Palestine, and had his copyists and calligraphers (probably including Hebrew) compile a work which he in his extant writings does not, but which Eusebius does, call "the Hexapla." In its fifth column he produced "the Hexaplaric recension": a revised edition of the "Septuagint," with the quantitative changes marked by the Aristarchian symbols, with the qualitative changes, including transposed word order, not marked, and ineluctably with some copyists' errors. (3) Thirdly and finally, what evaluation do we render concerning Origen's Hexapla in relation to the transmission history of the Greek Bible? From Driver55 to Barthelemy, the judgment has been negative. Barthelemy even uses the word "catastrophique," and notes that for us to arrive at the

556

I EUGENE ULRICH

original Old Greek, "il nous faut commencer par purifier le texte de Ia Septante de toute contamination hexaplaire."56 The key to the problem engendered by the Hexapla is that by Origen's time the rabbinic Hebrew Bible had been standardized and there was a general assumption that it was the "Hebraica Veritas." Origen assumed that the single Hebrew text-type used by his contemporaries was identical to that from which "the LXX" had been translated. Deviations of the Greek from the Hebrew were considered problems or infidelities in the Greek. It is precisely in Origen's carrying out of his objective that he obscured and lost most: it is in his changing the Greek "back" toward agreement with the rabbinic text that he lost, sometimes forever, many superior readings and many attestations of variant traditions. Nautin and Trigg57 think that Origen should not be blamed. They rather blame his followers who did not maintain his critical standards. But here again, I must disagree. Origen deserves high marks for industry, good intentions, and perhaps the highest standards conceivable and achievable in his era. But he did not achieve the "incorrupta et inmaculata septuaginta interpretum translatio" as claimed by Jerome. 58 Neither did he achieve the original Old Greek translation, in the sense of the goal of the modern text critic; on the contrary, he moved further away. Nor did he produce a text which would long stand as a purified text for the Eastern churches (in his sense of conforming to the Hebrew). Nor did he even have the luck to bequeath a very useful tool for the modem scholar, since the Hexapla is scarcely preserved, and what is preserved is confusedly preserved. What is the difference between the Hexaplaric Septuagint and the Septuagint that we use today? The Gattingen critical editions, and even Rahlfs' hand edition, have attempted to purify the text of any hexaplaric influence, and the Cambridge Septuagint chooses Vaticanus as its diplomatic text precisely because it is largely pre-hexaplaric. Is this "purification" good and desirable? The textual critic, attempting to drive further back toward earlier and "superior" forms of the Hebrew biblical text, would assent. One seeking the Bible of the early church may perhaps start by dissenting, but would soon have to agree that Origen moved the Bible away from the form that the church had previously known and produced yet another form of the varying LXX manuscript tradition-a form which, soon afterwards at the hand of Lucian, spawned future diffusion in the history of transmission. On the positive side, Origen was the pioneer of biblical textual criticism for the Christian tradition. He also pioneered the path of integration of critical scholarship with theology and spirituality. He did achieve the removal of a number of mistakes from the text, and he brought the Christian text into greater conformity with the rabbinic Hebrew text of THE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

557

the third century, so that dialogue continued to be possible. A principal achievement was that he bolstered Christians' confidence in the soundness of the Greek Old Testament they used, and this should be reckoned a significant milestone in the Christianization of the Hebrew Bible. 59 It was this achievement of which Eusebius was the heir.

Notes This paper is an expanded version of "Origen's Old Testament Text: The Transmission History of the Septuagint to the Third Century, C.E.," in Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen, eds., Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 1; Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988) 3-33. 1That is, the Jewish translation of their scriptures into Greek, the Septuagint, which the early Christian church accepted. "Old Testament" is used predominantly in this article insofar as it reflects Eusebius' position and denotes the wider canon of scripture. For the most recent comprehensive study of the Septuagint, see Sidney Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968; reprinted Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989); this supplements, rather than replaces, the still valuable 1902 work by H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. R. R. Ottley; New York: Ktav, 1968; reprinted Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989). For a highly useful study concerning the relationship of the Septuagint to the Hebrew Bible and its use in OT textual criticism, see Emanuel Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem Biblical Studies 3; Jerusalem: Simor, 1981). For bibliography on the Septuagint, see Sebastian P. Brock, C. T. Fritsch, and S. Jellicoe, eds., A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (ALGHJ 6; Leiden: Brill, 1973); for subsequent bibliography, see the "Record of Work" in the annual Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. 2 Cited by Jellicoe (Septuagint, 101) from The Origins of Christianity (ed. T. B. Strong; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909) 423. 3 Not only did Origen fill his hexaplar columns with the content of the recensions of Aquila and Theodotion, but his methods were similar to theirs; see D. Barthelemy, Les devanciers d'Aquila (VTSup 10; Leiden: Brill, 1963), and Kevin G. O'Connell, "Greek Versions (Minor)," IDBSup (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 377-81. 4Paul A. de Lagarde (Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ubersetzung der Proverbien [Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863] 3) had already formed and elaborated the principle, summarized by Jellicoe (Septuagint, 6): "In a choice between alternative readings preference is to be given ... to one which represents a Hebrew original other than MT." It is regrettable that many modem scholars, in religious loyalty to the MT, have failed to pay sufficient attention to this empirical principle, especially since it has been amply confirmed by the textual evidence from Qumran. 5cf., e.g., S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2d ed.; Oxford: Oarendon, 1913); Frank M. Cross, "The Evolution of a Theory of Local Texts," in Robert A. Kraft, ed., 1972 Proceedings: IOSCS and Pseudepigrapha (Missoula: Scholars, 1972) 108-26; Barthelemy, Les devanciers, and "Origene et le texte de !'Ancien Testament," Epektasis, Melanges patristiques offerts au

558

I EUGENE ULRICH

Cardinal Jean Danielou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972) 247-61, esp. 252 (reprinted in idem, Etudes d'histoire du Iexie de l'Ancien Testament [OBO 21; Fribourg, Suisse: Editions Universitaires, 1978] 203-17); Shemaryahu Talmon, "The Textual Study of the Bible-A New Outlook," in F. M. Cross and S. Talmon, eds., Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975) 321-400; Emanuel Tov, "The Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Its Textual History," in J. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 211-37; J. Trebolle, "Redaction, Recension, and Midrash in the Books of Kings," BIOSCS 15 (1984) 12-35; Eugene Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars, 1978), and "Characteristics and Limitations of the Old Latin Translation of the Septuagint," La Septuaginta en Ia investigaci6n contemporanea (V Congreso de Ia IOSCS) (ed. N. Fernandez Marcos; Textos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros" 34; Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" C.S.I.C., 1985) 67-80. 6swete, Introduction, 9-10; Kraft, in Emanuel Tov and Robert A. Kraft, "Septuagint," /DBSup (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 807-15, esp. 811. 7Jellicoe, Septuagint, 30; cf. Paul Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (2d ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1959) 211; and J. W. Wevers, "An Apologia for Septuagint Studies," BIOSCS 18 (1985) 16-38, esp. 16-19. 8Justin (Dial. 68.7) is the first Christian to use the term in extant material. His context shows that the term was already being used in a way that includes Isaiah and extended to the whole OT. See Jellicoe, Septuagint, 41-42, and Swete,lntroduction, p. 9 n. 1. 9see Tov and Kraft, "Septuagint." lOsee Barthelemy, Les devanciers; O'Connell, "Greek Versions (Minor)"; and section II below. 11 see n. 32 below. The "Proto-Lucianic" text tradition may belong to the second or third category above. 12see Jellicoe's first and last pages (Septuagint, 1, 359). 13see Tov and Kraft, "Septuagint," 811. 14see n. 1 above. 15Marguerite Harl, BIOSCS 13 (1980) 7. Prof. Harl is aware of the difficulties: "Un premier travail est d'etablir le catalogue de ces difficultes, de les etudier, de proposer des solutions. ll faudra notarnment decider quelle tradition textuelle de Ia Septante on choisira de traduire, faute de pouvoir rendre compte de Ia pluralite des etats textuels" (p. 8). See the recent publications of Prof. Harl and her team: La Bible d'Alexandrie: Traduction et annotation des livres de la Septante (vols. 1-; Paris: Cerf, 1986- ): 1. M. Harl, La Genese (1986); 2. A. le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir, L'Exode (in press); 3. P. Harle and D. Pralon, Le Levitique (1988); 4. G. Dorival, Les Nombres (in preparation); 5. C. Dogniez and M. Harl, Le Deuteronome (in preparation). 16 see, e.g., Swete, Introduction, 369-80, and Jellicoe, Septuagint, 237-39. With all the advances in LXX research over the past decades, however, this evidence should be closely restudied; see, e.g., the following note. 17Note the caution already expressed by Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel [ICC; Edinburgh: Oark, 1927] 38): "On rather scanty evidence, that the Jewish historian Eupolemus, ca. 150 B.C. (text given by Swete, Introduction, 370 = Eusebius, PE 9.31) knew G [the Greek version] of 2 Ch. 12:12ff.,

TilE OLD TESTAMENT TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I

559

Torrey holds, p. 82, that the OGr. tr. [Old Greek translation] of Ch.-Ezr.-Neh. (containing 2 Esd.) existed by the middle of the 2d cent." 18see C. H. Roberts, quoted in Kahle, The Cairo Geniza, 223; and Eugene Ulrich, "The Greek Manuscripts of the Pentateuch from Qumran, Including Newly-Identified Fragments of Deuteronomy (4QLXXDeut)," in A. Pietersrna and C. Cox, eds., De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Mississauga, Ont.: Benben, 1984) 71-82. The derivative date in Jellicoe, Septuagint, 276, should read: " ... assigned to the late second [not "the late first"] or the first century B.C. or the early first A.D." I should stress that the palaeographically assigned dates quoted above for the Greek MSS at Qumran are rough and preliminary and need more thorough analysis. l9For bibliographic information on the several volumes, see Sharon Pace, "The Stratigraphy of the Text of Daniel and the Question of Theological Tendenz in the Old Greek," BIOSCS 17 (1984) 15-35, esp. 18-19 and n. 9; see also now Sharon Pace Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7-12 (CBQMS 19; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1988) 11. 20Jellicoe, Septuagint, 38--47. 21 "An Apologia for Septuagint Studies," BIOSCS 18 (1985) 16--38, esp. 17. 22Paul Kahle, "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Pentateuch-textes," TSK 88 (1915) 399--439, esp. 410--26; and idem, The Cairo Geniza, 212. 23cr. Jellicoe, Septuagint, 61--63. 2 4 contrast, e.g., the articles of Trebolle and van der Kooij in BIOSCS 15 (1982) 12-35, 36--50. For an example of disproof of the Tendenz hypothesis, see Pace, "The Stratigraphy of the Text of Daniel," 15-35. It should be noted that the issue is not whether the translation is "literal" or "free"; there are both literal and free styles of translation in both "faithful" and "interpretative" translations. The question is: do the translators attempt to reproduce in Greek the meaning they find already in the text, or do they feel free to change the original meaning in light of new or current ideas, whether literary, historical, cultural, or theological, or whether private or communal. 2 5see Tov, "The Literary History." 26see the description of Papyrus 967 in section I, above. 27 See Eugene Ulrich, "The Old Latin Translation of the LXX and the Hebrew Scrolls from Qumran," in Emanuel Tov, ed., 1980 Proceedings /OSC~Vienna: The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel (Jerusalem: Acadernon, 1980) 121--65; and J. Trebolle, "From the 'Old Latin' through the 'Old Greek' to the 'Old Hebrew' (2 Kings 10:23-25)," Textus 11 (1984) 17-36. 28 see Peter Katz, Philo's Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950) 12, 102-3, 114-21; Jellicoe, Septuagint, 83-94; and Peter Katz, "Justin's Old Testament Quotations and the Greek Dodekapropheten Scroll," StudPatr 1/1 (1957) 343-53. 2 9J. Reider and N. Turner, An Index to Aquila (VTSup 12; Leiden: Brill, 1966). Since 1968 a series of dissertations [seen. 32 below] have also been produced, exploring and charting the recensional developments of the Proto-Theodotion, or Kaige, recension. 30see Jellicoe, Septuagint, 94-99. 31 cf. H. Dorrie, "Zur Geschichte der Septuaginta irn Jahrhundert Konstantins," ZNW 39 (1940) 57-110. Paul A. de Lagarde (ed., Librorum Veteris Testamenti Canonicorum Pars Prior Graece [Gottingen: Hoyer, 1883]) attempted but failed to determine the Lucianic text of fourth-century Antioch. N. Fernandez Marcos has recently

560

I EUGENE ULRICH

contributed to this endeavor through Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum: Editio critica (fextos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros" 17; ed. N. Fernandez Marcos and A. Saenz-Badillos; Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" C.S.I.C., 1979) and Theodoreti Cyrensis Quaestiones in Reges et Paralipomena: Editio critica (Textos y Estudios "Cardenal Cisneros" 32; ed. N. Fernandez Marcos and J. R. Busto Saiz; Madrid: Instituto "Arias Montano" C.S.I.C., 1984). The same chronological and geographical diversity obtains for the Old Latin; cf. Ulrich, "Characteristics," 68-70, 80. 32rn addition to the Goningen LXX editions by R. Hanhart, J. W. Wevers, and J. Ziegler, for recent monographs dealing with Exodus (O'Connell, Sanderson), Joshua (Greenspoon), Judges (Bodine), Samuel (Ulrich), Kings (Shenkel, Trebolle), Isaiah (van der Kooij), Jeremiah (Tov), and Daniel (Schmitt, Pace Jeansonne), see the annual bibliographic "Record of Work" in B/OSCS. 33Barthelemy, "Origene," 254; Pierre Nautin, Origene: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Christianisme Antique 1; Paris: Beauchesne, 1977) 337. 34Nautin, Origene, 303, 312, 337, and passim. 35HE 6.16; see also Swete,lntroduction, 59. 36De vir. ill. 54; see also Swete, Introduction, 59. 37see Nautin, Origene, 247 and 417, where he refers implicitly to Origen's autobiographical note in the Letter to Africanus 11. I owe this reference to my colleague Charles Kannengiesser. 38 Also Barthelemy ("Origene," 254) says that Origen "se comporte toujours comme s'il ignorait l'Mbreu." 39cf. Nautin, Origene, 337. 40cf. Barthelemy, "Origene," 250. 41 C. Gels., 1.34. I am grateful to Mr. Jeffrey Oschwald for pointing out this example to me. 42 A cursory inspection of the unpublished biblical scrolls from Qumran Cave 4 indicates that, as for the published MSS from the other caves, Deut 22:23-26 is not preserved (but cf. 11 Q Templea 66:2--8). Even if it were, one would not expect that it would display ;t7.l':>l1 as a variant, since ;T';>ml is necessary for the legal point made therein. 43 c. Gels. 1.34. 44Nautin, Origene, 303, 312, 337, and passim. 45Giovanni Mercati, ed., Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae. Pars Prima: Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae 0 39 sup. phototypice expressus et transcriptus (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1958). See also B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981) pl. 30 and pp. 108-9; and E. Wiirthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (trans. E. R. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) pl. 34 and pp. 188-89. For fuller discussion see Jellicoe, Septuagint, 130-33. 46see Nautin, Origene, 303-9. F. Field (ed., Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecum in totum Vetus Testamentumfragmenta [2 vols.; Oxford, 1875] l.xiv-xv) lists some examples which contain a Hebrew column, but he does not give the source, and thus it is difficult to ascertain whether there are in fact remains of the Hexapla which preserve the Hebrew column. 47Barthelemy, "Origene," 255. 48 see John W. Wright, "Origen in the Scholar's Den: A Rationale for the Hexapla," in Kannengiesser and Petersen, Origen of Alexandria, 48-62. THE OLD TESTAMENf TEXT OF EUSEBIUS

I 561

49see Nautin, Origene, 303-9. 50 Ibid., 303-9 (Hexaplaric fragments) and 311-16 (Eusebius). Nautin begins his chapter on the Hexapla (303) with a description which omits this column. He prepares his reader: "On observera qu'il n'existe pas de colonne contenant l'hebreu en caracteres hebralques, ce qui concorde tout a fait, nous le verrons, avec le temoignage d'Eusebe" (305). And after his discussion of Eusebius (311-16) he discounts Epiphanius' testimony: "Mais il est contredit par celui d'Eusebe ... , qui mentionne une seule colonne d'hebreu, celle de la translineration" (320). 5l "Eusebe a regarde les synopses qu'il trouvait dans la bibliotheque de Cesaree" (ibid., 312), and "Eusebe avait une connaissance directe de la synapse" (320). 52 ..... qu'il acquit personnellement les Ecritures prototypes conservees chez les Juifs et ecrites avec les characteres hebreux eux-memes." (ibid., 312; '!TpwToTimouc: ai1To1' 'E~palwv OTotxdot' ypatjldS', HE 6.16.1). 53 Jerome was one of the few Christian authors after Origen and before the twelfth century who studied Hebrew. 54 Nautin, Origene, 306-7 n. 5. 55s. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (2d ed.; Oxford: Oarendon, 1913) xliii. 56Barthelemy, "Origene," 247. 57Nautin, Origene, 359~1; Joseph W. Trigg, Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983) 85. 58 Ep. 106.2, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae ll (CSEL 55; ed. I. Hilberg; Vienna, 1912) 248-49. 59This fmal idea and a significant amount of clarification throughout this paper I owe to Jeffrey Oschwald's insightful discussion.

562

I

EUGENE ULRICH

23 "Spirit" and "Search'~ The Basis of Biblical Hermeneutics in Origen's On Flrst Principles 4.1-3 WATARU MIZUGAKI

I. Introduction

In Book 6 of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius describes the life of Origen with a touch full of respect. He also refers to Origen's enthusiasm for the study of the scriptures and its result. The biblical interpretation of Eusebius, however, places an importance on the text and its literal meaning and thus lacks the allegorical interpretation of Origen. Yet we cannot assert that Origen and Eusebius are totally different in their methods of biblical interpretation; it is possible to see that, while Origen covered the vast area from textual criticism to spiritual/allegorical interpretation and made the entire spectrum the foundation of his biblical hermeneutics, Eusebius actually developed part(s) of them. However this may be, it is necessary to clarify the foundation of Origen's biblical hermeneutics before attempting to clarify the relations between the two in biblical interpretation. In biblical interpretation it is essential to identify three levels: (I) the concrete and practical interpretation of a text, that is to say, exegesis; (2) the procedures, skills, and methods used in interpreting, or the interpretive process; and (3) the principles that make exegesis and interpretive process possible. Biblical hermeneutics in the fullest sense comes into being only when the first and second levels are reflected with thoughtful awareness and scholarly rigor in the third. I Christianity, as a religion of the Bible, has regarded the interpretation of scripture as essential to its life and has explicitly or implicitly understood itself, expressed itself, and asserted its claims through biblical interpretation. Hence the history of Christianity or church history has aptly been called a history of scriptural interpretation (G. Ebeling). In examining this history one can find many examples of the first and second levels. Not all these examples, however, reflect the conscious and systematic application of "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

563

hermeneutical principles. There are instances when, by making use of techniques employed in studying the history of interpretation, we can disclose hermeneutically the implicit principles at work in an example. The texts themselves, however, are seldom explicit about the hermeneutical basis or principles of a concrete interpretation. One reason that may be offered in explanation of this deficiency is that people make scriptural interpretations in response to practical needs in the church or in the life of faith. The inheritance and repetition of a traditional interpretation also plays an important role. One concerned with scriptural interpretations usually has neither the need nor the time to go back to their underlying principles. Biblical hermeneutics, however, must establish an internally consistent and valid basis for the exegesis of particular texts. Moreover, it must make clear the meaning of the text in accordance with the place, function, and significance of the Bible in the whole of Christian life. Biblical hermeneutics worthy of its name, because it is concerned with how to interpret the Bible, cannot be confined to mere discussion of techniques for the interpretation of biblical texts, but must necessarily be a hermeneutics of Christian life and thought. Surprising though it may seem, Origen (ca. 185-254 CE) introduced biblical hermeneutics in this comprehensive sense at an early period in Christian history. On nearly the entire biblical corpus he wrote commentaries and homilies that are unequaled for quantity and quality alike. Though the spiritual and allegorical method of scriptural interpretation to which he attaches importance derives from Philo of Alexandria among others, Origen refined it methodologically and exerted a profound influence on later generations. But Origen was more than an eminent exegete. He went on to examine particular exegeses and the methods used to develop them so as to identify underlying principles and lay the foundation for biblical hermeneutics. In the history of Christianity he stands out as the first great hermeneut and as a singularly gifted scholar. Taking the teaching of the church handed down in apostolic preaching as his basis and point of departure, Origen inquired into the principles of a number of subjects that he regarded as basic tenets of Christianity. In the last part of On First Principles (Book 4.1-3), he formulated his biblical hermeneutics. This concluding position itself suggests that biblical hermeneutics constitutes an important pillar in the overall system of On First Principles and that his hermeneutics itself is systematic in character.2 It is true, of course, and has often been pointed out, that On First Principles was not a work of his mature years but a proposal, a tentative exploration. For this reason it does not represent a completely perfected system. But Origen's intent and endeavor on behalf of systematization are manifest in it, partly because his faith and thought were fundamentally oriented toward the 564

I

WATARU MIZUGAKI

ceaseless quest for perfection, and partly because of his constant conviction that this quest must be carried out, and could be carried out, in a manner consistent with the Logos. Origen probably wrote On First Principles in Alexandria about 229 CE before he visited Palestine in 230. He had already begun the study of biblical texts that would later issue in the Hexapla and was writing commentaries on the Psalms and Lamentations. At about the same time he was writing 0 n First Principles he was also beginning his Commentary on Genesis. But most of his commentaries and homilies were written after the appearance of On First Principles, that is to say, after his move from Alexandria to Caesarea in Palestine. The biblical hermeneutics contained in On First Principles was conceived and propounded at the outset of his work. It is worth noting, however, that as soon as he returned to Alexandria from Caesarea in 231 CE, he started to write his Commentary on the Gospel of John. The fact that he undertook this immense and detailed study of a gospel that held great meaning both for Origen himself and for the Christian thought of his day, and began it only after composing On First Principles, has a significance that can hardly be disregarded. That Origen's biblical studies generally followed the order of textual criticism, interpretation, scholarly commentary, and homily cannot be ascribed to mere coincidence, even though they were admittedly influenced by practical considerations both personal and ecclesiastical. This order indicates, rather, his scholarly intent and procedure. The hermeneutics of Origen's On First Principles occupies a central place in his work as a whole. This suggests that when we seek to throw light on his hermeneutics, it is also essential to take into account the few fragments that remain of his Commentary on the Psalms and the first few books of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, works written just before and after his

On First Principles. As stated above, On First Principles takes the teachings of the church's faith as its foundation and point of departure. By means of his hermeneutics Origen boldly reinterpreted these teachings and sought to unfold them as far as he possibly could. Biblical hermeneutics he regarded as a peerless method and the key to what we today call dogmatics. With regard to a given subject, it is of critical importance to decide what scripture to take up, how to understand its meaning, and how to relate it to other passages. It is almost inevitable, therefore, that Origen, after discussing such subjects as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," "angels and demons," "free will," and "the eschaton," should conclude his work with a discussion of the method of scriptural interpretation he has employed. Interpreting scripture quite naturally leads him to unfold his hermeneutics. In the fourth book of On First Principles, then, Origen consciously focuses on the circular relationship between "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

565

biblical interpretation and biblical hermeneutics and treats his subject superbly. With regard to Origen's interpretation of the Bible and particularly his interpretive method, we have a number of fine studies, including the classic work of Henri de Lubac.3 Having benefited from these earlier studies, we propose to clarify the basis for the biblical hermeneutics found in Book 4 of On First Principles. Because Origen establishes biblical hermeneutics on a biblical foundation and seeks to develop it on this basis, 4 the biblical concepts that he himself selects and employs should give us a clue. The concepts we have chosen to examine are "Spirit" and "search." The text of On First Principles 4.1-3 is available to us not only in the Latin translation of Rufinus but also, fortunately, in Philocalia 1.1-27, which preserves the Greek original. The anthology Philocalia also bequeaths to us part of the Commentary on the Psalms and part of the Commentary on Genesis, both of which are indispensable to analysis of the development of Origen's hermeneutics. The fact that the editors, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, placed On First Principles at the very beginning of this anthology shows their sense of its importance.

ll."Spirit" and "Search" as Motives for Biblical Hermeneutics

What is Origen's idea of hermeneutics? What does he take as its task? The title in Philocalia for the excerpts from Origen's discussion of hermeneutics is as follows: "On the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and how the same is to be read and understood, and what is the reason of the uncertainty in it; and of the impossibility or irrationality of certain things in it, taken according to the letter."5 The phrase "how the same [sc. Holy Scripture] is to be read and understood" (mils TaUTTJV [sc. n1v 6€Lav ypacf>~v] d.vayvwaTlov Kat VOT]Tlov) can be taken to apply to biblical hermeneutics. Origen himself put the matter this way and indeed thought in this way, for in 4.2.1 (p. 305, llf.), from which this title appears to be taken, we find the words: "the manner in which they [sc. the divine scriptures] are to be read and understood" (T~ Tp6rrcp Tils d.vayvWWv ]). The expression "read and understand" is found in other places as well. For Origen, hermeneutics consists of asking how (rr!l)s), that is, in what way (Tp6rros) we are to "read and understand the scriptures." Here the methodological awareness indispensable to hermeneutics becomes manifest. Also manifest here is the idea that the hermeneutical task precludes stopping short with mere explanation or description of particular texts. The "reading and understanding" that Origen speaks of involves scholarly and methodologically aware explanation (8L~YTJaLs, e:e~YTJms). 6 This suggests that the technical 566

I

WATARUMIZUGAKJ

term EPilTJVda, which translates as "interpretation," is insufficient for him. In his hermeneutical discussion he does use the term in a reference to "most of the interpretations adapted to the multitude which are in circulation" (4.2.6 [p. 315, 12]), but uses it only this one time. To probe into the way by which to interpret the Bible meant, for Origen, inquiring into the process by which interpretation begins with "reading" and ends with "understanding." Correct interpretation alone is not enough. What is needed, over and above correct interpretation, is an explanation of the way in which this interpretation materialized, an explanation of the process by which it came into being. The distinguishing feature of Origen's hermeneutical consciousness is already evident in his decision not to use the single word "interpretation" but to use instead "read and understand," a phrase that suggests a process or movement. This is not to say that the phrase "read and understand" analytically summarizes the whole of this process. It expresses, rather, the most important moment of this process without excluding or ignoring other moments. Thus "persuasion" and "belief," for example, are considered in the context of this interpretive movement. 7 The first step in the interpretive process is "to read," and to read means "to encounter" (lvTvyxavnv) the text. Altering the expression "how to read and understand the scriptures," Origen rewords it to read "how to encounter the scriptures and grasp their meaning" (rrWs- 8E't lvTVyxavew Ta1s ypacpa1s Kat T~>V vouv aim11v EKMil~avnv, 4.2.4 [p. 312, If.]). In Greek the word lvTVyxavnv means not only "to encounter" but also "to read." The starting point in the process of interpretation or understanding is to encounter the text by reading it. For this reason no distinction is drawn between visual "reading" and auditory "hearing." Whatever its form, the starting point is the first encounter with the text

The manner of the reading determines whether it will result in understanding. If there are "those who read carelessly" (Twv ... rrape-py6)s ava'YLVWO"K6vnuv, 4.3.1 [p. 324, 13]),8 there are also "those who believe that they are reading ... and yet do not understand" (To1s dvayLvwaKnv VOil((OlJO"L ... Kat llfl O"WLELO"LV, 4.2.6 [p. 316, 12f.]). The possibility of encountering the text is open to all, but not all arrive at understanding. Hermeneutics must explain, therefore, not only how understanding comes about but also how it does not come about. Failure to reach understanding is taken as a consequence of interrupting or suspending the reading-tounderstanding process. As we shall see later, difficulty in understanding and failure to attain understanding are examined as matters of considerable importance in Origen's theory of hermeneutics. The hermeneutical task has to include, on the one hand, recognizing the impossibility of interpretation and what makes understanding unattainable, and on the other, explaining "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

567

how it is possible to attain understanding through overcoming this difficulty and impossibility. Once again we find that hermeneutics does not consist in mere presentation of a methodology, but necessarily turns to something that transcends interpretation and gives it its foundation. For this reason Origen introduces the Spirit as the one who lays the foundation for biblical hermeneutics. The move from reading to understanding is a dynamic one, fraught with tension, for it includes the possibility that the process may become blocked. By no means an automatic advance or progression, it is in every respect a movement that can never be fixed. That which is to be read, the text itself, is not confined to the modem sense of the word "text," for it is not there merely as something to be read, interpreted, and understood, but acts of its own accord to stimulate interpretation and even becomes an interpreting subject. It is primarily in this sense that Origen speaks of "inspiration." The human interpreter, while being worked on by the text in this way, makes every effort to achieve understanding. In order for understanding to materialize, the interpreter must be lifted up by the text itself to become an interpreting subject, that is to say, a "searcher." This interrelationship between text and interpreter, such that each may become an acting subject, is a matter that calls for thoroughgoing examination in hermeneutics. What Origen is after here is the moving power in this interrelationship. As seen in expressions referring to that which "impels the reader to inquire" (KLVELV Tov f"vTvyxavovm (flTE'lv, 4.3.1 [p. 324, 6]) or to those which "persuade us to regard them as divine writings" (TC1 KLvouvm i!~ns Ws rrEpt GEtwv ypn~~d Twv, 4.1.1 [p. 293, 3]),9 Origen's primary incentive for hermeneutics is the "moving power" that on the one hand undergirds the search and, on the other, directs the search toward the divine and spiritual meaning in the text. 10 This movement involves, then, "Spirit" and "search." As a scholarly endeavor, biblical hermeneutics has to correspond to reason, but it also has to correspond to what is in the deepest sense the message of the religious writings we call scriptures. Origen was sure of the unity of these two dimensions and ceaselessly pursued it. This is evident in all his scholarly procedures, including his efforts to establish reliable biblical texts. Detailed demonstration of this point is hardly necessary. It will suffice to mention the statement that "in such instances [i.e., in biblical texts] seeking a meaning worthy of God" (Tou &'lv Tou BEOu d~Lov ds TCl ToLauTa (flTE'lv) is "a sound conviction" (rrE'la~a ci~L6>..oyov, 4.2.9 [p. 322, lOf.]). Closely related is another statement: "accurate interpretation" agrees with "interpretation of the mind of Christ" (o ciKpL~T)s vous CiTE vous, wv XpLaTov, 4.2.3 [p. 310, 9]).1 1 The outcome of inquiry aimed at encountering the religious meaning of a text was that grammatically rigorous and scholarly interpretation became 568

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

spiritual interpretation in allegorical form. In many instances Origen's allegorical interpretations justly deserve to be criticized, but his intent also deserves serious consideration. This completes our sketch of the concepts that inform Origen's biblical hermeneutics. Our next task is to examine more closely the "Spirit" and the "search" involved in "the moving power" of biblical interpretation. We begin with the "Spirit."

III. The "Work of the Spirit" In his preface to On First Principles, Origen cites, as one of the apostolic doctrines, the statement "that the scriptures were composed through the Spirit of God" (quod per spiritum dei scripturae conscriptae sint, 1 Praef. 8 [p. 14, 6]). In Book 4 he takes this matter up as a major subject. That the divinity or inspiration of scripture was the premise, core, and consequence of his discussion of hermeneutics is evident not only at the outset of Book 4 but also in this quotation from its conclusion (4.3.15 [p. 347, 23-30], preserved only in Rufinus' translation): Our aim has been to show that there are certain things, the meaning of which it is impossible to explain adequately by any human language, but which are made clear through simpler apprehension rather than through any power of words. This rule must control our interpretation even of the divine writings, in order that what is said therein may be estimated in accordance not with the meanness of the language but with the divine power of the Holy Spirit who inspired their composition. 12

This quotation expresses Origen's conviction that biblical interpretation (divinarum litterarum intellegentia)13 which seeks to understand the meaning (significatio) of the things contained in scripture cannot be accomplished through the natural or internal power of human language, but only through the divine power (the divinitas sancti spiritus or divinity of the Holy Spirit) that inspired the scriptures together with the "simpler apprehension" (simplicior intellectus) that responds to this power. Origen takes this as the rule (regula) of biblical interpretation. Postponing for later consideration the implications of the phrase "simpler apprehension," we turn now to the subject of the inspiration of scripture as the work of the Spirit. What Origen aims to emphasize when speaking of the inspiration of scripture is not so much the attributes bestowed on scripture by the inspiration of the Spirit-infallibility, for example-but the "subjecthood" of the Spirit who works in and through the scriptures. From beginning to end of On First Principles, Origen's thought consistently moves from "that which exercises influence" to "that which is influenced." "That which is "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

569

influenced," moreover, as "a receiver of influence which itself becomes an influence," is thus "an influenced influence." This is the principle that guides the delineation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Book 1 of On First Principles. The same principle is at work in his characterization of the scriptures. The first to be introduced is the Spirit as the one who formed the scriptures or exercises influence on them. 14 In the composition of scripture, how did the Spirit work? and in the interpretation of scripture, how does the Spirit work? These are the questions of primary concern to Origen. Turning to Book 4.2.9, we find that Origen presents "the Logos" (6 Myos, p. 321, 14) and "the Logos of God" (6 Tou Oeou Myos, p. 321, 7f.) as an acting subject working on scripture in parallel with the Spirit, or as identical with the Spirit. Scripture ('l'J ypacl>iJ, p. 322, 2) too is spoken of as an acting subject. 15 What these subjects actually do when forming scripture is explained by means of words such as these: The Word of God has arranged [~KOV61J.TJO'E, p. 321, 6) for certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and hindrances and impossibilities to be inserted in the midst of the law and the history. The principal aim was to announce [drrayyELMlL, p. 321, 12f.] the connection that exists among spiritual events, those that have already happened and those that are yet to come to pass. The Word found [EOpE, p. 321, 13] that things which had happened in history could be harmonized [lljlap1J.60"aL, p. 321, 14] with these mystical events. He used [lxpnaaTo, p. 321, 14f.] them, concealing [drroKpvTTTwv, p. 321, 15] their deeper meaning. The scripture wove [auvvlj»TJVEV, p. 322, 1] into the story something which did not happen.... Not only did the Spirit supervise [~Kov61J.TJO'EV, p. 322, 12] the writings which were previous to the coming of Christ, he has dealt [TTETTO(TJKE, p. 322, 14] in like manner with the gospels and the writings of the apostles.

From the words cited it is clear that the inspiration of scripture is not limited to the divinity or divine origin of the Bible and its text, but is first and foremost the work of the Spirit who, achieving its purpose through various forms of "supervision," was active in the formation of the Bible and is active in its text. The inspiration of scripture means no less than the "subjecthood" of the Spirit and the work of this acting subject. Origen holds, moreover, that the Spirit was at work in the formation of scripture and is at work in the text in such a way that recognition of this supervision is essential to the interpretation of scripture. With reference to the Jewish scriptures, for example, the Spirit has placed "stumbling blocks" and "impossibilities" within the Law and the historical books in order to show us that the text cannot be taken as it stands, but needs to be interpreted. The idea that the basis for and possibility of biblical interpretation inheres in scriptural inspiration, that is to say, in the work of the Spirit itself, lies at 570

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

the foundation of Origen's biblical hermeneutics. Orthodox hermeneutics, which starts from the principle that the Bible and its texts are inspired, and Origen's hermeneutics, which starts from the principle that the purpose and work of the Spirit inspire the scriptures, undoubtedly have certain points in common, but in terms of direction and actualization, it was almost inevitable that serious differences would emerge. It is with reference to differing understandings of the status and significance of literal and historical meanings that these differences in direction and actualization come to the fore. The "subjecthood" of the Spirit is clearly set forth in the words "the divine power which bestowed on us the holy scriptures," inasmuch as this bestowal implies the aim (crKorros) of the Spirit (4.3.4 [p. 328, llf.]). Concerning the aim of the Spirit in relation to scripture, Origen mentions two points. 16 And in the first place we must point out that the aim [6 O'Korr6s] of the Spirit who, by the providence of God through the Word who was '"in the beginning with God,'" enlightened [T~ ct»wT((ovn] the servants of the truth, that is, the prophets and apostles, was preeminently concerned with the unspeakable mysteries connected with the affairs of men-and by men I mean at the present moment souls that make use of bodieshis purpose being that the man who is capable of being taught might, by '"searching out'" and devoting himself to the '"deep things'" revealed in the spiritual meaning of the words, become a partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel. (4.2.7 [p. 318, 8-p. 319, 3]) There was a second aim [8nhEpos ... aKorr6s] pursued for the sake of those who were unable to endure the burden of investigating matters of such importance. This was to conceal the doctrine relating to the aforementioned subjects in words forming a narrative that contained a record dealing with the visible creation, the formation of man and the successive descendants of the first human beings until the time when they became many. (4.2.8 [p. 320, 2-8])

With reference to these two aims of the Spirit, it is to be noted, first, that when Origen speaks of the scope of inspiration, he enlarges it to include not only the biblical writers and texts but also those who read the scriptures and seek to understand them. He extends the work of inspiration, in other words, to include the dimension of understanding and interpretation. Textual hermeneutics is amplified to include the reader. The work of the Spirit is all-permeating, all-embracing. To put the matter another way, the work of the Spirit is to be considered with regard to the interrelationship between scripture and the reader, for the aim of the Spirit relates to "the unspeakable mysteries connected with the affairs of men" (rrEpt Twv

"SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

571

cbroppi}TWV ~lJO"TT]p(wv TWV KQTcl TOUs dv0pW1TOl.IS rrpay~dTWV, p. 318, llf.) In the second place, the aim of the Spirit is that through the text the reader might "become a partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel" (Kmvwvbs TWV ISAwv Tfjs [3ovAfiS avToiJ 'YEVllTaL Boy~chwv, p. 319, 2f.). That the reader may change from "one who is capable of being taught" (6 Bvva~Evos BLBax6fivaL, p. 319, 1) to one who, by personally pursuing the faith-oriented educative process of "searching out" (€pEvvl)aas, p. 319, 2) and "devoting himself' (€aVTov €m8o(Js, p. 319, 2), is a "partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel": this, in a word, is the aim of the Spirit. To do this is to make the reader into an acting subject, to establish the reader as interpreting subject. In the third place, the Spirit helps the reader to go beyond getting at the meaning of particular texts and attain "all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel." The goal of interpretation is no less than the complete aim of the Spirit. What is at issue here is not so much a matter of collecting interpretations of particular texts so as to obtain an interpretation of the whole (the hermeneutical problem of the relationship between part and whole), but a matter of attaining, with regard to particular texts, "the 'deep things' revealed in the spiritual meaning of the words" (To1s ~a6EO"L ToiJ vov Twv Al~Ewv, p. 319, 2). In the foreground here is the idea that by reaching the deeper dimension of a text, one comes to participate in the meaning of the whole. In the fourth place, Origen distinguishes between "the man who is capable of being taught" and "those who were unable to endure the burden of investigating matters of such importance" (ToiJs ~Tt Bvva~lvol.IS TOV Ka~aTov €vlyKELV imf:p Tov Tel TT]ALKniJTa EVpE1v, 4.2.8 [p. 320, 3f.]), between the able and the unable (6 Bvva~Evos, Tovs ~Tt Bvva~lvovs). and considers the intention and concern of the Spirit for each. What stands out here is Origen's ample consideration for people in the latter category. Concealing the teaching from "those unable to endure the burden of investigating matters of such importance" makes it utterly impossible for such people to interpret scripture (and this may actually happen). But what Origen contends is, rather, that the stumbling blocks (aKcivBaAov), hindrances (rrpoaK6~~aTa), and impossibilities (dBUvam) placed in scripture, by preventing the reader from pursuing the path of conventional understanding and leading one to a different approach to divine things, really signify the Spirit's concern for the education of those capable of being taught. In the literal and historical dimension of textual interpretation, the things that look like impossibilities fulfill the same role. To this extent the biblical text as a whole is regarded as meaningful, for the aim of the Spirit imbues every text, though not every text has the same meaning. Because of 572

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

the Spirit, then, scripture is regarded as unified at a higher level, even in respect of its "impossibilities." By explaining the inspiration of scripture through the work and aims of the Spirit, Origen not only acknowledges diverse textual levels and their respective meanings but also seeks to lay the foundation for diverse approaches to these texts and meanings. Origen's hermeneutics is not an esoteric discipline restricted to an intellectual elite, but an approach that seeks to lead as many people as possible to participate in the meaning of the Bible. He tried to lay the foundation for a universal hermeneutics. In doing so he showed that he was by no means a pessimist but a man whose educational concern was grounded in hope.

IV. The Meaning of "Search" Origen remarks, "For the [Spirit's] intention was to make even the outer covering of the spiritual truths, I mean the bodily part of the scriptures, in many respects not unprofitable but capable of improving the multitude insofar as they receive it" (4.2.8 [p. 320, 15-p. 321, 2]). The Spirit makes even the literal and historical meaning of the text significant, or as Origen puts it, not unprofitable (ouK civwcjle->..Es) for the multitude (rroA>..ot), that is, for Christians in general. This he does in order to make them "better" (~d.no0v). 1 7 But in hermeneutical terms, making a person better means "to impel the reader to search" (KLVE'Lv Tov evTuyxavovTa (TJTE'Lv, 4.3.1 [p. 324, 6]). Or if the focus is on the readers, making them better means to make them into "more skillful and searching readers" (Toils EVTPEXECJTlpous Kat (T]TTJTLKwTlpous, 4.2.9 [p. 322, Sf.]). The aim of the Spirit is to make the reader into one who actively searches the text, to make the reader into a "searcher." "To search" is the reader-activity most appropriate to the activity of the Spirit. The idea of search as interpretation finds clear expression in this sentence: "in order that these, by giving themselves to the toil of examining what is written, may gain a sound conviction of the necessity of seeking in such instances a meaning worthy of God" ((va Ttl ~aaavq> Tijs E-~E­ TciaEws TWV yqpafJ.fJ.EVwv €m8L86vTES €aUTous lTELafJ.a a~L6>..oyov M~WO"L lTEpl TOO BELV TOU 6EOV a~LOV voi)v Els TU TOLQVTa (T]TELV, 4.2.9 [p. 322, 9-11]).18 Generally speaking, textual interpretation must begin with a philological inquiry into the literal and historical meaning of a text. 19 For scholarly inquiry that starts in this way, Origen often uses such terms as "examination" (E-~ETci(nv, E-~lmaLs) and "investigation" @aaav((nv, ~aaavos). 20 "To search" ((TJTELV, C'DTTJaLs) invariably includes scholarly inquiry of this kind. For even in apostolic letters that cannot be easily understood, "there are thousands of passages that provide, as if through a "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

573

window, a narrow opening leading to multitudes of the deepest thoughts" (4.2.3 [p. 311, 1-4]). The clue (dcf>op~~) that leads to spiritual meaning may belong even to the literal level on which one first encounters a text Furthermore, "the right way" to understand the meaning of scripture is to be discovered in the words of scripture themselves. Thus Origen, speaking of "the right way . . . which is extracted from the writings themselves" (Tj ... cj>aLVO~EVTJ Tj~tv o86s ... drr' aimi:iv TWV >..oy(wv E-eLXVEvo~lVTJ, 4.2.4 [p. 312, 1-3]), draws on Prov 22:20f.: "Do thou portray them threefold in counsel and knowledge." He understands this passage as pointing to the threefold meanings and understandings of a text: the historical and literal, the anagogical or moral, and the spiritual. 21 Interpretation is supposed to culminate in spiritual meaning, but attaining this goal involves more than mere interpretive technique. "Examining what is written" is not Origen's characterization of what readers do. He speaks, rather, of their "giving themselves to the toil of examining what is written." The idea of "giving oneself' (€m8(8ovTES' €avTm'Js) epitomizes Origen's approach to scripture, and this self-giving is closely linked to the search for spiritual meaning. It is undertaken "that the man who is capable of being taught might, by 'searching out' and devoting himself to the 'deep things' revealed in the spiritual meaning of the words, become a partaker of all the doctrines of the Spirit's counsel" (4.2.7 [p. 319, 1-3]). Rufinus, perhaps thinking of Origen himself, adds to his translation this passage: "the man who had devoted himself to studies of this kind with the utmost purity and sobriety and through nights of watching" (qui se huiuscerrwdi studiis cum omni castimonia et sobrietate ac vigiliis dedidisset, p. 318, 29-p. 319, 17). As an explanatory comment, this is by no means mistaken. All the more reason, then, that this dedicated searching should signify not "facile understanding," from which it differs completely, but a task of enormous difficulty. It would be a long business if we were to record at this point the ancient prophecies relating to every future event, in order that the doubter might be struck by their divine origin and, putting away all hesitation and indecision, might devote himself with his entire soul to the words of God. (4.1.7 [p. 302, ll-14])

"Devoting oneself with one's entire soul to the words of God" (5>-TJ

€avTov €m8ij Tij ~Jivxij Tots >..oyots ToiJ OEoiJ)-this is the meaning

of "search."22 In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen expresses the same idea using the word "struggle" (dywv): "But our whole energy is now to be directed to the effort [= struggle] to penetrate to the deep things of the meaning of the Gospel and to search out the truth that is in it when

574

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

divested of types" (ed. Preuschen, p. 13, 17-19; ANF trans.). To "search out the naked truth" (E-pe:vvflom n1v ... YVJ.LVfJV ... ci>..i]6ELav) is to search out the spiritual meaning. The religious meaning of "search" comes to light at a level deeper than that of literal meaning. Though Origen does say that, in cases where scriptural passages have no "bodily sense" 23 at all, "we must seek only for the soul and spirit, as it were, of the passage" (lanv lSrrov olve:t n1v ljlvX'lv Kat To rrvt:DJ.La Tfjs ypa.,t]s J.L6va XPTJ CTJTE1v, 4.2.5 [p. 314, 7f.]), in the last analysis biblical interpretation is "to search out the spirit" (To rrvt:DJ.La CTJTt:1v).24 Since interpretation as "search" means "the effort to penetrate to the deep things of the meaning of the gospel" (rrELpWIJ.EVOLS' ds Ta ~ci61'] ToD e:uayye:>..LKoD vov .,eacraL), it can be carried out only through constant advance. Searching is necessary because scripture sometimes hides the "deeper meaning" (Tov ~a6(JTt:pov vovv, 4.2.9 [p. 321, 15]) from those who encounter it. "Stumbling blocks" and "impossibilities" are spread through the text not to put an end to the search but to stimulate it. The interpreter as searcher, then, is one constantly on the way toward becoming "more skillful and more searching." From beginning to end, Origen's faith and thought are marked by the fundamental motif of search as unceasing advance.25 When hermeneutics is understood not merely as an academic, methodological exercise but as a self-sacrificial (and in Origen's case an ascetic) search motivated by faith, then it becomes important to ask about the nature of this faith. Origen opposed the Gnostics and Marcionites not merely because of their theories of biblical interpretation and their exegesis, but primarily because of their religious attitude. For as he saw it, "they have given themselves up to fictions, fashioning mythical hypotheses." (civarr>..acrJ.Lo1s €avToils E-m8e:8wKacrL, 4.2.1 [p. 308, lf.]).2 6 That Origen's "search" derives in large measure from the nature of his faith is not to be denied, but neither is it to be denied that he owes much to the "search tradition." In the apologist Justin we find "search" (CTJTt:1v) with a religious meaning that stems from Old Testament piety, particularly from the Book of Isaiah. 27 In the close relationship between interpreting and searching, and again in the identification of these two, it may be that we have to do with the influence of darash (u,-,) from the Old Testament and rabbinic traditions that entered early Christianity by way of Judaism. This Hebrew word, meaning "to seek, inquire, ask for," frequently appears in the Old Testament in the sense of "inquire of Yahweh" or "seek Yahweh." It also came to mean "to fulfill the will of God" and "to observe the commandments." In the Qumran texts, again, the phrase "seek God" came to mean "seek God in the Law." 28 In these uses, searching and interpreting are inseparable. Though a number of similarities have been pointed out between "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

575

Midrash and Origen's emphasis on allegorical interpretation, more fundamental is the influence on Origen of early Jewish thought concerning darash, according to which the search for God and scriptural interpretation are conjoined in the Law. At the beginning of his Commentary on the Psalms, Origen expressly refers to "the very beautiful tradition which was transmitted to us by a Hebrew man concerning the divine scriptures in general." 29 The central idea of this tradition, the "hermeneutic principle" (To €~ll"YTJTLK6v, Philocalia 2.3 [ed. Harl, p. 244, 13]), has to do with the inspiration of scripture as a whole, with discovering the key to biblical interpretation, and with the proper use of this key in interpretation. What Origen deems central to the interpretation of scripture, then, is something that already existed in Jewish tradition, and he is fully aware of carrying on this tradition. The fact that he calls this Hebrew "that person" (€Kdvos) suggests direct acquaintance and thus actual transmission. Origen observes, further, that this idea of biblical interpretation from the Jewish tradition is also found in Paul. Use of the word (TJTELV to mean both "search" and "interpret" suggests the possibility of a strong influence from Judaism. This matter calls for careful study. Even now we can say with certainty, however, that Origen, in a way that contrasted with Judaism but corresponded to the new Christian situation, reconceived the Jewish darash as the unity of search and interpretation, connecting it pneumatologically with "the mind of Christ" and "the Logos of God."

V. Biblical Foundations

What is the biblical basis for a biblical hermeneutics centering in "Spirit" and "search"? Since each of the topics considered in On First Principles is based on biblical texts, it seems natural to assume that the same procedure would apply here. Nearly the whole of Book 4.3 is devoted to this subject. Let us consider some of the most important passages.30 In Book 4.3.5 Origen says, "Accordingly he who reads in an exact manner must, in obedience to the Saviour's precept which says, 'Search the scriptures,' carefully investigate how far the literal meaning is true." (p. 331, 3-5). He here cites the words "Search the scriptures" (€p€vvCin: TOS ypacf>ds) from John 5:39 as a basis for inquiring into the adequacy of the literal meaning. 31 Though this Greek phrase is usually translated in the indicative mood (e.g., RSV: "You search the scriptures"), Origen, both here and in other places, understands it as imperative. If it is understood in the indicative mood, it follows that when Jesus addressed the Jews and particularly the scribes, he was conceding their ability to carry out exhaustive studies of the scriptures, but was emphasizing the negative point that they fail to attain the real meaning of scripture as literature that bears witness to the Christ. If, on the other hand, "search the scriptures" is 576

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

understood as an imperative, it follows that Jesus was acknowledging that their study of scripture included the possibility of attaining the Christwitness and thus eternal life. This further implies that Origen, who took the phrase as imperative, recognizes rabbinical Bible studies (lpe-uvav) as having positive significance. What was said earlier about darash could again be cited in this connection. Origen understands this phrase, however, not simply as an imperative directed to Jewish people of an earlier day, but also and above all, as an imperative continuously directed to Christians. This is why it could serve as the basis for scriptural interpretation. In the concluding section of his hermeneutical theory (4.3.14), Origen clarifies the nature of interpretive inquiry based on faith by quoting a few selections from Paui. 32 This important passage exists only in Rufinus' translation, but it is well worth citing. If, however, a reader is more curious and persists in asking for an explanation of every detail, let him come and hear along with us how the apostle Paul, scanning by the aid of the Holy Spirit, who "searches even the depths of God" [cf. 1 Cor 2:10], the "depth of the divine wisdom and knowledge" [cf. Rom. 11:33], and yet not being able to reach the end and to attain, if I may say so, an innermost knowledge, in his despair and amazement at the task cries out and says, "0 the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" [cf. Rom 11:33]. And in what despair of reaching a perfect understanding he uttered this cry, hear him tell us himself: "How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out!" [cf. Rom 11:33]. He did not say that God's judgments were hard to search out, but that they could not be searched out at all; not that his ways were hard to find out, but that they were impossible to find out. For however far one may advance in the search and make progress through an increasingly earnest study, even when aided and enlightened in mind by God's grace, he will never be able to reach the final goal of his inquiries. For no created mind can by any means possess the capacity to understand all; but as soon as it has discovered a small fragment of what it is seeking, it again sees other things that must be sought for; and if in tum it comes to know these, it will again see arising out of them many more things that demand investigation. (p. 345, 10-p. 346, 2)33

Origen maintains that perfect understanding of what the Bible means is possible only for the Spirit who "searches even the depths of God," but that as for a human being, even one illumined by the grace of God with the power of understanding, perfect comprehension of the wisdom and knowledge of God is "utterly impossible" (omnino non posse). Like Paul, such a person cannot help crying out "in despair and amazement" at a task that pertains to the mystery of God. This attitude stands in sharp contrast to that of some Gnostics who took pride in their possession of perfect knowledge. "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

577

One may wonder if Origen's flat denial of the possibility of discovering and acquiring perfect knowledge does not render meaningless the quest of one who is described as becoming "more searching" ((TJTllTLKWTEpos), the quest of "one who advances in the search and progresses through increasingly earnest study" (quis in scrutando promoveat et studio intentiore proficiat). Ordinary thought would doubtless lead to this conclusion. From Origen's perspective, however, the searching of the depths of God that is restricted to the Spirit alone, and the utter impossibility of human searching of the depths of God, can be truly recognized only when our search has reached a point beyond which it can go no further. This is the point at which Paul confesses, "0 the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God. How unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out" (Rom 11:33). Where the human search or interpretation reaches its limit, the limitations of interpretation are laid bare, and there the "interpretation of the Spirit" that underlies scriptural interpretation becomes manifest. The impossibility of attaining the "final goal" (perfectus finis) is revealed only to the "more searching." It turns out, therefore, that the impossibility of the search and the limitations it involves do not render the search meaningless, but give it, on the contrary, positive meaning. This is why Origen, after stating that "in no way is it possible to comprehend" (possibile habet ullo genere conpraehendere), can go on to speak of how partial discoveries make the search more searching, to speak, that is, of progress in the search. It is for this reason that "the man who has made some progress" (o E:nt n6aov civa13£~TJKWS, 4.2.4 [p. 312, 10]) can deem the search significant. Thus it is that after citing or referring to Eccl 7:24f.; Isa 6:2f. and 41:22f.; Matt 11:27; Luke 2:13; 1 Cor 2:10; Col 1:16; and Sir 16:21, and after emphasizing anew that even for "holy spirits" (sancti spiritus) it is impossible to understand perfectly "the beginning of all things and the ends of the universe" (initium omnium et fines universitatis, p. 346, 21), Origen draws on Phil 3:13 and says: "It is therefore to be desired that each one according to his capacity will ever 'reach out to the things which are before, forgetting those things which are behind,' that is, will reach out both to better works and also to a clearer understanding and knowledge, through Jesus Christ our Savior, to whom is the glory forever" (p. 347, 1-4).3 4 The fact that Origen concludes his substantive argument on hermeneutics by citing Phil 3:13 is a matter of considerable importance. To this citation he appends a word that has no counterpart in the original, the word "ever" (semper). By doing so, he indicates that the search never ends.35 In the passage " ... will reach out both to better works and also to a clearer understanding and knowledge"( ... extendat ... tam ad opera meliora quam etiam ad sensum intellectumque puriorem), this point of view is further suggested by two Latin words used in the comparative: meliora and 578

I wATARU MIZUGAKI

puriorem. The previously cited phrase "simpler apprehension" (simplicior intellectus, 4.3.15 [p. 347, 26]) likewise reinforces this point of view, for the comparative degree implies, at bottom, the "more searching" ((T]Trr TLKwn:pos) quality in the boundless and never-ending search. Origen is fond of citing Matt 7:7-8: "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened." The word "search" in his hermeneutical argument echoes the word (T]TELV in Jesus' words, for interpretation, as a matter of reading the text and discovering its meaning, is analogous both to the relationship between "seeking and finding" and to the process that links the two. In his Commentary on the Psalms, Origen speaks of "opening" closed and hidden scriptures with the "key of David" (KXEts Toii ~a1JEL8), that is to say, with the "exegetical principle" (To €~Tl'YTJTLK6v). 36 This is an allusion to the words "knock, and it will be opened." The piece cited in Epiphanius likewise clearly refers to Matt 7:7.3 7 The key of David appears again at the beginning of Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John. 38 We conclude, therefore, that at about the time Origen was formulating his hermeneutical ideas for On First Principles, he was already aware that the "seek and find" of Matt 7:7 applied to the interpretation of scripture generally. 39

VI. Conclusion

The dual principle of Origen's hermeneutics is "Spirit" and "search." The Spirit who inspires the scriptures is at the same time the "most searching one" who plumbs the depths of God and who is the principal interpreter of scripture. As such the Spirit is at once the one who prompts the scripture-encountering reader to undertake the unending search for deeper and higher meaning, and the source of the power to sustain the quest. Because of the Spirit, the reader becomes "more searching," becomes a person in quest of perfect interpretation.40 Origen's theory of scriptural interpretation can thus be characterized, on the one hand, as a hermeneutics of the Spirit and, on the other, as an altogether thorough-going hermeneutics of the search. At its core is the idea of perpetual quest, of perpetual interpretation. In consequence, the ground is laid for the incompleteness of every biblical interpretation as well as for openness to the future. In this sense it is also an eschatological hermeneutics. Surmounting restrictions imposed by church and tradition as well as by the various kinds of scholarly methodologies, yet always coming to a stop before the mystery of God while at the same time ceaselessly impelled forward by the Spirit, this hermeneutics is characterized by a tension-filled dynamism. It seems undeniable that behind the attempt to comprehend interpretation in terms of the seeking that is characteristic of the "SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

579

religious life lies an idea that derives from Old Testament and rabbinic traditions: the superb idea that seeking and interpreting are one. To clarify this point will be an important task in the study of Origen's hermeneutics.

Notes This article was translated with the valuable assistance of Professor David Reid, Tokyo Union Theological Seminary. 1The texts used in this essay are as follows: (a) For De principiis: H. Gorgemanns and H. Karpp, eds., Origenes: Vier Bilcher von den Prinzipien (2d ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985). Quotations from this work omit main titles but give volume, chapter, and section (and in parentheses, the page number and line number in accordance with Koetschau's recension in the GCS); (b) For the Commentarii in lohannem: E. Preuschen, Origenes Werke, Vol. 4: Der Johanneskommentar (GCS 10; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903); (c) All citations from the fragments of the Commentarii in Genesim and of the Libri in Psalmos follow M. Harl, ed., Origene: Philocalie, 1-20: Sur les ecritures, and N. de Lange, ed., La lettre a Africanus, sur /'histoire de Suzanne (SC 302; Paris: Cerf, 1983); (d) For the English translation I have followed G. W. Butterworth, ed. and trans., Origen, On First Principles (New York: Harper, 1966). 2simonetti (Lettera e/o Allegoria: Un contributo alia storia dell' esegesi patristica [Studia Ephemeridis "Augustinianum" 23; Rome: Institutum Patristicum "Augustinianum," 1985] 78) says that De princ. 4.1-3 is "a comprehensive theoretical pronouncement on Scripture and its interpretation" and that Origen here attempts to outline "the basic character of his hermeneutics." Karpp ("Kirchliche und ausserkirchliche Motive im hermeneutischen Traktat des Origenes 'De Principiis' 4, 1/3," Vivarium, Festschrift Theodor Klauser= JAC Ergiinzungsband 11 [1984] 203) maintains, however, that what Origen deals with in On First Principles is not "the first 'biblical hermeneutic"' but a problem that was important to the church of that day and to his own theology, namely, the "altogether unique" problem of "the inspiration of Scripture and of biblical exegesis that befits this inspiration." I accept Karpp's indication of the practical nature of On First Principles, but basically I agree with the interpretation advanced by Simonetti. 3H. de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit: L'intelligence de /'ecriture d'apres Origene (Paris: Aubier, 1950). There is no need to cite here the immense literature on Origen, but I would like to mention the study by Karen J. Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen's Exegesis (Patristische Texte und Studien 28; Berlin and New York; de Gruyter, 1986). Torjestn's study and the present essay complement each other inasmuch as Torjesen seeks to get at the "theological foundations of Origen's exegetical procedure" through analysis of concrete exegesis, and my essay tries to clarify the basis for biblical hermeneutics in his On First Principles. To clarify where explication from both directions can meet is a task still to be addressed. 4"The right way ... , as it appears to us, of approaching and gathering their meaning, is the following, which is extracted from the writings themselves" (fJ ... cl>aLVOJ.llVT) "iJJ.L1V oSOs ... dtr 'avnilv niiv Allywv teLXVfVOJllVT), 4.2.4 (GCS, p. 312, 13]). With regard to the usage of tetXVfunv, see 4.3.5 (GCS, p. 331, 5). 5origene: Philocalie, 1-20, 182.

580

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

6In Philocalia 4.1-3, 8LiJ'YTJO'LS' occurs six times and 8LT]yE'Lu6aL three times. and t~T]yE'it16aL are not used at all. The term lK8oX1'l occurs twice. 7 In connection with "read and understand," reference may be made to Mark 13:14 and Matt 24:15, "let the reader understand" (o avayLVWO'KWV vodTw), and to Acts 8:30 where Philip asks the Ethiopian minister, "Do you understand what you are reading?" (3.pd y€ yLVWaK€LS' li civayLVWaK€LS';). Cf. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Lund: Gleerup, 1961) 233. It may be, however, that what lies behind the whole process, including interpretation, is the order of the synagogue service in early Judaism, where the reading of a text was followed by its exposition, that is to say, by preaching. The preacher was called ]'011 (11!11111 in Aramaic). The word 1zr11, from which the word for preacher derives, signifies a person who searches out the meaning of a scriptural text and interprets it. Cf. Str-B 4.1.171. It is indisputable that even after primitive Christianity, the worship service was important as the Sitz im Leben of interpretation. As will be shown below, the importance of the term "search" in Origen's hermeneutics can best be explained against the background of this tradition. 80rigen warns against "facile understanding" (El1X€pWS' VOOVIJ.lVaL, 4.2.3 [GCS, p. 311, 2f.]; El1X€PWS' ... vodv, ibid. [p. 311, 6]) and "ready acceptance" (n'W trp6xnpov tKBoxi}v, 4.2.4 [GCS, p. 312, 9f.]) for the reason that the meaning of the scriptures is not necessarily discernible "at first sight" (avT6&v). With regard to the usage of avT66€v, see 4.2.9 (GCS, p. 321, 4; p. 322, 6). 9see also 4.2.9 (p. 321, 10): 111'! KLVOVIJ.EVoL citro ToO ypdiJ.IJ.aTOS'. 10Hence the importance of both civdy€Lv-d.vaywyi} and d>.AT]yopdv-d.>.AT]yop[a. 11see 1 Cor 2:16. On the meaning of voDS" XpLO'ToO, see Gorgemanns and Karpp, Origenes, 105 n. 10. 12"Verum haec ... breviter dixisse sufficiat ad ostendendum id, quod sunt quaedam, quorum significatio proprie nullis ornnino potest 'humanae linguae sermonibus' explicari, sed simpliciore magis intellectu quam ullis verborum proprietatibus declaratur. Ad quam regulam etiam divinarum litterarum intellegentia retinenda est, quo scilicet ea, quae dicuntur, non pro vilitate sermonis, sed pro divinitate sancti spiritus, qui eas conscribi inspiraverit, censeantur." 13 Cf. divinarum intel/egentiam litterarum in 4.2.4 (GCS, p. 312, 23) and Tci Twv aylwv ypaiJ.IJ.d.Twv voi}IJ.aTa in 4.2.4 (GCS, p. 312, 7f.). 14 0rigen's perspective on the Spirit and the scriptures comes to clear expression in 4.2.7 (GCS, p. 318, 9-11), where he speaks of "the Spirit who, by the providence of God through the Word which was 'in the beginning with God,' enlightened the servants of the truth, that is, the prophets and apostles" ( ... T4i lj>wT[(ovn TTV€UIJ.aTL trpovo[q. 6€o0 8Lci TO OS' tV apxfj TTpOS' TOV 6€0V >.6yov TO!Js- 8LaK6VOVS' Ti)S' d).T]6f[aS', trpolj>i}TaS' Kal dtrouT6>.ovS"). Again in 4.2.2 (GCS, p. 308, 12-14) he says, "The sacred books ... were composed and have come down to us as a result of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the Will of the Father of the universe through Jesus Christ" (TciS' lEpciS" ~~~>.oVS" ... t~ tm TTVo[aS' TOU ciy[ov TTV€UIJ.aTOS' ~v>.f}IJ.aTL TOO TTaTpOS' niiv o>.wv 8Ld 'I T]t100 XpLuToO TauTaS' dvayEypd.cj>6aL). 15cf. Gorgemanns and Karpp, Origenes, 129 n. 37. 16Among the many studies on the "aim" of the Spirit, see esp. M. Harl, "Orig1me et Ia semantique du langage biblique," VC 26 (1972) 161-87. t~i}'YT]t1LS'

"SPIRIT" AND "SEARCH"

I

58!

17 Karpp points out that this expresses a "church motif." See Karpp, "Motive," 201. l8For a list of the writings concerned with this text, see F. Cocchini, ed., Origene: Commento alia Lettera ai Romani. lntroduzione, traduzione et note (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1985) l.xxiii n. 65. 19 This "literal and historical meaning" should not be understood in the modern sense of the term. For more on this matter, see H. Crouzel and M. Simonetti, eds., Origene: Traite des Principes, IV (SC 269; Paris: Cerf, 1980) 184f. n. 39. 20 cf. R. Giigler, Zur Theo/ogie des biblischen Wortes bei Origenes (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1963) 338 n. 50, and F. H. Kettler, Der ursprungliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes (Berlin: Tiipelmann, 1966) 4lf. 21 Origen takes these threefold meanings as corresponding to "the simple person" (6 cirr>.ovaupos ), "the person who has made some progress" (6 trrl rrocr6v civa~€~TJKWS), and "the person who has reached the goal" (o Ttknos). Depending on the level of scriptural meaning involved, these three types of people are "edified" (olKo8oiJ.ijTaL) in different ways. The differences among them are probably to be understood as differences in the height (or depth) of their edification. That these differences are not fixed or absolute is shown both by the comparative form of 6 d:rr>.oooT€pos and by the fact that the expression o trrl rrocrov civa~€~TJKWs implies gradation and movement. 22This stands in contrast to dedication and search on the part of heretics. Cf. 4.2.1; Commentarii in lohannem 2.28 (GCS, p. 84, 29-32). 2 3The idea that something lacks "bodily sense" is used for passages devoid of solid virtue. Cf. Crouzel and Simonetti, Origene: Traite des Principes, N, 185 nn. 40, 43. 24 searching out the spirit is at the same time a "search for wisdom." Origen puts it this way: "And, speaking generally, we have, in accordance with the apostolic promise, to seek after 'the wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto the glory' of the righteous, 'which none of the rulers of this world knew"' (Kal d.rraEarr>.ws t-rrl traVTwv KaTa -ri)v citrocrTokLidlv trrayy€Mav (TJTTJTlov O"Ocjllav tv iJ.UO"TTJpl4J Tl')v citrOK€KPIJI.LiJ.fVl)V, flv 1TpoWpLO"€V o 6€0s trpo TWV alwvwv ds 86Eav TWV 8LKalwv, f)V oiJ&ls TWV apx6VTWV TOO alwvos TOVTOU lyvwK€ [GCS, p. 316, l-5]). The passage he cites is from I Cor 2:7f., but Origen changes ds 86Eav l'}jJ.Wv into ds 86Eav Twv 8LKalwv, and 6€o0 crocjllav into crocjllav. Most important, however, is that he connects crocjllav, the first word in this sentence, not with kako0iJ.€V as in the Pauline original, but with (TJTTJTlov. The phrase crocjllav (TJTE'iv occurs in I Cor 1:22 as part of the phrase "EkkTJV€S crocjllav (TJTOOOLV, but, by substituting "we" for "Greeks," Origen makes the point that we are to seek wisdom. According to Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans Ia litterature patristique, Vol. 3: Origene (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1980), 1 Cor 1:22 is not cited even once in the extant works of Origen, though 1 Cor 1:21 and 1 :23 are cited rather frequently-a fact that can hardly be considered coincidental. Origen diverts Paul's phrase to make it serve the idea of searching for knowledge of God in the Christian sense. This redirection shows how much (TJT€LV meant to him. Again, by changing (TJT000"LV (a factual statement that Greeks seek wisdom) to (TJTTJTlov, he emphasizes that "search" is a normative principle of biblical hermeneutics. Refer to Origen's use of the same term in Philocalia 1.28 (ed. Harl, p. 200, llf.) = Homiliae in Ieremiam 2: KaTa -ri)v trap' ailnjl crocjllav Ta0Ta Kal (TJTTJTlov Kal €VP€Tlov. As for the relationship between Origen and Paul with regard to these matters, see Cocchini, Origene, xi f. 582

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

2 5 crouzel (Origene [Paris: Lethiellieux, 1985] 216-23) is right in characterizing Origen's theology as "une theologie en recherche." 26see n. 22. 271 have treated this subject in Shiikyoteki tankyii no mandai: Kodai Kirisutokyo shiso josetsu (Problems of religious quest in early Christian thought) (Tokyo: Sobunsha, 1984) 96-97. 28cr. E. Jenni and C. Westermann, Theo/ogisches Jlandworterbuch zum A/ten Testament (2 vols.; Munich: Kaiser, 1971-1976) vol. I, s.v. drs; TDOT 3 (1978) s.v. W11; Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 234£. 29 Phi/ocalia 2.3 (ed. Harl p. 244, 2f.): "xapLE'O'TaTT)V trapaSOO'LV UlTO TOO 'E~palov J')J.J.lv Ka8o>.tKWS' trE'pl trdO'T)s- 8€las- ypacpf\s- trapaSE'SOJ.l.(VTJV ... " Cf. 4.3.14 (GCS, p. 346, II): "Nam et hebraeus doctor ita trade bat ... " Crouzel and Simonetti (Origene, Traite des Principes, IV, 233 n. 88) take this "hebraeus" to mean a Jewish Christian. As for the expression "Diccbat autem et Hebraeus magister ... " in 1.3.4 (GCS, p. 52, 4£.), see Giirgemanns and Karpp, Origenes, 165 n. 10. 30cr. Karpp, "Motive," 210. 3Icr. ibid., 210 n. 67. 32cr. Cocchini, Origene, xi n. I. 33"Porro autem si quis curiosius explanationem singulorum requirat, venial et nobiscum pariter audiat quomodo Paulus apostolus 'per spiritum sanctum, qui perscrutatur ctiam profunda dei,' 'altitudinem divinae sapientiae ac scientiae' scrutans nee tamen ad finem et, ut ita dixerim, ad intimam cognitionem praevalens pervenire, desperatione rei et stupore proclamat et dicit: '0 altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae dei.' Et quam desperatione perfectae conpraehensionis haec proclamaverit, audi ipsum dicentem: 'Quam inscrutabilia sunt iudicia dei, et quam investigabiles viae eius.' Non enim dixit difficile posse scrutari 'iudicia dei,' sed omnino non posse; nee dixit difficile investigari posse 'vias' eius, sed non posse investigari. Quantumcumque enim quis in scrutando promoveat et studio intentiore proficiat, gratia quoque dei adiutus sensumque 'inluminatus,' ad perfectum finem eorum, quae requiruntur, pervenire non poterit. Nee omnis mens, quae creata est, possibile habet ul!o gcnere conpraehendere, sed ut invenerit aliquantulum ex his, quae quaeruntur, iterum videt alia, quae quaerenda sunt; quodsi et ad ipsa pcrvcnerit, multo itcrum plura ex ill is, quae requiri debeant, pcrvidebit." 34 "Unde et optabile est ut pro viribus 'se' unusquisque semper 'extendat ad ea quae priora sunt, ea quae retrorsum sunt obliviscens,' tam ad 'opera meliora' quam etiam ad sensum intellectumque puriorem 'per Iesum Christum, salvatorem nostrum,' 'cui est gloria in saecula."' 35With regard to this never-ending search, Crouzcl and Simonetti (Origene, Traite des Principes, IV, 233 n. 87) refer us to 2.3.7 and to Hom. in Num. 17. The addition of semper to Phil 3:13 also occurs in the latter reference. 36 Phi/ocalia 2.1; 2.3 (cd. Harl, p. 240, 9; p. 244, 13). With reference to "key," sec also 4.2.3 (GCS, p. 311, 6f.) on the "key of knowledge" (Tf\S' KMtSOs- Tf\S' yvwcrE'WS'). Cf. Karpp, "Motive," 204; Origene: Phi/ocalie, 1-20, 252f. 37Epiphanius, Pan. 64.7. A translation may be found in P. Nautin, Origene: Sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977) 265. Cf. Origene: Phi/oca/ie, 1-20, 250. 38Phi/oca/ia 5.5 (cd. Harl, p. 292, 27) = Comm. in lo. 5.6 (ed. Preuschen; GCS, p. 103, 31). 39origen uses Matt 7:7f. in 2.9.4 (GCS, p. 168, 2-4) as well.

"SPIRIT" AI\'D "SEARCH"

I

583

39origen uses Matt 7:7f. in 2.9.4 (GCS, p. 168, 2-4) as well. 40cf. W.-D. Hauschild, Golles Geist und der Mensch: Studien zur frUhchristlichen Pneumatologie (Munich: Kaiser, 1972) 128 n. 42.

584

I

WATARUMIZUGAKI

24 Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture MICHAEL J. HOLLERICH

I. Eusebius and the Bible

The study of the Bible was one of the enduring preoccupations of Eusebius' life.l Although it is not listed as one of the themes in the preface of the Ecclesiastical History, Robert Grant has pointed out that the canon of scripture is actually a recurrent theme in the book.2 Discussions of the correct way to interpret the Bible occur in several places, notably in Eusebius' account of the career and theological achievement of Origen, and in the celebrated excerpt from Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria on the authorship of the Book of Revelation. 3 Eusebius received his apprenticeship as a scholar in the library of Pamphilus in Caesarea, where he was trained to copy and correct biblical manuscripts of the Septuagint according to the Hexapla of Origen. Colophons in several ancient manuscripts testify to his work. 4 This work made him thoroughly familiar with the text of the Hexapla and with the methods of ancient philology. He became sufficiently renowned as a biblical

scholar that Constantine would tum to him years later to procure fifty copies of the scriptures for use in the new churches in Constantinople. 5 To promote the study of the Bible he wrote a four volume work on the geography of the Holy Land, of which only Book 4 survives, an alphabetical list of biblical place names and their contemporary locations that is commonly known as the Onomasticon. 6 The preface of the Onomasticon says that the first three volumes dealt with other historical and linguistic information, such as a topographic description of ancient Judaea, with the boundaries of the twelve tribes, and an annotated plan of Jerusalem and the Temple. He also wrote several monographs on selected biblical subjects. On the Large Families of the Patriarchs, no longer extant, dealt with the large families and polygamous marriages of the biblical patriarchs-a troubling EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INfERPRETER

I

585

subject to some believers, as St. Augustine points out in the Confessions (3.7). Eusebius was probably speaking about this treatise when he said in the Preparation for the Gospel that the patriarchal stories were susceptible of both literal and allegorical interpretations.? The short work traditionally known as the Eusebian Sections and Canons is a cross-referencing index for locating passages in the gospels. 8 In the absence of chapter and verse divisions in biblical manuscripts, it was a very useful device and remained popular for centuries. Yet another treatise, in two parts, called collectively Gospel Questions and Solutions, dealt with discrepancies in the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection and his genealogy, the latter topic also being treated in Book 1.7 of the Ecclesiastical History. Fragments of the Greek original and summaries in Greek and Syriac show that these treatises conformed to the genre of the (rrrrn.J.a, a limited investigation of problems posed by a literary work.9 According to a recent analysis, Eusebius considered the discrepancies on a purely historical level, without recourse to allegory, although his controlling assumptions were dogmatic and, by modern historical standards, precritical.IO In addition to these specialized works, Eusebius composed line by line commentaries on individual biblical books. It seems doubtful that any of these dealt with the New Testament. Although there are large fragments extant on the gospel of Luke, they probably do not come from a complete commentary . 11 From the Old Testament we have commentaries on the psalter and the Book of Isaiah. Fragments on other prophetic and wisdom books survive in the medieval exegetical anthologies known as catenae, but no ancient source specifically mentions other commentaries; if the fragments are actually by Eusebius, they must come from other works of his. 12 The Commentary on Psalms and the Commentary on Isaiah are both long works which scholars generally date after 325; he seems to have been slow to try his hand at the genre of the commentary .13 A third of the former survives in direct manuscript transmission and portions of the rest in catenae, from which modern editors are still sorting out the authentic elements. 14 The latter was for a long time known only in substantial fragments, until a nearly complete copy was discovered and edited in the twentieth century .15 Both of these works show a sober exegetical approach that mixes ancient notions of literal interpretation with the traditional apologetic and theological understandings of the Christian church. We will have more to say in a moment about Eusebius' exegetical method. Besides exegetical studies in the strict sense, Eusebius made a close reading of Old Testament texts a central feature in other books. One of his first works was a massive response in twenty-five books to the great pagan scholar Porphyry, an older contemporary of his. Porphyry had made numerous critical observations on the reliability of the Jewish and the 586

I

MICHAELJ. HOll.ERICH

Christian scriptures. Some of these were trivial, but others were quite damaging, such as his discovery that the Book of Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolution of the second century BCE, rather than during the Babylonian Exile four hundred years earlier. 16 Eusebius' response has been lost, but we can be sure it dealt with Porphyry's criticisms of the Bible. Another of Eusebius' early works, the Prophetic Selections, interpreted selected passages from the Old Testament, especially from the Psalms and Isaiah (Books 2 and 4 in the extant material), for purposes of teaching converts to Christianity. The lengthy apologetic treatise called The Demonstration of the Gospel, of which ten of the original twenty books survive, is devoted entirely to glosses on biblical proof texts from the Old Testament. Though written for different purposes, both the Prophetic Selections and The Demonstration of the Gospel share a concern to vindicate Christianity's superiority to Judaism by reading the Old Testament as a prophetic anticipation of Christ and the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles. The church's teaching about Christ is thus the dominant theme, but here too Eusebius makes liberal use of scholarly tools. We see from this short summary that Eusebius' study of the Bible involved a variety of approaches: commentaries, monographs, apologetics, and manuscript studies. In all of these he preferred to use the best scholarship of his day, even when he was writing with the overtly apologetic intention of defending and persuading. Although this essay addresses only his biblical exegesis, we should note that Eusebius' intimate acquaintance with the Bible left its stamp on all of his thinking and writing. This is true even of books which deal with explicitly political subjects, such as the Oration in Praise of Constantine and the Life of Constantine. These books describe Constantine as the friend and servant of God, whose earthly monarchy imitates the cosmic rule of the Word of God. Scholars have long been accustomed to see this flattering endorsement of a Christian Roman emperor and his empire in light of pagan traditions about kingship, a viewpoint which has affected study of all of Eusebius' books. It should be pointed out that Eusebius' hopeful view of history owes a good deal to the Bible itself, especially the way the Old Testament shows God intervening on behalf of his chosen people.1 7

II. Eusebius' Approach to the Bible Eusebius was both a scholar and an apologist. As a scholar he was trained in various disciplines practiced in the ancient world-chronology, geography, textual criticism, literary criticism, history, and rhetoric. His natural environment seems to have been the library and the archive. As an apologist he was completely dedicated to the defense and exposition of the Christian faith, especially as understood in the tradition of theology and EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INfERPRETER

I

587

ecclesiastical commitment sponsored by Origen. This dual imperative governed his approach to the Bible. Modern scholars have learned that these two tasks need to be kept distinct; the defense of one's personal beliefs or the official beliefs of the religion to which one belongs can easily distort the scholar's work by corrupting the canons of the particular intellectual discipline to which one is committed. Eusebius was much less scrupulous about this; his approach to the Bible often confuses tasks which we are accustomed to separate. A difference of emphasis is perhaps evident in an explicitly apologetic work such as The Demonstration of the Gospel, as compared with a work of exegesis such as the Commentary on Isaiah. But the former makes free use of scholarly tools such as Origen's Hexapla, and the latter, while using a host of aids such as geography, history, and philology, is saturated with apologetic themes. The Demonstration of the Gospel and the Prophetic Selections, an earlier and shorter book organized along similar lines, stand in a long tradition of Christian biblical interpretation that goes back to the New Testament itself. Jesus' first followers were in the habit of looking to the Old Testament, which of course was the only "Scripture" they knew, for proof texts to illuminate the life and death of Jesus and other elements of Christian preaching and catechetics. It was based on the deeply held conviction that the scriptures were oracular and divinely inspired texts, which pointed unmistakably to the founding events of their religion.l 8 Even before the founding of Christianity, the Jewish sectarians at Qumran had practiced this sort of prophetic fulfillment proof-texting in the exegetical genre called the pesher, in which the Qumran community claimed to be able to read its history in terms of the prophetic books of the Bible.l9 Christians apparently developed a list of their own favorite texts, since a common nucleus of scriptural testimonies seems to stand behind many early Christian writings, such as Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Irenaeus' Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Tertullian's Against the Jews, and Cyprian's To Quirinus: Three Books ofTestimonies.20 Eusebius' The Demonstration of the Gospel is the most elaborate expression of this testimonial tradition in exegesis. Cyprian had simply listed biblical citations, from both testaments, under appropriate dogmatic headings. Eusebius raised the level of the genre with his systematic organization and lengthy glosses. His blending of Alexandrian theology with the testimonial form gave it a lasting place in the church's theological heritage.21 The book served the didactic and apologetic purposes common to the testimonial tradition, namely, to prove by the fulfillment of prophecy that the prophets foresaw the coming of Christ and the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles. But Eusebius admitted that the proof was not as simple as many believers thought, and therefore he laid special emphasis on the importance 588

I

MICHAELJ. HOI.LERICH

of a systematic presentation in order to cope with the objections of doubters. The following statement of purpose from the beginning of the book is a good expression of his approach to the Bible: And this is why in attacking this subject myself I must of course endeavor, with God's help, to supply a complete treatment of the Proof of the Gospel from these Hebrew theologians. And the importance of my writing does not lie in the fact that it is, as might be suggested, a polemic against the Jews. Perish the thought, far from that! For if they would fairly consider it, it is really on their side. For as it establishes Christianity on the basis of the antecedent prophecies, so it establishes Judaism from the complete fulfillment of its prophecies. To the Gentiles too it should appeal, if they would fairly consider it, because of the extraordinary foreknowledge shown in the prophetic writers, and of the actual events that occurred in agreement with their prophecies. It should convince them of the inspired and certain nature of the truth we hold: it should silence the tongues of false accusers by a more logical method of proof, which slanderers contend that we never offer, who in their daily arguments with us keep pounding away with all their might with the implication that we are unable to give a logical demonstration of our case, but require those who come to us to rest on faith alone. 22

Here is the double commitment to scholarship and apologetics to which I have referred. Eusebius was convinced that the events of history were the best demonstration of the truth of Christianity, if it could be shown, to the satisfaction of both Jews and Gentiles (and here he had in mind acute pagan critics such as Porphyry) that the Hebrew Scriptures accurately foresaw the origin and spread of Christianity. The Demonstration of the Gospel, even in its truncated form, is a massive work. Nevertheless, Eusebius must have been dissatisfied with the testimonial genre, because he went on to write his two lengthy commentaries on the Psalms and the Book of Isaiah. Both the psalter and Isaiah were primary sources in the testimony literature, and Eusebius' choice of them suggests that he was still deeply interested in the apologetic and didactic concerns of that literature. Conceivably he felt that the goals of The Demonstration of the Gospel could be met even more effectively by means of a line by line commentary. Origen had solidly established the commentary as a Christian literary genre, and Eusebius had easy access to Origen's commentaries in the library at Caesarea. Frequent notations in the manuscript of the Commentary on Isaiah show that he had Origen's lost commentary on Isaiah at his side when he wrote his own. Eusebius undoubtedly relied on Origen, though the few identifiable allusions to his venerated predecessor are always anonymous, such as his statement that others were of the opinion (lv6J.Ltaav d>.Am) that the seraphim of Isaiah 6 EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INfERPRETER

I

589

were only two in number (Comm. /sa. 38.12-16). This was probably based on Origen's assertion that the Temple theophany was a trinitarian vision in which the seraphim stood for the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit.23 The subordinationism of this interpretation would not have been acceptable in the theological atmosphere immediately after the Council of Nicaea, when Eusebius wrote his commentary. Eusebius' exegetical method in his commentaries lays considerable but far from exclusive emphasis on literal and historical interpretation. In a lost portion of the preface to the Isaiah commentary, on which most of the following discussion is based, he reportedly stated his intention to interpret the text historically, perhaps in order to make his interpretation as convincing as possible to those who did not share his Christian convictions.24 Despite his deep admiration for Origen's competence as a theologian and an exegete, Eusebius was aware that Origen had his critics. In the Ecclesiastical History he had quoted Porphyry's scathing denunciation of Origen's handling of the Bible. According to Porphyry, Origen had distorted the plain meaning of the "foreign myths" of the Jews by his use of the allegorical method, with which he arbitrarily projected Platonic and Stoic doctrines into the biblical text.25 Eusebius may have decided to demonstrate that Christian claims did not need to depend on the wide-ranging use of allegorical speculation such as that for which Origen was known. He may also have found a more literal approach more congenial to his talents and more useful for the kind of apologetic interests he reveals in the commentary, a subject to which we will tum in part III. Whatever the explanation, it seems clear in the Commentary on Isaiah that Eusebius had little time for many of the subjects to which Origen devoted his allegorizing. That especially includes flights of theological speculation and moral exhortation. Allegorical interpretation, or spiritual interpretation as he preferred to call it-his favorite term is dianoia, the deeper meaning intended by the text-was mainly reserved for two distinct purposes. One was to deal with cases where the apparent literal meaning made no sense. This included cases in which the biblical author obviously used metaphors or parables, such as the "root of Jesse" in Isa 11:1, the parable of the vineyard in Isa S:lff, as Eusebius noted in the preface to his commentary (Comm. /sa. 3, 117), or certain key words such as water, hills, forest, desert, animals, etc. which the Alexandrian tradition often interpreted symbolically. It also applied to passages which contained some kind of logical or historical impossibility, such as the Septuagint's anomalous assertion in 11:15 that the Egyptians will drink sea water. The same prophecy described the Exodus event as yet to happen in the future; Eusebius objected that this event had never been repeated, so that the

590

I

MICHAELJ. HOil.ERICH

interpreter was compelled to adopt some kind of figurative interpretation (cf. Comm. /sa. 89, 25-92, 5). The other use of nonliteral interpretation was for explaining the religious or supernatural meaning of historical events. Eusebius was keenly interested in how historical events revealed God's will for humanity. When he studied the Bible, one of the things for which he was looking was how God's will could be deduced from the events of history. Biblical prophecy attracted him because the prophets had been endowed with inspired insight into historical development; they knew what would happen and also what it meant. When Eusebius distinguishes between interpretation kata lexin or kata historian, and interpretation kata dianoian, these are his terms for the difference between history as observed and history as interpreted (in a religious sense), between fact and meaning. Literal interpretation established the plain meaning of the text and the factual basis of whatever present or future events were under discussion. Spiritual interpretation explained the deeper meaning (dianoia) of those events in the supernatural order. Thus the taunt song against the king of Babylon in Isa 14:3-21 is given a largely historical interpretation, as a prediction of historical events in the sixth century BCE (Comm. /sa. 102, 11-104, 36). But the versions which rendered v 20 as "You destroyed your land and slew your own people" (cf. LXX: "You destroyed my land and slew my people") could not refer literally to any action taken by the Babylonian king against his own people. On the basis of the Danielic doctrine that the nations each had their own angelic or demonic guardian (cf. Dan 10:13, 20-21), Eusebius argued that the verse was hinting at the invisible demonic power which presided over the nation of Babylon. 26 According to v 14, this spirit had boasted of being equal with God. Just as it had sponsored Babylon's rise to hegemony, its punishment entailed the defeat of the nation which had worshiped it.27 Many parts of Isaiah are given this kind of "historical" interpretation, in the sense that they are understood against the actual history of the eighth and sixth centuries BCE, not in terms of a Christian fulfillment to come. This is especially true of those parts of the book which are most obviously rooted in time and place, such as the opening chapters of Isaiah, the ten oracles against the nations in chaps. 13-23, the historical narratives in chaps. 3639, and parts of Deutero-Isaiah which plainly refer to events of the exilic and post-exilic period. But very often Eusebius will forsake this "inner biblical" horizon and jump forward to the Christian era to find the intended fulfillment of a prophecy. This typically happens when Eusebius encounters a classic Christian proof-text, of which Isaiah has many, eschatological prophecies that looked to an ultimate future, traditional allegorical key words, rare or obscure diction, or an "open" text that lacked historical specificity. EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INfERPRETER

I

591

These Christian applications of the prophetic text are often justified on the grounds of a literal and historical interpretation. Eusebius was so persuaded of the power of prophetic foresight that he saw no contradiction in ascribing explicitly Christian notions to the Hebrew prophets; he regarded Isaiah as an apostle and an evangelist as well as a prophet (Comm. !sa. 3, 26-4, 4). The prophetic purview could take in events as specific as the visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus (Matt 27:55), which Eusebius saw as the literal and historical fulfillment of lsa 27:llb (Comm. /sa 177, 13-24). New Testament events, the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans, the calling of the Gentiles and conversion of the Roman Empire, the persecutions, ecclesiastical institutions, the church's prosperity under Constantine, and the return of Christ and the final judgment, could all be worked into his prophetic exposition. Frequently the literal/spiritual dichotomy is applied to events in the Christian era, so that they too receive both a literal and a spiritual interpretation.28 This kind of blurring of horizons is hard for us to understand. Even in ancient times Jerome criticized Eusebius for promising a historical explanation and delivering Christian allegory instead. 29 Jerome's own Commentary on Isaiah makes a more systematic distinction between literal and spiritual interpretations. 30 But Eusebius shows little awareness of the problem. His efforts were devoted to establishing the literal meaning to the best of his ability, and he used the kind of openings I just mentioned as doors through which to push the church's traditional interpretations and his own apologetic agenda. It was critically important to him that the fulfillment of prophecy in Christ, in the new people of God, and in the institution of the Christian church, be public realities visible to anyone with an open mind, not hidden mysteries to which only an elite had access. Eusebius was a capable practitioner of the techniques developed by classical grammarians for establishing the literal sense of a text. When it was appropriate, he indicated the proper speaker in a passage, marked transition from direct to indirect speech, distinguished between singular and plural forms, noted transitions in the text to a new subject (hypothesis), and consulted an etymological handbook for interpreting Hebrew words.3 1 He put his learning and his historical skills to use in identifying geographical sites, establishing chronologies, explaining ethnographic and mythological references, and consulting Jewish exegetical traditions. Above all he made extensive use of Origen's Hexapla, in a serious attempt to come to terms with the Hebrew original. Eusebius accepted the Septuagint as the traditional text of the church. In the Ecclesiastical History he appears to approve of lrenaeus' assertion that the Septuagint was divinely inspired, over against Aquila's and Theodotion's versions oflsa 7:14.3 2 Yet his own view was subtler, as we see in this valuable statement on the 592

I

MICHAELJ. HOil..ERICH

Septuagint and the other Greek versions, from the prologue to Book 5 of The Demonstration of the Gospel: It is our present task, therefore, to collect these same expressions from the prophetic writings of the Hebrews, so that by their agreement in each separate part the demonstrations of the truth may be established. And we must recognize that the sacred oracles include in the Hebrew much that is obscure both in expression and meaning, and are capable of various translations in Greek because of their difficulty. The Seventy Hebrews in concert have translated them together, and I shall pay the greatest attention to them, because it is the custom of the Christian Church to use their work. But whenever necessary, I shall call in the help of the editions of the later translators, which the Jews are accustomed to use today, so that my proof may have stronger support from all sources.

Thus ecclesiastical usage made the Septuagint the text of choice. But it could be set aside in favor of other versions if they proved more useful in illuminating obscurities in the Hebrew, and also for the sake of discussion with Jews who repudiated the Septuagint. In practice Eusebius treats the four Greek versions as a virtual diatessaron. He normally bases his interpretation on the Septuagint but will freely supplement or even replace it with the other readings, as in his use of Symmachus for Isa 16:5-14, where the Septuagint was too obscure to understand clearly (Comm. !sa. 110, 12-112, 33). In cases where Origen had added verses to the Septuagint, marking them with an asterisk as additions, Eusebius will treat the new material on a par with the old.33 He sometimes discarded the Septuagint if it appeared to contradict known history. 34 Apologetic needs might lead him to favor a non-Septuagintal reading, as in Aquila's version of Isa 53:2, which seemed compatible with the doctrine of the virgin birth (Comm. !sa. 335, 2-13). In general he preferred to retain the Septuagint reading rather than to dismiss it completely, producing a harmonizing interpretation of two or more readings, or separate interpretations for separate readings. The practical effect of this strategy was to undercut naive confidence in the fidelity of the Septuagint and to substitute Origen's edition in its place, as a superior means of access to the original Hebrew, which Eusebius recognized as the primary authority. Had he known Hebrew, there can be little doubt that he would have done what Jerome was to do years later, and worked directly with the original. 35 Unfortunately, Eusebius knew virtually no Hebrew and relied on the Hexapla as the best alternative. His frequent allusions to the Hebrew original should not deceive us in this respect-they show only that he acknowledged the authority of the original, not that he understood it. His mentions of "the Hebrew" almost always coincide with EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INrERPRTIER

I

593

cases in which the three non-Septuagintal Greek versions agree unanimously, which suggests that he treated their unanimity as a benchmark for the wording of the Hebrew .36 Failing such agreement he would occasionally rely on Aquila, whose version was well known for its literal fidelity to the original Hebrew. 37 Like so much of Eusebius' exegesis, his use of the Hexapla was based not only on scholarly but also on apologetic imperatives. Nevertheless, by the standards of the ancient world, and within the limits of his theological commitments, he was an able and conscientious student of the Bible.

III. The Place of Judaism in the Exegesis of Eusebius We turn now to perhaps the paramount item on Eusebius' apologetic agenda, the vindication of Christian scriptural claims against Judaism. The debate with Judaism had from the beginning been a central Christian preoccupation in the interpretation of the Bible. 38 Eusebius' exegesis shows that this preoccupation was still strong in the early fourth century: the ancient argument with Judaism figures prominently in his biblical studies, and the fate of the Jews was one of the stated themes of the Ecclesiastical History (HE 1.1.2). The conversion of Constantine may have helped to keep the question of Christianity's relation to Judaism in the center of Christian exegesis. Constantine's policies regarding the Jews have been the subject of conflicting interpretations. A common scholarly judgment is that his policies were fundamentally consistent with the traditional toleration of his pagan predecessors, and that conventional Christian animus against the Jews only slowly worked its way into imperial policy under his openly Christian successors. 39 However, this judgment underestimates the hostile language with which his legislation refers to the Jews, who are styled as "a deadly, nefarious sect. "40 Marcel Simon has pointed out the importance of such polemical language in an official legal pronouncement 41 The same hostility is evinced in Constantine's letter to the churches on the Council of Nicaea. The emperor criticizes Christians who depend on the Jews for setting the date of Easter, because they rely on a people who have been struck with madness and blindness of soul for their murder of Christ (Vita Const. 3.18.2). Christians are told to have "nothing in common with that nation of parricides who slew their Lord"; they must avoid "all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews."42 Eusebius' Life of Constantine is the source for Constantine's letter on Nicaea, and so he was certainly aware that the emperor had used provocative language about Judaism, of a kind not without support in Christian antiJewish apologetics. This may explain why in the years immediately after Nicaea he undertook his lengthy commentary on the Book of Isaiah, which had always been a traditional battleground of Jewish and Christian exegesis. 594

I

MICHAELJ. HOll.ERICH

Eusebius may have felt it useful to explain once again the scriptural basis for the distinction between Judaism and Christianity, this time in the format of a scholarly commentary, to demonstrate the prowess of Christian scholarship to interested pagan readers. The Commentary on Isaiah repeats many of the traditional anti-Jewish themes, but presents them through a biblical interpretation kata lexin kai historian. In this section, we will concentrate on the different ways the commentary treats Judaism and Jewish exegesis. Let us begin by describing Eusebius' general attitude to Judaism, with the help of a typology developed by Marcel Simon in Verus Israel, his ground-breaking book on Jewish-Christian relations in the period of the early church. Simon proposed that early Christianity adopted three distinct strategies for relating itself to its predecessor religion of J udaism. 43 The first variation saw the relation of Christianity and Judaism in terms of rupture, contrast, and cancellation, and favored dichotomies like old/new, letter/spirit, law/Christ and so forth. The theme of this approach is that Christ freed humans from servitude to an external law or cult. On this assumption the Old Testament ceremonial law was either rejected utterly or reinterpreted in purely symbolic terms. Examples range from the anti-legalism of Paul and Marcion's radicalized version of the same, to the allegorical exegesis of the law in the Epistle of Barnabas. Distinguishing between the ceremonial law and the moral law supported a growing Christian moralism which paralleled that of the Jews and led to the second apologetic strategy. The "nomism," as Simon calls it, of texts like 1 Clement tended to see Christianity as the natural successor of Judaism, and the change from one to the other less as a rupture and more as a smooth development, in keeping with the words of Jesus in Matt 5:17. In the development from earlier to later stages of revelation, the law of Christ subsumed and replaced the law of Moses, but still retained its character as law. For example, 1 Clement treats the Old Testament priesthood as a biblical precedent for the Christian clergy, 44 and teaches a moral code close to that of Hellenistic Judaism. Another example might be the popularity of the traditio legis motif in Christian art in later centuries. Conceiving of Christianity as a new law emerging from Judaism required Christians to face up to Judaism's continued existence: was it not a rebuttal of Christian claims? This polemical need, plus the political difficulties which Roman law created for new religious movements, led Christians to backdate their claim to be the new Israel. Just as Paul saw Christ preexisting in the history of Israel (1 Cor 10:4), so the third-century Syrian church order called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles identified the church-which according to Eph 1:4 was also a preexistent reality-as the true subject of Israel's history: "Hear, 0 catholic church of God, you who EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INTERPRETER

I

595

escaped the ten plagues, received the ten commandments, learned the Law and kept the faith." 45 The third strategy pushed this theme even further and identified Christianity as older than the revelation to Israel, indeed as the renewal of the true, primitive religion of humanity, restated and republished by Christ. One of the best examples of this approach is found in Eusebius himself. In Book 7 of The Preparation for the Gospel he developed a distinction between "Jews" and "Hebrews." The former were the people constituted by the giving of the law to Moses at the time of the exodus. The latter were the holy men of the primeval history of Genesis and of the families of the patriarchs, who practiced a pure ethical monotheism untainted by ritual law. Book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History contains a briefer version of this distinction. 46 These three types were not necessarily exclusive of one another, and could be used by the same author depending on literary and apologetic purpose. At one time or another Eusebius used all of them. As just noted, The Preparation for the Gospel, aimed at the Greek philosophical tradition and the criticisms of people like Porphyry, depended on the third type.47 The first type tends to appear when Eusebius wants to emphasize Christianity's superiority to the Jewish law, or to stress the finality of Judaism's rejection. 48 In The Derrwnstration of the Gospel he describes Christ as the new Moses in ways that conform exactly to the second type: And now having lived in all ways according to the Law of Moses, He made use of His Apostles as ministers of the new legislation, on the one hand teaching them that they must not consider the Law of Moses either foreign or unfriendly to their own religion, on the other as being the author and introducer of a legislation new and salutary for all men, so that He did not in any way break Moses' enactments, but rather crowned them, and was their fulfillment, and then passed on to the institution of the Gospel Law. Hear Him speaking in this strain: "I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it" [Matt 5: 17]. For if He had been a transgressor of the Law of Moses, He would have reasonably been considered to have rescinded it and given a contrary law: and, if He had been wicked and a law-breaker, He could not have been believed to have been the Christ. And if He had rescinded Moses' Law, He could never have been considered to be One foretold by Moses and the prophets. Nor would His new Law have had any authority. For He would have had to embark on a new Law, in order to escape the penalty of breaking the old. But as a matter of fact He has rescinded nothing whatever in the Law, but fulfilled it. It is, as one might say, Mosaically perfect. 49

In his Commentary on Isaiah Eusebius also favored the second approach. The commentary repeatedly describes Christianity as "the evangelical law," "the divine law," or "the new law."5° Christians have been 596

I

MICHAELJ. HOLLERICH

legally constituted as a new people in place of the former people. Commenting on Isa 51:4 Eusebius says, Who would be so foolish to think that "people" here means the one to whom is said, "Behold, for your iniquities you were sold, and for your sins I sent away your mother" [cf. Isa 50:1]? But the present people would be "saved by the grace of God" from the nations .... for a new "law" had to be given to a new "people" to arise "from the nations." For that given by Moses was inappropriate for the politeia of the nations, since it prescribed the whole physical cult for a single site in Jerusalem. 51

These remarks summarize Eusebius' basic approach to Judaism in the Commentary on Isaiah. The rise of Christianity was foreseen by Isaiah. The former people lost its prerogative52 as a result of its iniquities, and has been replaced by a new people constituted from the Gentile nations. The legally defined constitution (politeia) of the new people is superior to that founded by Moses because its religious cultus is not restricted to the Temple in Jerusalem.53 Assumed but not stated directly is that Eusebius is thinking of Christianity as a religiously and legally defined polity on the analogy of the Jewish constitution founded by Moses. Throughout the commentary Eusebius routinely calls Christianity the polity (more often politeuma than politeia), even the city of God, which has inherited the characteristics and prerogatives of the Mosaic polity. This focus on the institutional church in the commentary reflects Eusebius' celebration of the church's new prospects since the unification of the Roman Empire under a Christian ruler. As noted in our discussion of his exegetical method, he believed that Isaiah had clearly foreseen the details not only of Christ's incarnate life but of the victorious spread of the church. Here we want to focus on how the commentary works out a carefully dialectical view of Judaism. On the one hand, Eusebius will at times exploit the opportunities presented in the text of Isaiah to illustrate Israel's failure to abide by the covenant, culminating in its rejection of Christ. But on other occasions he will recognize that the historical community of Israel enjoyed the privileges of divine election, and his commitment to literal and historical explanation, as he understood it, will oblige him to admit that Israel is the immediate referent of prophecies of deliverance as well as of condemnation. The basic elements that underlie this view of the provisional validity of biblical Israel are not original with Eusebius-the election of Israel, the remnant by grace, or the preexistence of the Logos, all of which he inherited from sources such as Paul and the apologists. But Eusebius gives them a concretely historical expression by his keen interest in the history of Israel as a nation under God's providential care. Behind this EUSEBnJS AS POLEMICAL INTERPRETER

I

597

historical interest is his conviction, consistent with the second of our strategies for relating Christianity and Judaism, that biblical Israel, or the portion of it which was righteous, really was Christianity, or "the godly polity" (To 6e-ooE~S" noM TElJfJ.a), a favorite neutral term both for biblical Israel and for the Christian church. 1. Israel under Judgment The prophetic mission to Israel delivered messages both of weal and woe, though perhaps the dominant theme was divine judgment for a nation which failed to keep the terms of the covenant-Jeremiah even appears to make the condemnation of evildoings the test of genuine prophecy (cf. Jer 23:16-22). Christians conveniently applied prophetic condemnation to Israel and prophetic blessing to "the remnant of grace" from which they traced their own movement. Eusebius adopted this perspective from the church's tradition, but also altered it, as we will see below. In his interpretation the prophetic message of God's rejection of Israel was reflected in the very structure of the Book of Isaiah, with the opening prophecy being complemented by the one at the end. Isaiah ends with the baleful words, "Their worm shall not die, nor their ftre go out" (66:24). For Eusebius, the identity of the damned in this text was already revealed by the prophet in his very first oracle: "Who these are," Eusebius writes in the closing lines of his commentary on lsa 66:24, "he made plain in the beginning of the prophecy, 'I have begotten and raised up sons, but they have disobeyed me' [lsa 1:2]." The fate of the former people is thus reflected by God's judgment of his disobedient sons, who disdained their adoption as sons and set it at nought. 54 Eusebius' criticism of the failures of Israel, as seen through the prophecies of Isaiah, can be grouped according to four subjects: the critique of Jewish ritualism, which allegedly ignored the ethical injunctions of the covenant, an imbalance which Christianity is claimed to have corrected; the rejection of Israel for denying the messiah; the calling of the Gentiles; and exegetical arguments over Old Testament texts which the church applied to the person and work of Jesus. What Eusebius says on each of these points is dependent on the apologetic tradition of the church; his original contributions come in places where his commitment to scientific exegesis modifies the traditional exegesis. For purposes of comparison, we will note parallels with Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, written ca. 160, the oldest extant Christian apologetic work against the Jews. The Dialogue, a book which Eusebius knew (HE 4.18.6-7), makes extensive use of the Book of Isaiah, quoting it about seventy-seven times. Eusebius sometimes invokes passages in Isaiah which accuse the people of setting greater store by the observance of the ritual law than the 598

I

MICHAELJ. HOll.ERICH

moral code of the covenant. Examples of this kind of moral criticism are his exegesis of 1:11-16 (Comm. !sa. 8, 12-9, 20), 1:23 (Comm. !sa. 11, 20.... 23) and 58:7 (Comm. !sa. 358, 36--359, 13). Justin also makes this an important aspect of his critique, choosing to read Isa 1: 16, 66: 1, and the whole of 58:1-14 in this vein.55 On the matter of Sabbath observance, Eusebius is noticeably less polemical than Justin.56 The second and third topics, the rejection of the messiah and the calling of the Gentiles, are closely related and often treated together. Israel's failure to accept the messiah meant its definitive rejection by God and the loss of the privileges of election, principally evident in the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and the disappearance of the offices of priesthood, kingship, and prophecy. These themes permeate the commentary. Eusebius applied many verses to the Jewish defeats suffered at the hands of Vespasian and Hadrian in 70 and 135: Isa 1:5-6, 20, 31; 2:6--9; 5:11-17, 25-30; 6:3-4, 11-13; 17:9-11; 27:12-13; 29:3, 5-8; 34:9-10; and 51:17-19 are all read in this light. To quote his interpretation of Isa 1:20: The Word announces this [i.e. 1:19] to the obedient, but to the disobedient he adds this threat: "If you are unwilling and do not obey me, the sword will consume you; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it." Events immediately followed the literal meaning of these words. For those who would not heed the savior's grace to the same leaders and the same people of the Jewish nation, were immediately and not much afterwards handed over to the sword of their enemies, when the Romans attacked them and subjected all of them to the law of war. 57

Isaiah foresaw the Jewish leaders' rejection of Jesus when he prophesied, "Your soul will meditate on fear; where are your scribes? where are your counsellors? where is the one who counted those whom they nourished, a people small and great? the people whom they counselled did not know the deep meaning, so that a contemptuous people did not hear, and the listener lacked understanding" (lsa 33:18-19 LXX). For Eusebius, the ypaj.Lj.LUTLKOL of Isaiah were the scribes reproved by Jesus in Matt 23:13, who had failed in their task of educating the people and instead led them astray (Comm. !sa. 217,31-218, 14). The "crown of pride, the hirelings of Ephraim" warned in Isa 28:1 is the council of Pharisees, high priests, and other leaders who condemned Jesus (Comm. !sa. 178, 19-28). They are "the mighty ones of Israel" whom Isaiah warns in 1:24 (Comm. !sa. 11, 27-32). As a gloss on Isa 63:1 ("We became as in the beginning, when you neither ruled us nor bestowed on us your name"), Eusebius puts the following lament in the mouth of the nation:

EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INfERPREfER

I

599

And these things happened [i.e. the trampling of the sanctuary mentioned in 63:18] because we turned away from you. Thus abandoned and bereft of your oversight we are now as we were before you ruled us. For as there was once a time when we had "neither prophet nor priest nor king," nor any of your gifts (charismata), so now we are brought to that bereavement again. We are as when we drifted so long ago in Egypt, even before Moses led us. For at that time your name did not adorn us nor were we called your people nor a portion of your inheritance, and now once again we have come round to the same end. To which Eusebius adds: "All these things seem to be referred to the time after the coming of our savior, when they were utterly abandoned because of the crimes against us. "58 He construes the eschatological judgment of Isaiah 34 as applying to Israel and its leaders; "her streams will be turned into pitch and her land into brimstone, and her land will burn like pitch night and day and will never be extinguished" (34:9-10 LXX) he takes to refer to their eternal punishment (Comm. !sa. 225, 14-21). To 34:10, the version of Symmachus added the further prophecy, "And there will be no one passing through it," which Eusebius saw fulfilled in the Hadrianic prohibition against Jewish entry to Jerusalem after the Bar Kokhba war. 59 Motives for the rejection of Jesus, he says, ranged from the economic greed of the priests, who saw their prerogatives threatened, to inveterate Jewish pridefJ() The place of the former people was to be taken by the Gentiles. Eusebius was well served here by the universalism of the later recensions and additions to the Book of Isaiah, from the streaming of the nations to Mt. Zion in Isa 2:2-4 to the gathering of the nations prophesied in 66:1823.61 This traditional staple of Christian preaching was even more pertinent after 324 CE, when the empire was ruled by a Christian emperor, which may also explain part of Eusebius' interest in Isaiah at this particular time. Consider a passage such as the Septuagint version of lsa 56:6--9: And to the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, to serve him and to love the name of the Lord, in order to be his servants, "All those who keep my sabbaths and do not profane them, and hold fast to my covenant, (v 6) I will bring them to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; For my house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations," (v 7) Said the Lord, who gathers the dispersed of Israel: "I will gather the assembly to it. (v 8) All the beasts of the field, come, eat, all you beasts of the forest." (v 9) 600

I

MICHAELJ. HOILERICH

Like many such passages, Eusebius saw this as a divine promise of a universal invitation to the covenant, which was capable of two distinct meanings. Literally (Ws j.LEV TTpOS n1v XE~Lv) it was a prediction of the return of the exiles from Babylon, who would be joined by numbers of proselytes. But in a deeper sense (Ws 8€ TTpOS f3a.6(m:pav 8uivmav) it referred to all those members of the Jewish people who lived godly lives, such as the prophets and those Jews who followed Jesus. Isaiah indicated that the Gentiles, too, were part of the covenant, when he spoke of "foreigners" and "all the nations," further specifying who was meant by the symbolic language of v 9, "all the beasts of field and forest," who were also summoned to eat (Comm. !sa. 350, 3-351, 5). Allegorical conventions helped Eusebius to fmd allusions to the calling of the Gentiles wherever the text used common nouns such as forest, deserts, animals, etc., as well as certain proper nouns. In the prophecy of the restoration of Zion in 35:1-10, Eusebius read the miraculously fertile desert (EPlli-LOS) as a reference to the conversion of the Gentiles; it would grow fertile when washed in the waters of baptism, which he thought was alluded to in the spring of water in v 7. 62 Isa 65:10 reads: "And in the forest [8pvj.L6s] there will be sheepfolds, and the Valley of Achor will be a place of repose for the herds of my people, who have sought me." Of this verse Eusebius says: Scripture is accustomed to call a "forest" the masses of foreign nations, in which will exist the "sheepfolds," symbolizing the churches of the sheep of God ... [the Valley of Achor], being the place where a whole clan was cursed [cf. Jos 7:24-26], was a territory of the ungodly, namely, of foreign nations. But even this would be "a repose for the herds of my people who have sought me"; "the people who sought" him is the "grape" [cf. 65:8] and the above mentioned "seed" is his "chosen servants," of whom he prophesies the "herds" of cattle and "sheep" will consist, not in Israel nor in the land of the Jews, but in the "forest" and in the "Valley of Achor. "63

Prophecies which mentioned Galilee and Mt. Carmel could also be applied to the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles. Galilee was "Galilee of the nations" according to lsa 9:1, and Carmel, according to Eusebius' etymological handbook, meant "the knowledge of circumcision." 64 Thus Eusebius read lsa 33:9b ("Galilee and Carmel will be made manifest") in the light of his interpretation of Isa 32: 15b ("Carmel will be a desert, and Carmel will be reckoned as a forest"), which he believed foresaw the exchange of status of Jews and Gentiles. Isa 33:9b therefore meant that

EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INTERPRETER

I

601

Galilee, i.e., the Gentiles, would be manifest once Carmel, the Jewish people, had been rejected.65 Eusebius' approach to the subject of the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles is largely dependent on Christian tradition before him, as a comparison with Justin will show. In the Dialogue with Trypho, Jus tin found these themes in numerous passages in Isaiah, and in most respects Eusebius' readings are similar. 66 One exception is that Justin interpreted literally prophecies of the rebuilding of Jerusalem during the millennial reign of the saints, as in his reading oflsa 65:17-25 and 66:5-13 (cf. Dial. 81, 85). This was consistent with the common early Christian acceptance of the millenarianism of the Book of Revelation. Eusebius, however, in line with the Alexandrian school, rejected it vehemently. 67 He believed that both of these passages were fulfilled in the present life of the Christian church, the city of God on earth. 68 Eusebius shared with Justin the common Christian conviction that Judaism lost the gift of prophecy with the coming of Jesus, but he was less interested in asserting that prophecy continued to be a vital part of Christian life. The reason for this is the church's experience with the new prophecy inaugurated by Montanus in the second century, of which Eusebius disapproved.69 A fourth category of traditional apologetic exegesis of Isaiah has to do with christological and messianic topics. Again using Justin as a benchmark of traditional interpretation, we find that with few exceptions Eusebius shares the same or similar interpretations of many passages in Isaiah on which Justin commented. The Dialogue with Trypho gave a christological interpretation to the following texts: Isa 3:9-15 (the Jews' rejection of Christ, Dial. 133); 7:14 (virgin birth, Dial. 43, 66, 84); 8:4 (Christ conquers Damascus and Samaria in the form of the homage paid to him by the Magi, Dial. 77-78); 9:6 (Christ is the angel of great counsel, Dial. 76); 11: 1-3 (Christ gives spiritual gifts to Christians, Dial. 87); 33:13-19 (birth of Christ, Eucharist, parousia, Dial. 70); 35:1-7 (Christ's public life, especially the healing miracles, Dial. 69); 42:1-4 (Jacob is Christ, Dial. 123, 125, 130); 42:5-13 (God addresses his Christ, not himself, Dial. 65); 50:4 (prophecy of passion, Dial. 102); 51:4-5 (Christ as the new law, Dial. 11); 52:15 (Jewish rejection of Jesus, Dial. 118); 52:10--15, 53:1-12, 54:16 (Christ's vicarious death, Dial. 13, 42-43, 102, 114); 54:8-9 (Noah as a type of Christ, Dial. 138); 57:1 (Jews' rejection of Christ, the just man; prophecy of the resurrection, Dial. 16, 97); 60:1 (Christ is the light who will shine in Jerusalem, Dial. 113); and 65:2 (passion prophecy, Dial. 97). Cases in which Eusebius departs from the tradition are due to particular exegetical concerns of his, such as his interest in historical interpretation and in the institutional church. In Jus tin, for example, Isa 8:1-4 is understood typologically. But Eusebius gives it a thoroughly historical 602

I

MICHAELJ. HOILERICH

interpretation. Samaria and Damascus refer to the nations of which they were capitals, and the prophecy was fulfilled in their capture by the Assyrians. As noted in section two, Eusebius' exegesis shows a concern to integrate the history of Israel with the prophetic vision of the total history of the godly polity. Thus Eusebius saw the new law of Isa 51:4-5 not as Christ himself but as the law of the Christian church, and the ratification of the Noachic covenant in Isa 54:8-9 as a promise made to the godly polityecclesiastical rather than christological interpretations.7° Other examples of the difference between Justin and Eusebius' more scholarly method may be found in the way they handle verses such as lsa 3:10; 7:14; and 43:15. For Justin these were all prophetic references to Christ; he rejected Jewish assertions that the Septuagint did not reflect the Hebrew original by charging that the Jews had mutilated the text to conceal the truth. 71 Eusebius on the other hand avoided accusations of Jewish bad faith. He used Origen's Hexapla to good advantage in his discussion of these verses, which he either interpreted purely historically or in apologetic terms which integrated rather than repressed the evidence of the other versions.72 In sum: comparison with an author like Justin shows that much of Eusebius' treatment of the rejection of Judaism derives from church tradition and is not original with him. 2. Biblical Israel as the Godly Polity Alongside this traditional emphasis on God's rejection of Israel is a different approach that sees biblical Israel as an elect nation and the bearer of the covenant blessings. Eusebius frequently interprets prophetic consolations and promises of redemption as addressed not to Christianity, or not only to Christianity, but to the hearers of Isaiah's own time, or to later generations in the biblical period. He sees the history of Israel as the story of two distinct communities or classes (niyJ.l.aTa) consisting of those who are faithful to God and those who are not. The friends of God (9e:ocf>LA€1sdv8pe:s-) are all those who obey God's will, whether Jews before the proclamation of the gospel or Jews (and Gentiles) who heard the gospel proclamation and believed it. In Israel the order of the saved included "prophets, patriarchs, priests, pious men, high priests, thousands of men and women who of old constituted the godly polity [9e:oae:~€ srroM TEVJ.l.a], no small part of the city of God" (Comm. /sa. 370, 18-23). These are not scattered pious souls lost in a sea of iniquity; they are a crosssection of Jewish society, numbering in the thousands (Comm. /sa. 87, 531). Together they constituted the godly polity until the coming of Christ, when the church he founded assumed Israel's prerogatives. Their history is the visible record of God's continuous intervention in the history of humankind, working toward his grand plan for human redemption. EUSEBIUS AS POLEMICAL INrERPRETER

I

603

This theological conviction stands behind Eusebius' interest in the history of Israel. It helps to explain his positive evaluation of much of that history, his commitment to literal and historical interpretation of biblical prophecy, and his candid willingness to use Jewish exegetical expertise whenever it promised to help him unlock the literal meaning of the text One of the best examples of this positive approach to the history of Israel is Eusebius' interpretation of Isaiah's prophecy to King Ahaz in Isa 7:14. This verse had been interpreted in its Septuagint form ever since the New Testament (cf. Matt 1:23; Luke 1:31) as a prophecy of the virginal conception of Jesus. This is how the verse was read in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho and in other early Christian sources before Eusebius.1 3 Eusebius too saw it as a messianic prophecy, both in the Commentary on Isaiah and in the Prophetic Selections.1 4 But most of the gloss in the Isaiah commentary is actually devoted to a historical interpretation. Eusebius observes that the quotation of Isa 7:14 (LXX) in Matt 1:23 reading "they will call [KaMaouaL] his name Emmanuel," is inaccurate, since Isaiah addressed the prophecy to Ahaz himself: "You will call [Ka>..Eans] his name Emmanuel," an error he attributed to a negligent copyist. The second person address is important, he says, because the immediate purpose of the prophecy is to provide consolation to the nation during the difficult times of the Syro-Ephraimite war in Isaiah's own day. The erroneous third-person form of the prophecy in Matthew seemed to give the prophecy an exclusively future reference. Isaiah is calling for his contemporaries to have faith in the great deeds (Tel. !J.E"ya>..a) of God rather than to trust in the gods of Damascus. The complete fulfillment of the prophecy would not come until the birth of the savior centuries later, but Israel was to take heart even then (EVTED8Ev i\8T}, repeated three times, Comm. !sa. 48, 22; 49, 2, 21). In giving a similarly historical interpretation to the subsequent prophecy in lsa 8:1-4, Eusebius reminded his readers that the Emmanuel of 7:14, whom Christians knew to be the Word of God, was present with his people during these earlier crises in their history, long before his birth in the flesh (Comm. !sa. 56, 1-6). Comparison of the interpretation of lsa 7:14 in the commentary with Eusebius' earlier reading of it in the Prophetic Selections shows that he may have been influenced by discussion with Jewish exegetes. Eusebius was well aware, as were other Christians before him, that the Septuagint rendering of Hebrew ilr.l.,~ (young woman) as rrap9€ vos (virgin) was not strictly accurate, and that other Greek translations contained the more precise VEUVLS (young woman). Justin, as we saw, dismissed this discrepancy as the fruit of Jewish tampering with the Hebrew text. Origen tried to redeem the Septuagint reading by appealing to Deut 22:23-27 to prove that Hebrew ilr.l.,~ could mean an unmarried woman.1 5 Unfortunately for his argument, 604

I

MICHAELJ. HOil..ERICH

the Hebrew of the passage from Deuteronomy does not mention i!ll'?ll at all. In the Prophetic Selections Eusebius had relied on Origen's false argument, without bothering to look up the passage in the original. 76 But in the Commentary on Isaiah he wisely dropped the appeal to the Hebrew, probably because he had found out that Origen was wrong. Since Eusebius himself had practically no knowledge of Hebrew, the only source for this discovery must have been Jewish exegetes in Caesarea, whom elsewhere in the commentary he admits he consulted. Another indication of Eusebius' willingness to read Isaiah in its Old Testament context is his frequent application of texts from Deutero-Isaiah to the return from the Babylonian exile. He regarded the return from the exile and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem as the pivotal event in Jewish history between Isaiah's own time and the birth of Christ. An excellent example of the fulfillment of prophecy within the history of Israel is Eusebius' treatment of Isa 44:24-45:23, which celebrates Cyrus as the Lord's Anointed (messiah). In the first instance, this prophecy, like Isa 7:14, served to console Israel in the time of the exile. It provided "light and peace" to the repentant Jewish people after the chastisement (1TaL8da) of the exile (Comm. Isa .. 289, 23-30). Just as the Babylonian disasters had been the ultimate fulfillment of Isaiah's prophetic threats, so the liberation from exile was the decisive redemption wrought by the God who makes weal and woe (45:7). The rain of righteousness of 45:8 looked back to the withholding of rain in the parable of the vineyard in 5:6 (Comm. I sa. 290, 3-10). God's use of Cyrus as his chosen instrument was a dramatic illustration of his divine providence (1Tp6voLa).77 Christian tradition before Eusebius had, with the sole exception of Origen, been accustomed to read Isa 45:1 as a christological prophecy. Christian apologists customarily substituted T4\ XptaT4\ ~ou Kup(4l ("to Christ my Lord") for the Septuagint's T4\ xptaT4) ~ou Kup41 ("to Cyrus my anointed").78 Eusebius, perhaps under Origen's influence,79 pointed out that the Hebrews often called their kings anointed ones, and that in the first instance the prophetic word was addressed to Cyrus, two centuries in the future, to encourage him in his divinely commissioned work with the knowledge that a Hebrew prophet had foreseen his day and called him by name. 80 Possibly Eusebius was also encouraged in this historical interpretation by Josephus, who preserves a Jewish tradition---licy of the emperor Theodosius the Great, go to them regularly as sources. Evagrius in the late sixth century had perhaps even more purely secular history in his work; part of it he simply copied out of Procopius (mid sixth century), the great secular historian of a generation earlier.12 The western half of the Roman Empire was left in such a state by the collapse of the central government in the fJ.fth century, that it was not until the time of Bede (ca. 673-735), who finished his Ecclesiastical History of the English People in 731 in Anglo-Saxon England, that we find a true example of the Eusebian ecclesiastical history in the narrow definition of the genre. It is, however, a very excellent history indeed. Bede has even more purely secular material in his history than any of the earlier ecclesiastical historians, because there was no truly decent secular history written about most of the period he was describing. He had a few sources-Gildas from the first half of the sixth century (ca. 500--ca. 570), what he could glean from letters from the papal archives, and so on 13-but particularly in the case of more recent Anglo-Saxon history, he had to assemble and organize much of the material himself to provide some sense of the secular context of ecclesiastical events. To understand the other early medieval Latin histories, it is necessary to go back in time to the early fifth century and the works of Augustine and Orosi us. From a surface point of view, Augustine and Eusebius seem totally antithetical figures, and Orosius' attempt to write universal history seems a completely different kind of project than the kind of ecclesiastical history that Eusebius wrote. But it was Eusebius' other major historiographical contribution u]X>n which they drew, his Chronicle. When Eusebius wrote his Chronicle, it was not a totally new concept, but he clearly produced what was, by many orders of magnitude, far more detailed and systematic than any chronologies of which we know that had ever been put together before. 14 Eusebius' Chronicle became the basis and starting point for all subsequent medieval and Byzantine chronologies (it was transmitted to medieval Western Europe in Jerome's Latin adaptation, put together in 380). 15 Eusebius managed to convince later generations of Christians that it was important to continue accruing lists of the basic events and dates, so that in all but the very darkest part of the dark ages, we at least have an outline of the basic occurrences and their dates. Even in the 690

I

GLENN F. CHESNUT

twilight world of Visigothic Spain, for example, a bishop named Hydatius (ca. 395-469) still kept a Chronicle going from 379 to 469 CE. 16 A chronology is not a history, but it often can contain implicit theories of history even in its bare list of names and dates. 17 Eusebius' attempt to include chronological material on all the known nations of the past, from all known parts of the world, conveyed a notion of universal history far different and far broader than anything ever seen before. The histories of all sorts of different nations were part of this universal history, and one could see that each one of them contained a story of its own-Israelites, Athenians, Macedonians, Assyrians, and so on-and yet they were all ultimately linked together. Later, in the Middle Ages, historians would be inspired by this to write Gothic history, Frankish history, English history, and other independent national histories. The multiple parallel columns of the earliest part of Eusebius' Chronicle, each column representing a major nation, converged by the end to only two columns: the Roman Empire and the Christian church. The Constantinian-Theodosian Christianized Roman Empire, the Gelasian theory of the two swords in the early Middle Ages, the medieval German "Holy Roman Empire," the eleventh- and twelfth-century investiture controversy, and the United States Constitution's "wall of separation between church and state" all flowed from that basic image of two parallel lines, interpreting their proper relationship in different ways. But Eusebius' Chronicle implicitly cried out for two things above all: someone to put flesh on the dry bones and write a universal history in detailed narrative form, and further interpretation (and perhaps even reinterpretation) of what that framework implied about the overall course of human history. Augustine and Orosius were the first two to respond to those challenges. Augustine wrote the twenty-two books of the City of God over an extended period of time, beginning in 413 and finishing the last book in 426. Eusebius' Chronicle was a major source of information all the way through the work. The City of God was clearly directed in part at refuting positions held by Eusebius in some of his other writings, whether Augustine began getting this information directly from Rufinus' translation of the Ecclesiastical History (which he was defmitely doing by the first half of the 420s at the latest) or initially more indirectly. Eusebius' theology of history had become so firmly enshrined as the official ideology of the Christian empire over the course of the fourth century that Augustine would have found the major ideas coming out in official imperial and episcopal speeches and pronouncements since his youth. 18 The important observation is that Augustine was using the overview of history drawn from Eusebius'

EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL IDSTORIANS

I

691

Chronicle to attack the kind of theology of history that had appeared in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine. The two parallel columns of names and dates in the part of the Chronicle which deals with the Christian era were radically reinterpreted by Augustine as a very different kind of inner tension within the dynamic of history, the conflict between "the Two Cities": the City of God was composed of those who had God as their "love" or ultimate concern, while the Earthly City was composed of those who were motivated by something less, whether it was greed for material goods, desire for power over others, the pursuit of earthly fame and glory, or anything else that glorified the creature rather than the creator. The tension between these two modes of existence went back to the beginning of time, to the fall of the wicked angels, the sin of Adam and Eve, and Cain's murder of his brother Abel. A king or emperor could be a member of the City of God, while a Christian bishop could be a member of the Earthly City-it depended on what real motives lay in their hearts, regardless of the station they occupied in life. The nicety of this last distinction was unfortunately lost on most later medieval readers. Eusebius and Augustine disagreed quite profoundly over what one might call the basic "shape" of history. There were, prior to Augustine, three fundamental ways of construing the overall pattern of the human past: as a history of continuous progress, as a sad record of decline from ancient virtue, or as a cyclic repetition of the same sequences of events over and over. Augustine added a fourth alternative, what one might call a "flat" view of history, in which the unchanging nature of the truly basic human problems and possibilities was seen as more important than any surface changes in the human material and political condition.l9 Even though cyclic theories appeared frequently among classical Greek thinkers, 20 the Greek historians in general nevertheless thought of the immediately preceding several centuries as a period of continuous historical progress. By the end of the classical era, the typical Greek looked with disdain at the "primitivism" of all other cultures, and regarded the Hellenic way as the pinnacle of all human historical development. 21 Eusebius had inherited this Hellenistic self-confidence, and Christianized it into a kind of liberal progressivism in which the Christian Helleno-Roman state was viewed as the pinnacle of human civilization, the high point of centuries of progress, that would last until the end of the world. The story, of course, had begun, for Eusebius, with the fall of Adam and Eve and the beginning of human history on this present fallen earth. Most of the human race quickly fell into the savage life of murderous desert nomads, without urban life, rationally constructed political constitutions and systems of law, technological knowledge, or any developed notions of 692

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

philosophy and moral behavior. 22 This was intrinsically connected with their lack of any true knowledge of God, for to Eusebius civilization and true higher religion went hand in hand. The only exceptions to this fallen way of life in the earliest period were found among the Hebrews of the earliest Old Testament period. Called by a series of theophanies of the divine Logos, they learned to practice a transcendental ethical monotheism based upon "natural concepts. "2 3 Christianity to Eusebius was simply a contemporary rational and highly civilized religion identical to the natural religion of those ancient Hebrew patriarchs.24 As higher civilization began slowly to spread over the rest of the Mediterranean world, it brought with it, if not monotheism, at least a progressive end to such savage practices as open murder, cannibalism, human sacrifice, and the like. In becoming more civilized, human beings became more moral. 25 When the empire of Augustus finally brought the additional gift of freedom from war to the entire Mediterranean, it then became possible for the incarnation of Jesus Christ to renew the old, simple, natural religion of the earliest Hebrews. 26 In the first edition of his Ecclesiastical History (before 303) Eusebius seems to have believed that the total Christianization of the Roman Empire would eventually be completed by the power of Christian preaching and Christian missionary zeal alone. No more was required of the Roman emperors than that they practice religious toleration and allow the Christians to evangelize. 27 Probably even before the appearance of Constantine in 312, and certainly well before he was convinced that the emperor was a believing Christian (rather than just a sympathetic sun-worshiping ally), Eusebius saw as the end and goal of human history a humane, moral, highly civilized Roman regime, converted to Christianity by Christian teaching, and governing the entire inhabited world in peace.

In Eusebius' reading, the four kingdoms in Daniel 7 were the Assyrian, Persian, Macedonian, and Roman Empires. The Roman regime was to be the last one before the apocalyptic end of the world. It was nevertheless regarded by him as the promised millennial kingdom of peace, until at the very end it would suddenly turn demonic and become that "Gog" who along with Magog would fight on Satan's side at the battle of Armageddon. But that would not happen in Eusebius' reckoning until many generations in the future. 28 This belief that Rome was the last of the four Danielic kingdoms, and was Roma Aeterna, "Eternal Rome," in the sense that it would perdure to the end of the world, was combined by Eusebius' immediate successors (Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret) with the Eusebian doctrine that God's providence would always give the "good emperor" success in battle, a long and peaceful reign, many children, a happy end to his life, imperishable EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL IllSTORIANS

I

693

fame after his death, and a rightful heir to inherit his throne. 29 Hence the sack of Rome in 410 by Alaric and his Visigoths was simply not taken seriously by them. 30 Socrates gave the event only a paragraph: Alaric did take Rome briefly, doing great destruction, but made a hasty retreat from the city the instant he heard that the emperor Theodosius had an army on its way to Rome. 31 Sozomen gave it a paragraph and a half, but this was mostly devoted to noting the vestigial respect which even the Visigoths showed towards catholic Christianity. 32 The next six chapters were then devoted "to show that to insure the stability of imperial power, it is sufficient for an emperor to serve God with reverence, which was the course pursued by Honorius" and his sister Galla Placidia. The Christian piety of the eastern emperor meanwhile kept the East totally "free from wars." 33 Theodoret began the last section of his history with a description of the deathbed message of Theodosius I to his sons Arcadius and Honorius in 395: He charged both to hold fast to the true religion, "for by its means," he said, "peace is preserved, war is stopped, foes are routed, trophies are set up and victory is proclaimed." After giving this charge to his sons he died, leaving behind him imperishable fame. His successors in the empire were also irtheritors of his piety.34

Theodoret then took his history down to its conclusion in 428 without even mentioning Alaric or his depredations in Italy. At the time when Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret were writing their ecclesiastical histories, the sack of Rome could still be regarded as a brief and relatively minor event, which in no way signaled any imminent collapse of the empire. The Roman emperors were good, orthodox Christians; Eternal Rome would last to the end of time. In addition to cyclic theories of history, and the triumphalism seen both in later Hellenic attitudes and in the historiography of the Eusebian tradition, there was a third possibility (prior to Augustine) for reading the overall pattern of history: this was the theory of moral decline, a kind of conservative, sentimental, romantic primitivism, found among so many of the western Latin Roman aristocracy and those who wrote for them. The historian Sallust (86--ca. 34 BCE) was the one whom Augustine quoted over and over in his City of God. Sallust described the early Roman republic as filled with people of primitive virtue, who preferred hardship, discipline, and victory with honor over all the lures of riches, revelry, and harlotry. But over the previous century, Romans had gradually fallen into a permanent and irreparable state of decadence and moral corruption. The other great early Roman historian, Tacitus (ca. 56-after 115), used a variant on this same theme of decline and moral decay.35 694

I

GlENN F. CHESNUf

Augustine, however, knew better. The form in particular in which he had to confront this myth of the glorious Roman past was in the statements by contemporary pagans that Rome would never have been sacked by the Visigoths if the old gods who defended her had not been forsaken for the newfangled Christian religion.3 6 But he realized that the basic fantasies about the Roman past upon which the contemporary anti-Christian polemic was being raised went back to Sallust and the very beginnings of Latin literature. In his City of God he therefore attacked with zeal the entire myth of the virtues of the founding fathers. He listed well-known events from early Roman history to show how despicable their behavior often was. Did the rape of the defenseless Sabine women display the "inborn fairness and goodness of disposition" which Sallust attributed to these early Romans? 37 Sallust and many other classical Latin authors saw the Roman world of their own day sunk into Ia dolce vita, the "sweet life," an endless debauchery of gluttony, alcoholism, promiscuity, and perversion. Arrogance, greed, and the desire to dominate others had created a Mediterranean empire whose ruling class would steal anything, and could be bribed by anyone. 38 But this was what Augustine called "original sin": 39 the world had never been any different in the past and never would be in the future, ever since Adam and Eve had eaten the fatal apple and been expelled from the garden of Eden. There had been no "moral decline" in human history. Augustine rejected not only Sallust's naive conservative theory of decline, but also what he regarded as the equally naive liberal theory of progress held by the Eusebian historiographical tradition. The advance of civilization made true moral and religious behavior neither easier nor more difficult. A "civilized" Roman might lust to conquer his neighbor's country, but a "primitive" nomad could just as easily lust to steal a neighboring tribe's sheep and goats. A contemporary Roman might attempt to gain power over others by aiming for a provincial governorship or even the imperial throne, but a Germanic barbarian could give in to the same fallen desire by mounting a violent effort to become "king" of his own war band. The earthly city was composed of all those, throughout the entire length of human history, whose lives had been motivated "by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. "40 There had been no moral decline; neither had there been moral progress; nor was Augustine's a cyclic theory in the old Greek sense. What Augustine produced was a fourth kind of theory, what I would choose to call a "flat" view of history, different from any view that had appeared before. In the aftermath of the sack of Rome in 410 by Alaric and his Visigoths, as Augustine began writing his City of God, he seems to have been acutely aware that the central Roman government in the West might EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDlEYAL IllSTORIANS

I

695

very well crumble totally and irreparably. In this sense, one might describe the City of God as a kind of "survival manual" for a world which Augustine saw ready to fall into barbarism. A way of construing the nature of the Christian life had to be developed which would work as well in a world of petty, warring Germanic kingdoms as it would in a civilized Roman Empire. In particular, Augustine had to fight against that long-established tradition of Judaeo-Christian interpretation of Daniel and Revelation which saw the end of the world coming (literally) when Rome fell. 41 Since Josephus in the first century, 42 it had been customary to read Rome as the fourth and last kingdom in the apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7; after its destruction the universe would be destroyed in flames, and the last judgment held. In Book 20 of the City of God, Augustine attempted to overthrow this interpretation, mainly by trying to divert people's minds to speculation on other aspects of eschatology. 43 In a couple of short sentences he stated briefly that "some have interpreted these four kingdoms as signifying those of the Assyrians, Persians, Macedonians, and Romans" (which, of course, had been Eusebius' theory), 44 but then made it clear that all such interpretations were highly speculative at best.45 The millennium (Rev 20:1-3), during which the devil would be cast into the abyss while the saints reigned with Christ, was spiritualized by Augustine into a description of the period from the birth of Christ (basically) to the end of the world. He did not differ essentially from Eusebius on this point. It could be either shorter than a full thousand years, or much longer. Then the devil would be loosed for three and a half years before the final end of the world, to make war against the church (Dan 7:25; Rev 20:7).46 Gog and Magog, who would fight on Satan's side at that time (Rev 20:8), were not to be understood as "the Getae and Massagetae, as some conclude from the initial letters," but as the wicked who existed in every nation of the world.47 The reason this last assertion was so important is that the no longer extant Thracian tribe called the Getae was regularly confused by both Greek and Roman writers with a very different group, the Germanic Goths who had just sacked Rome in 410. The later Christian historians Orosi us and Jordanes, for example, both made that equation.48 It was very important to Augustine to stop his contemporaries from theorizing that, since "Gog" had now appeared in the form of the Goths/Getae, the end of the world had come. If they truly came to believe that, he knew that all their will to survive would be undercut. History in fact had not come to an end. The collapse of the Roman central government in the West and the triumph of the conquering Germanic tribes would mean only that the members of the

696

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

City of God would have to continue the battle with the Earthly City in a new context. The first person to attempt to write an actual history on these principles was a young presbyter from Roman Spain named Paulus Orosius, whom Augustine put to work in 417/418 writing what was supposed to be an Augustinian history of the world. 49 Orosius' History against the Pagans (Historiarum adversus paganos libri septem) was a very bad history. It was neither well organized nor coherent, and constantly confused myth and legend with real historical events. It certainly in no way understood the true spirit of the City of God. But nearly 200 manuscripts of it are still extant50 and it was clearly one of the most popular and widely read books of the Western European Middle Ages. It is not totally fair to criticize Orosius too strongly for failing to appreciate the full profundity of Augustine's doctrine of the two cities and the two loves. At the time Orosius was writing his History against the Pagans, Augustine had only finished the first ten of the twenty-two books of the City of God. 5! These first ten books were essentially a prolegomenon; Augustine did not begin his detailed discussion of the two cities as interpretive framework for all of human history until he began Book 14. Orosius' history did in many ways faithfully carry out the spirit of Books 2 and 3 of the City of God, and the last half of Book 5. In some ways Orosius also accurately conveyed Augustine's idea of a "flat" approach to history, portraying the past as subject to the same problems as the present, and minimizing any sense of real historical development from one era to the next, whether positive or negative. As he says in his prologue: I have obeyed your bidding, most blessed father Augustine .... You bade me speak out in opposition to the empty perversity of those who, aliens to the City of God, are called "pagans" ... [who] defame present times as most unusually beset . . . by evils because there is belief in Christ and worship of God, and increasingly less worship of idolsaccordingly you bade me set forth from all the records available of histories and annals whatever instances I have found recorded from the past of burdens of war or ravages of disease or sorrows of famine ... or even the miseries caused by parricides and shameful deeds, and unfold them systematically and briefly in the context of this book. 52

It was a history which would describe "the conflicts of the human race and the world ... through its various parts, burning with evils, set afire with the torch of greed." 53 If Augustinian principles were to be followed, then such a history would have to show that original sin had held sway without break from the very time of Adam's fall. So, Orosius said, if "sin and the EUSEB!US, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL lllSTORIANS

I

697

punishment of sin began with the very first man," then it was not surprising "that earlier ages which were much more numerous endured similar miseries" to those which his own world was now suffering. 54 The basic framework of Orosius' universal history had to come from the only available universal chronology, Eusebius' Chronicle. There was certainly no strong direct influence of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History on him (as his treatment of Constantine shows, for example). 55 But one cannot help suspecting that during the time he spent in Palestine in 415-416, he had come under the influence of some of Eusebius' key ideas about the overall pattern of human history through some indirect route. Orosius clearly betrayed this in a number of interpretive passages which were unmistakably Eusebian in spirit rather than Augustinian. In his prologue, for example, after invoking the name and spirit of Augustine, he immediately proceeded to violate it to the core by laying out what was essentially a doctrine of moral progress in history. He says that he found times past even "more wretched the more distant they are from the solace of true religion." He found that "an avaricious bloody death prevailed, as long as the religion which forbade bloodshed was unknown," that the old world of avarice and bloodshed began to grow fainter when the new world of true religion began to dawn, and that the old world would come to a total end "when the new shall reign alone." There would then be a world of peace and true religion until the brief period of the fmal tribulation at the very end of time. 56 This period of universal peace at the end of human history would be a Pax Romana, a Roman peace, because Orosius accepted the theory of the four Danielic kingdoms with only minor westernizing modification (Babylonian, Carthaginian, Macedonian, and Roman).5 7 The important thing was that on this theory, the apocalyptic end of the world would come when Rome fell, an idea that Augustine wanted very much to undercut. When the Visigoths took Rome in 410, they burned some buildings down, Orosius said, but the destruction was not nearly so great as the great fire under Nero. A series of usurpers then tried to take over the throne, but all came to doom because of the "high religious feelings" of the pious, rightful emperor Honorius. The wisest Goths knew that they were not civilized enough to rule the Roman Empire. King Wallia of the Goths had already returned Placidia to Honorius, had given him hostages, and seemed "intent on concluding a peace" in Spain. 58 With these comforting words Orosius ended his history. Things really had not been that bad, compared with some of the truly great catastrophes of history, and the whole Gothic thing was winding down now. The great Roman Peace would soon return, and would last till the end of the world. Whatever Orosi us may have thought

698

I

GLENN F. CHESNUT

he was doing, this was certainly not the message of Augustine's City of God. Gregory of Tours, whose History of the Franks was written over the twenty-some years of his episcopacy (573-594 CE), came much closer to producing a truly "flat" historiography. It was a history in ten books of what we would now call France and neighboring areas in the fifth and sixth centuries CE. 59 The first book, which dealt with Old and New Testament history and holy men and martyrs from the Roman imperial period, formed a sort of prolegomenon to put more recent events into the universal perspective of Eusebius' Chronicle and Orosius' History, both of which he cited in the prologue. By a "flat" historiography, I mean that Gregory had no interest in showing any essential progress or decline in the human condition over the course of history. On the contrary, his desire was to show that the fundamental texture of human life, both the good aspects and the evil, had always been the same. As he himself began his history: A great many things keep happening, some of them good, some of them bad. The inhabitants of different countries keep quarrelling fiercely with each other and kings go on losing their temper in the most furious way. Our churches are attacked by the heretics and then protected by the Catholics; the faith of Christ burns bright in many men, but it remains lukewarm in others; no sooner are the churchbuildings endowed by the faithful than they are stripped bare again by those who have no faith.60

The story had begun with Adam and Eve's fall from paradise, for when God accepted only Abel's sacrifice (Gen 4:4-8), his brother Cain was inflamed with jealousy and he swelled up with anger. He was the first man to shed his brother's blood and to murder a member of his own family, for he seized hold of his brother and overcame him and slew him. From that moment onwards the entire human race never ceased to commit one execrable crime after another, except Enoch the Righteous who walked with God.6l

These were to be the chief actors throughout all human history: the murderers like Cain, the innocent martyrs like Abel, and the holy men like Enoch who were ultimately removed into the divine presence (Gen 5:24). It was no different in Gregory's eyes from the events of his own time which he chronicled in so much detail in his history: the bloodthirsty feuds of the Merovingian rulers, the fates of their victims, and the deeds accomplished by the wonder-working holy men and their miraculous relics.6 2 Nothing had changed over history. All he could do was to record EUSEBIUS. AUGUSTINE. AND MEDIEVAL lllSTORIANS

I

699

"the muddled and confused order in which these events occurred," from "the holy deeds of the saints" to "the way in which whole races of people were butchered. "63 There was no overarching pattern or plot to history other than this constant trichotomy.64 Gregory did not deny that there had been righteous earthly kings. David of Old Testament fame had been one, and God would come to the aid of such a faithful monarch. In Gregory's own world, the Merovingian ruler Clovis, "who believed in the Trinity, crushed the heretics with divine help and enlarged his dominion to include all Gaul." 65 So when he came to the year 575, and the Merovingian rulers of his own time, he spoke out against them with total moral outrage: What are you trying to do? You have everything you want! Your homes are full of luxuries, there are vast supplies of wine, grain and oil in your store-houses, and in your treasuries the gold and silver are piled high. Only one thing is lacking: you cannot keep peace, and therefore you do not know the grace of God. Why do you all keep on stealing from each other? Why do you always want something which someone else possesses? Turn your attention to that struggle which, according to the Apostle, is being waged deep inside every man, so that your spirit may set its desires against the flesh, and your vices be overcome by your virtues, and you ~ourself, as a free man, may serve your leader, which is Christ the Lord. 6

One hears here not only Paul (it is Gal 5:13-6:10 which Gregory is citing), but also echoes of the Old Testament prophets and, above all, Augustine. In Gregory, I believe that we come closer to pure Augustinian historiography than in any other later patristic or medieval historian. Some would claim that title for a later work, the twelfth-century Chronicle and History of the Two Cities by Otto of Freising (1114/151158),67 which was indeed outwardly modeled very closely on Augustine's City of God, including numerous references to the "two cities" 68 and an entire book on eschatology at the end. But Otto had also read Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History in Rufinus' translation, used Cassiodorus' Tripartite History extensively for his work, and was in contact at second- or third-hand with many other features of the Eusebian tradition. Otto's theology of history was in fact extremely complex. It was not a "flat" history which he saw, but a course of universal events with many overarching patterns. The four kingdoms in Daniel was one shaping theme: he identified them as the Babylonians, the Medes and Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans. The last kingdom, that of the Romans, had been passed first from Old Rome to the Byzantines, then to Charlemagne's Franks, then to the Lombards, and

700

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

then to the Gennan empire of Otto's own day. There was a constant pattern of historical decline in the spread of human power and wisdom from the East to the West; in the contemporary German version of the ancient Roman Empire Otto saw only a regime "become decrepit and senile through lapse of time." The end of the world (which would come with the final collapse of the Roman Empire) was clearly not far away. The course of the heavenly city, on the other hand, had shown continuous progress over the history of the world. 6 9 The basic intent and purpose of Otto's Chronicle were very different from those of Augustine's City of God. But there was nevertheless in many post-Augustinian writings a flattening out of any sense of historical perspective, which affected much of the Western European Middle Ages. Too many of the histories which they read did what Augustine had wanted Christian historians to do, and presented the classical Greek and Roman past as no different in texture from the medieval world. When they painted a picture of Julius Caesar going to war, western medieval artists portrayed him in contemporary medieval armor. It was not until the Italian Renaissance that Western Europeans began to recover any profound sense of how different the Middle Ages had been from the classical world. When the Eusebian understanding of history managed partially to reassert itself during the Western Middle Ages, it did so largely through attempts to recapture Eusebius' golden vision of a Christian Roman Empire ruling all the world in peace and piety. Subsequent medieval history saw one Gennan emperor after another neglecting his base of power in the Gennanspeaking heart of Europe and trying to hold Italy and Rome in order to legitimize his claim to be "Holy Roman Emperor," until his ability to rule the Gennan heartland effectively collapsed. Whether they were dealing with Roman emperors or Gennanic kings, Christian historians were forced by their circumstances to develop a coherent concept of the Christian monarch. In the later Roman Empire, the rituals of Hellenistic divine kingship had been taken over by the Roman emperors, who enforced them on their subjects in both military and civillife.7° Many educated people found this idea somewhat difficult to accept. As early as the third century BCE, philosophical tracts therefore began to appear explaining how a monarch might be regarded as in some sense divine. Diotogenes, Ecphantus, Plutarch, and Seneca all presented versions of this basic theory; there are echoes in the republican Cicero and the Jewish philosopher Philo.7 1 The ruler who was Plato's true philosopher-king, so the basic argument ran, would be the supremely rational member of the human commonwealth and the ruling intelligence of the state. By making his soul the seat here upon earth of the Divine Logos (or "Living Law," or "Sacred Thought") the EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL IllSTORIANS

I

701

ruler would become in his own life the ensoulment of cosmic order, and thereby bring it down to earth so that the earthly state might mirror the cosmic harmony. He must be both rational and virtuous. By thus imitating God, the good ruler became the Platonic image of God upon earth, God's vicar, and thus divine. At the end of his life, Eusebius simply lifted this idea and applied it to the emperor Constantine. 72 As Constantine's lordship was a mimesis or imitation of the divine lordship, so his sole monarchical rule over the entire civilized earth was the "icon" or image of God's sole monarchical rule over the universe. 73 The emperor was an image of the Logos just as the Logos was an image of the Father.74 A Christian monarch would not, of course, make his subjects worship statues or icons of him, but otherwise his claims to divinity were just as great as that which any educated person from the pagan Romano-Hellenistic world would have given to a divine monarch. This idea of divine kingship continued in the western world all the way down to the early modern period, as the theory of the "divine right of kings." If one looks at the speech which King James I delivered to the English parliament on 21 March 1610, it is clear that it was simply the old Hellenistic philosophical concept of divine kingship with no modifications at all. "Kings are justly called gods," James told his subjects, "for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth." He went on to say that "the state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.'' 75 Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643-1715) was addressed by his subjects in the same terms. The king was a visible divinity-a special, visible image of God on earth. His power was unlimited, for it reflected the divine authority, and his words were the very proclamations of God.76 One of the other major issues the earliest Christian historians faced concerning Christian rulers was that kings and emperors waged wars. It is probably unfair to argue, as C. J. Cadoux did,77 that the Christians of the first three centuries were pacifists in any modern sense. Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:39) to turn the other cheek was allegorized away even by a theologian like Origen who elsewhere defended Christian refusal to serve in the army. 78 There certainly seem to have been small numbers of Christians serving in the Roman army long before Constantine's time, and attacks on this by Christian spokesmen were rare.79 Even when someone like Tertullian did speak against Christians serving in the military, it is not at all clear, as John Helgeland has argued forcefully, that the real issue was not idolatrous army rituals rather than any feeling that Christians could not shed blood. 80

702

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

Nevertheless, pagan critics of Christianity like Celsus accused the Christians of being unwilling to serve in the emperor's army, and it is significant that a Christian responding to this charge, like Origen, did not deny the substance of the charge. Origen's argument was that all Christians were in effect priests, who could not maintain ritual purity unless they had "hands unstained by blood and pure from murders." We Christians "by our prayers destroy all daemons which stir up wars." By praying for the emperor against the daemons who "disturb the peace" we will help him more than his army; but "do not ask us to fight for the community and to kill men. "8 1 Moreover, I have myself been able to find only one recorded instance of early Christians defending themselves against their persecutors. 82 There were no Christian heroes from the pre-Constantinian period who were heroes because of their military skill, their prowess in battle, and the widespread honor which this gained them as great warriors of God-what one has are tales of military martyrs who were serving in the army but went to their death rather than deny their Christian faith. 83 It is difficult to think of any statement more antimilitaristic than the one in the preface to Book 5 of Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (most of Books 1-7 is "first edition," therefore written before the Great Persecution began in 303): the great deeds of classical history, such as the heroic Athenian stand at Marathon or the victory at Salamis, were in fact no more than the work of "men stained with blood and with countless murders for the sake of children and fatherland and other possessions. "84 There are two clues in all this material, I believe. Beginning with the New Testament books themselves, early Christians had reserved the greatest praise of all for those who became martyrs. The last quotation from Eusebius reminds us also that most early Christians were affected to some degree by Platonic, Cynic, neo-Pythagorean, and Gnostic ascetic ideals, even before the rise of the monastic movement proper in the fourth century. A religious community which glorified virginity and detachment from worldly things in its highest practitioners, would feel considerable tension about "men stained with blood and with countless murders" because, among other things, they had served in their country's army "for the sake of children and fatherland and other possessions," motives which an ascetic truly detached from the world could never accept as valid. Christianity in the first three centuries was, though not totally hostile across the board, at least deeply ambiguous about armies and military service. It was particularly difficult for an early Christian ever to conceive of actually glorifying a warrior figure. The true Christian heroes were the virgins and martyrs. Constantine was obviously neither, and this pushed the issue to a head. When he died, on 22 May 337, the elderly Eusebius began his Life of EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDlEYAL IDSTORIANS

I

703

Constantine, which was almost finished before his own death on 30 May 339. He would then have been almost eighty. It was not written for Constantine, who was dead, nor for Eusebius' own personal political benefit, for he had to have known that he had not much longer to live himself. It was written as a manifesto for Constantine's three sons, and a program for a Christianized empire. Eusebius had changed a great deal from the young man who, in his late thirties and early forties, had written the first edition of the Ecclesiastical History back before the Great Persecution began. Now in the Life, Constantine was unabashedly proclaimed as the great warrior of God. A totally different kind of Christian hero had now appeared. The Western European Middle Ages as we know it (let alone the Byzantine period in the East) would not have been thinkable without this new ideal. There were still additional problems to be worked out, however, in establishing a full ideology of Christian monarchy. The philosophical Julian, the last of the pagan emperors, raised one important issue. The pagan ideal, since Plato's time, had been the philosopher-king, and the pagan theory of divine monarchy had regarded the genuinely philosophical ruler as the only truly divine one. Socrates Scholasticus, in his Ecclesiastical History, argued that Julian had shown more clearly than anyone that the philosopher-king was an unworkable ideal.s5 What was held up as a counterexample by Socrates, and especially by Sozomen, was their somewhat idealized life of the emperor Theodosius the Younger. As they portrayed it, he lived a private life of piety and asceticism. Pulcheria and his other sisters lived the life of nuns within the walls of the imperial palace. But Theodosius also practiced constantly in the use of various military weapons, and studied politics and military tactics in works of history until late at night. He was portrayed, in other words, as being half a soldier and half a monk. 86 It was this image of the pious Christian soldiermonk which was to reinforce the image of the Constantinian warrior of God through the entire course of the Western European Middle Ages. The good emperor was portrayed in this new Christian historiographical tradition as giving special honor to clergymen and Christian holy men. Socrates praised Constantine because he refused to sit in the presence of the bishops at Nicaea until asked by them to do so. 87 Sozomen and Theodoret both recited the tale of Theodosius II's humble acceptance of his rebuke by Bishop Ambrose after the massacre at Thessalonica. 88 The medieval Arthurian romances show, just as vividly as the truly historical writings of the Middle Ages, this western cultural ideal of the Christian warrior. Chretien de Troyes in his Perceval did not portray the hero as an exceptionally monkish sort, 89 but he was nevertheless a dutiful Christian knight who at the end humbly accepted the rebuke of the holy 704

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

hermit who lived in the forest, did his penance, and solemnly promised to go to church as his first act every morning, and pray.9° If the Mass is begun, it will be all the better, and stay until the priest has finished his prayers and chants. If you choose to do so, you can still advance in worth and enjoy both honor and paradise. Believe in God, love God, worship God. Honor good men and good women. Rise in the presence of a priest; it is a service which costs little and God in truth loves it because it comes from humility. If a maiden asks your help, or a widow or an orphan girl, give it, and yours will be the gain. Such service is the highest. Aid them, and on no account weaken in well-doing. 91

The medieval warrior class wished deeply to believe that they could "enjoy both honor and paradise." Late patristic and medieval Christian historians as well as the authors of the romances assured them that these were not incompatible goals. As the story of Arthur's knights and the quest of the holy grail became more spiritualized, the ascetic aspect of the soldiermonk motif often became strengthened, as in the prose Lancelot of ca. 1225. Only those knights who totally resisted the temptations of the flesh could achieve the purity of heart necessary to the final vision of the holy grail. Bits and pieces of these motifs show up in almost all the medieval histories. After good King Clovis died, Gregory of Tours praised his widow, Queen Clotild, for coming to St. Martin's in Tours to live as a nun.9 2 Jean, Lord of Joinville, in his Life of St. Louis portrayed a thirteenth-century French king, Louis IX, who attempted to live by much of this code. Even a less glamorous medieval monarch like Louis the Fat had himself moved from his sick bed to a carpet covered with ashes when he was dying, and regretted that there was not time for him to put on a monk's robe before he

breathed his last.93 Eusebius and his immediate successors created the medieval image of the warrior of God. A private life filled with asceticism and prayer, a sister or widow who became a nun, attending mass, honoring priests and bishops and especially Christian holy men, reverencing relics of the saints and building churches for them, donning a monk's robe shortly before one's death-all these were ways that many medieval kings, barons, and knights believed would make it possible for them, as the holy hermit told Perceval, to "enjoy both honor and paradise." The medieval Christian historians continued to encourage them to become, if not soldier-monks, at least devout Catholic warriors of God. To change to yet a different topic, one of the greatest issues of all faced by the first Christians who attempted to write or theorize about history was EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDlEYAL lllSTORIANS

I

705

how to understand the nature of divine providence. The classical GrecoRoman histories on which they had been brought up had seen the course of human history controlled by something very different from the providential care of the Christian God: fate and fortune.9 4 In Herodotus, the father of Greco-Roman historiography, fate was the dominant force. Its power towered even over the Olympians, for "none may escape his destined lot, not even a god."9 5 Sometimes ancient fatalistic narratives would speak of an oracular prediction which carne true in spite of the human victim's attempts to prevent the fated outcome. At other times fate was presented as a semideterministic psychological theory of compulsive self-destructive behavior. The two theories could be mixed in the same tale. Stoicism later drew up a metaphysical system, based on the rule of fate over all life, which was influential on Romano-Hellenistic thinkers. By the time Eusebius and Augustine came along, belief in astrology was endemic within the late ancient world, representing yet a fourth type of fatalism. Fortune meant the conjuncture of two or more independent chains of historical events in a way that was totally unexpected or unpredictable from the viewpoint of the human actors involved. Aristotle gave one of the best ancient definitions: "fortune is an accidental [KaTa 0"1Jil~E~TlK6s] cause affecting those happenings which are for the sake of some purpose or end, and which also involve free choice."9 6 Fortune and free will were firmly linked in Aristotle, as was to be a standard assumption among later Greek thinkers. In the subsequent arguments between Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, for example, it was assumed that belief in fate required one to deny human free will, but that a universe ruled by chance instead would allow for genuine voluntary choice. In order to defend free will, Eusebius attacked the pagan notion of fate at great length97 and turned to Aristotle's technical defmition of acts of fortune to describe divine providence as God's control of the "accidents" (Ta 0"1Jil~E~TlK6Ta) of history. 98 Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, and Evagrius Scholasticus used the term KaLp6s, the "opportune moment," which in the Greek understanding represented just another face of fortune. Theodoret used synonyms for fortune like 0"1Jillf>opci (good fortune or mischance), and EliKATlP(a and 8ooKATlp(a (drawing a good lot or a bad lot).99 In one way or another, therefore, the Eusebian tradition believed that acts of divine providence could not be represented in any kind of fatelike language, for that would deny human free will. They saw as their only alternative the use of synonyms for fortune or chance. If acts which appeared to have occurred merely by chance were in fact controlled from on high by God himself, then divine providence would still be left in basic control of

706

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

history, and the possibility for human beings to respond freely to whatever befell would be safeguarded. Augustine took the other tack. When he began to read Paul's letter to the Romans seriously, 100 he was struck by the material on compulsive behavior in chapter seven. One could know full well that something was sinful, and yet find oneself repeating the detested behavior over and over. He was also aware that his own progress towards his conversion to the Christian life had been marked chiefly by attempts to struggle as hard as he could to be anything other than a Christian. Augustine therefore became a predestinarian, rejected the notion of free will which the Eastern, Greek Christian theologians had upheld, and attempted to Christianize the GrecoRoman concept of fate. Augustine's treatment of fate and fortune appears very early in the City of God, in Books 4 and 5. Against the Eusebian tradition he argued that there was no possible way of Christianizing the concept of chance or fortune into a doctrine of providence. Fortune, Augustine said, referred to things "which either have no causes, or such causes as do not proceed from some intelligible order." 10 1 If Fortune "befalls both good and bad men fortuitously ... how, therefore, is she good, who without any discernment comes both to the good and to the bad? Why is she worshipped, who is thus blind, running at random on any one whatever, so that for the most part she passes by her worshippers, and cleaves to those who despise her?" 102 The term fate, Augustine said, could refer to two entirely different kinds of concepts-the Stoic doctrine of fate, and what the astrologers called fate. What the ordinary person in the late Roman Empire meant by the term, he said, was essentially the astrological version, 103 and belief in astrology was nonsense. 104 One well-known definition of fate was that it referred to things "which happen independently of the will of God and man, by the necessity of a certain order,"l05 and astrological belief clearly fit that defmition. So in a very different way did the ideas of some earlier classical Greco-Roman authors: Herodotus, one remembers, had stated that "none may escape his de:>tined lot, not even a god."106 But that was not what good Stoic philosophical theory had taught. The Stoics believed that fate was "the whole connection and train of causes which makes everything become what it does become," but they also attributed the "order and connection of causes to the will and power of God most high, who is most rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass, and to leave nothing unordained. "107 One sees, by looking at a Roman Stoic like Seneca, Augustine said, that what they called fate was simply the irresistible "will of God most high," for as Seneca prayed in one of his epistles:

EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL IDSTORIANS

I

707

Father supreme, thou ruler of the lofty heavens, Lead me where'er it is thy pleasure; I will give A prompt obedience, making no delay, Lo! here I am. Promptly I come to do thy sovereign will .... The Fates do lead the man that follows willing; But the man that is unwilling, him they drag. lOS

One might attack many Stoic doctrines, l09 but on their concept of fate, any Christian disagreement would be "a merely verbal controversy.'' 11 0 Nevertheless, if anyone should wish to call divine providence a kind of fate, "because he calls the will or the power of God itself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion, but correct his language," because ordinary people of Augustine's own time would inevitably misunderstand any use of the word "fate" as referring to the very different beliefs of astrological doctrine.lll It is very difficult, looking at most medieval histories, to tell whether they are thinking of God's providence in Eusebian terms, as a divine manipulation of apparently chance concurrences to produce long-range patterns, or in Augustinian terms, as a long-term pattern built into the deterministic chains of cause and effect themselves. At the practical level, Augustinian preachers (and their later Calvinist descendants) always exhorted their listeners as though the individual members of this audience could choose either to accept or reject the message (as indeed on their theory they had to, since the preaching of the preacher was itself a cause in a deterministic cause-effect chain). Bede's history has an often quite fatalistic air, but this may have been more a residue of a dark, primitive, pre-Christian belief in the alldetermining power of Wyrd (the pagan Anglo-Saxon concept of implacable fate). In his own Confessions, Augustine portrayed himself as a young man struggling to avoid his foreordained conversion and salvation for years until God's decree was finally inevitably realized (rather like Oedipus Rex in reverse). I have not come upon any similar examples from medieval historiography, but if such exist it would show that that particular author was taking the Augustinian theology of history seriously at the deepest level. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian theologian writing about providence, from the time of Eusebius and Augustine up to the present, has gotten out of that fundamental dilemma (fate or fortune) with the exception of the great Cambridge historian Herbert Butterfield, and to a degree Albert C. Outler. 112 It is a false dilemma, for it starts with the ancient pagan Greco-Roman assumption that one must see the past either as mechanically determined, or as a result of no more than the throw of the dice. To have God rigging the machinery in advance, or loading the dice on crucial issues,

708

I

GLENN F. CHESNUT

does not escape the fundamental misconception. Providence means seeing the past neither as fated nor as happenstance, but as that which has created one's present context of personal moral responsibility before a God of love. Anyone who reads either Eusebius or Augustine carefully will see that they clearly recognized that too; unfortunately, their fate and fortune language did not help them to express it clearly. Eusebius and Augustine between them dominated historiographical theory and method for the entire Middle Ages and well into the modem period. It is difficult to exaggerate their importance: for a large part of the Middle Ages, had it not been for them, there would probably have been no histories written at all. Historians either copied one or the other of the two, or tried to combine them, or attempted to develop new genres whose seminal ideas nevertheless came from one or the other. Eusebius, and Augustine's reaction to him, set the stage for the entire complex history of medieval and early modem western historiography which followed.

Notes 1Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2d ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). 21. E. L. Oulton, "Rufinus' Translation of the Church History of Eusebius," JTS 30 (1929) 150-74. 3Johannes Quasten, Patrology (3 vols.; Utrecht: Spectrum, 1950-1960) 3.34748. 4 rbid., 3.530-32. 5Glenn F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodore/, and Evagrius (2d rev. ed.; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1986) 175-77. 6rbid., 200-6. 7 Ibid., 207-9, including esp. n. 34. Chesnut, "The Date of Composition of Theodoret's Church History," VC 35 (1981) 245-52. 8 An English translation of the whole chronicle was published as The Syriac Chronicle Known as That of Zachariah of Mitylene (trans. F. J. Hamilton and E. W. Brooks; London: Methuen, 1899). 9Robert L. Wilken, The Myth of Christian Beginnings: l!istory's Impact on Belief(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971). 10chesnut, First Christian Histories, 215-16. Pauline Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense 41; Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1981 ). II Evagrius,HE l.pref. 12see, e.g., Evagrius,/1£ 4.12-27. 13 Bede, 1/istory 1.22 (Gildas) and 1.23-24, 27-32 (papal letters). Robert W. Hanning, The Vision of History in Early Britain from Gildas to Geoffrey of Monmouth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966).

EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL lllSTORIANS

I

709

14For its relationship to some of its predecessors see Alden A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek Chronographic Tradition (Lewisburg, P A: Bucknell University Press, 1979). [See also the article in this collection by William Adler. Eds.] 15Quasten, Patrology, 3.312. 16Hydace, Chronique (ed., trans., commentary by Alain Tranoy; SC 218-219; 2 vols.; Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1974). l7 Dennis E. Groh, "The Onomasticon of Eusebius and the Rise of Christian Palestine," in StudPatr 18/1 (1986) 23-31. 18Glenn F. Chesnut, "The Pattern of the Past: Augustine's Debate with Eusebius and Sallust," in John Deschner, Leroy T. Howe, and Klaus Penzel, eds., Our Common History as Christians: Essays in Honor of Albert C. Outler (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) 69-95; see esp. 70-71 and 93 n. 3; Berthold Altaner, "Augustinus und Eusebios von Kaisareia: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung," Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951) 1-6. 19chesnut, First Christian Histories, 83-95; "Pattern of the Past," 69-70, 7879, 83-85, 91-92. 20chesnut, First Christian Histories, 84-85. 21 Ludwig Edelstein, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). E. R. Dodds, "The Ancient Concept of Progress," in his Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 1-25. 22HE 1.2.18-19. 23HE 1.4.4; cf. 1.2.6-16 and 1.4.5-15. 24chesnut, First Christian Histories, 69 and 72. See on this topic Arthur Droge, Homer or Moses? (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 26; Tiibingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1989). 25chesnut, First Christian Histories, 73-75. 26Ibid., 75-77. 27 Ibid., 119-21. 28 Ibid., 167-69. 29 Ibid., 81-82. 30 Walter Emil Kaegi, Jr., Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) is a study of all extant eastern reactions. 31socrates, HE 7.10. 32sozomen, HE 9.9-10. 33 sozomen, HE 9.16. 34Tbeodoret, HE 5.25. 3 5Chesnut, "Pattern of the Past," 82-87; First Christian Histories, 87-89. 3 6 Augustine, De civ. Dei 1.1, 2.2-3. All citations of the De civitate Dei are from the Modem Library edition: Augustine, The City of God (trans. Marcus Dods; New York: Random House/Modem Library, 1950). 37 Augustine, De civ. Dei 2.17, against Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 9.1. 38 see for example Tacitus' Histories and Annals, Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, Ovid's Art of Love, the poetry of Catullus, Petronius' Satyricon, and similar works. 3 9Glenn F. Chesnut, Images of Christ: An Introduction to Christology (San Francisco: Harper & Row/Seabury, 1984) 115-18.

710

I

GLENN F. CHESNUf

40 Augustine, De civ. Dei 14.28. 41 For later medieval beliefs, see Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979). 42Josephus, Ani. 10.10.4 § 208-10, interpreting Dan 2:31-45. The "iron" Romans would "have dominion for ever" (§ 209), that is, until the messiah came at the apocalyptic end of this universe. Excellent material on early Jewish theologies of history can be found in The Christian and Judaic Invention of History (ed. Jacob Neusner; Studies in Religion/AAR 55; Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1990). 43For one important influence on him, see Pamela Bright, The Book of Rules of Tyconius: /Is Purpose and Inner Logic (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988). 44Eusebius, DE 15, frg. 1. 45 Augustine, De civ. Dei 20.23. 4 6Ibid. 20.7-8, 13. 47 Thid. 20.11. 48orosius, History 1.16. Jordanes' History of the Goths was in fact originally entitled De origine aclibusque Gelarum, "Origin and Deeds of the Getae." See Walter Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550~00): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988) 47. 49Roy J. Deferrari, Paulus Orosius: The Seven Books of History against the Pagans (trans. Roy J. Deferrari; FC 50; Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1964) xv-xviii (introduction). lndrikis Stems, The Greater Medieval Historians: An lnlerprelalion and a Bibliography (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1981) 27-30. 50Deferrari, Paulus Orosi us, xx (introduction). 51orosius, History l.Prol. 521bid. l.Prol. 531bid. 1.1 54 Ibid. 1.1. 55lbid. 7.28. 561bid. l.Prol. 5? Ibid. 2.1. 5 81bid. 7.39, 42, 43. 59Goffart, The Narrators, 120-21, 124, 153. Goffart correctly points out that it was not a tribal history of the Franks qua tribal unit. 60Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks (trans. Lewis Thorpe; New York: Penguin Books, 1974) Gregory's preface. 61 1bid. 1.2-3. 62Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). 63Gregory of Tours, History 2.Prol. 64 Goffart (The Narrators, 197) notes the deliberate refusal to lay out plot, but I think fails to see the deeper underlying Augustinian perspective. 65Gregory of Tours, History 3.Prol. 661bid. 5. Prol. 67Stems, Greater Medieval Historians, 163-66.

EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL illSTORIANS

I

711

680tto of Freising, Chronicle l.Prol., 3.Prol., 4.Prol., 5.Prol., and passim. 69Ibid. l.Prol., 5.Prol. 70L. R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, CT: American Philological Association, 1931). L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Un concurrent du christianisme: Le culte des souverains dans Ia civilisation greco-romaine (Tournai: Desclee, 19 57). 7 1Full study in Glenn F. Chesnut, "The Ruler and the Logos in Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Late Stoic Political Philosophy," ANRW 2.16.2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978) 1310-32. Briefer description in Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 142-59. 72 Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 159-Q4. 73 Eusebius, Laud. Canst. 1; Vita Canst. 1.5. 74 Eusebius, Laud. Canst. 1. 75James I, speech to parliament, 21 March 1610, in J. P. Kenyon, ed., The Stuart Constitution, 1603-1688, Documents and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966) 12-14. 76Extracts from various seventeenth-century French sources in John B. Wolf, Louis XIV (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968) 372-73. 7 7cecil John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude to War (London: Headley, 1919); The Early Church and the World: A History of the Christian Attitude to Pagan Society and the Stale down to the Time of Constantinus (Edinburgh: Clark, 1925). 78origen, De princ. 4.18; John Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine," ANRW 2.23.1 (1979) 724-834, esp. 749. 7 9Eusebius actually praised the Christians in the Thundering Legion (HE 5.5.14). Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army," 760-61 and 766-73. 80Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army," 738-44. The issue in the story of the Roman soldier Marinus in Eusebius HE 7.15 also could be read as idolatry and not pacifism (see Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army," 774). 8l Origen, Contra Celsum (trans. Henry Chadwick, corr. ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 8.73-74. See also Robert L Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984) 117-18, and Gerard E. Caspary, Politics and Exegesis: Origen and the Two Swords (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979). 82 Eusebius quoted it from Dionysius of Alexandria without comment, either positive or negative, in HE 6.40.4-9. 83Helgeland, "Christians and the Roman Army," 774-89 and 820-30. 84Eusebius, HE 5.Pref.3. 85chesnut, First Christian Histories, 243-46. 86 Ibid., 247-50. 87socrates, HE 1.8. 88sozomen, HE 7.25; Theodoret, HE 5.17-18. 89chretien de Troyes, Perceval, or the Story of the Grail, in Medieval Romances (trans. Andrew Marvell, ed. Roger Sherman Loomis and Laura Hibbard Loomis; New York: Modem Library, 1957) 8-87. See the stories of the maiden in the meadow (pp. 18-21) and the maiden in the remote castle by the sea (pp. 36-42). 9°Perceval 83-87. 91Ibid. 86 (italics mine).

712

I

GLENNF.CHESNUf

92Gregory of Tours, History 2.43. 93 Amy Kelly, Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Four Kings (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950) 129. 9 4William Chase Greene, Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). David Amand, Fatalisme et Iiberti dans l'antiquite grecque (Louvain: Bibliotheque de l'Universite, 1945). Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 22-28 (fate) and 7-17 (fortune). 95Herodotus 1.91. 96 Aristotle, Physics 2.5.197a. 97 Chesnut, First Christian Histories, 33-39. 9 8Ibid., 41-50. 99Ibid., 190-92, 206, 213-14, 219-22. 100Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967) 151-54. J. Patout Bums, The Development of Augustine's Doctrine of Operative Grace (Paris: Etudes Augustiniennes, 1980) 30-44. Paula Fredriksen Landes, ed. and trans., Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (SBLTT 23; Chico CA: Scholars, 1982). 101 Augustine, De civ. Dei 5.1. 102rbid. 4.18. 103Ibid. 5.1. 104Ibid. 5.2-7. 105Ibid. 5.1. 106Herodotus 1.91. 107 Augustine, De civ. Dei 5.8. 108Ibid. 5.8; Seneca, Ep. 107. 109 Augustine, De civ. Dei 4.12. 11 °Ibid. 5.8. 111 Ibid. 5.1. 112Herbert Butterfield, Herbert Butterfield: Writings on Christianity and History (ed. C. T. Mcintire; New Yorlc:: Oxford University Press, 1979). Review by G. F. Chesnut, Catholic Historical Review (January, 1982) 56-57. Albert C. Outler, Who Trusts in God: Musings on the Meaning of Providence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968). Outlet clearly recognized that neither fatelike nor fortunelike theories would work, and that it was the faithful trust in God which was fundamentally at stake.

EUSEBIUS, AUGUSTINE, AND MEDIEVAL lllSTORIANS

I

713

2 9 Early Western Church Law and the Jews WALTER PAKTER

Roman Law and Canon Law Jewry-law consists of laws framed by Gentiles to regulate Jewish life. The earliest Roman laws on Jews were directed at those in Palestine during the second century CE. The first Jewry-law directed against Jews in the diaspora dates from the early fourth century, the age of Eusebius, when Christianity became the favored religion of the empire. This study will examine Roman and early ecclesiastical laws against Jews and their mutual influence. It is worth noting some fundamental differences between Roman law and ecclesiastical law. The emperors succeeded in controlling all law-making by controlling the Senate and decreeing which classical jurists would be considered authoritative. 1 Though local authorities maintained administrative and judicial controls, the Roman emperor remained unchallenged as the final authority on legal questions. By contrast, the papacy never succeeded in monopolizing law-making authority even in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when it reached the zenith of its political power. Canon law was as much the product of local councils as it was of papal letters. The conflicts between councils and popes manifest a spirit of continuing equality. Second, while the rescripts and constitutions of the emperors could command, canon law had to rely chiefly on the threat of excommunication, an effective but crude tool. The canons of the early councils, and even papal decretal letters, preferred to rely on moral suasion. Papal letters are replete with behests rather than orders. Whe~ the offender was a Jew, there was little the early church could do without secular support. Eusebius lived during the period when the first councils attempted to limit social contacts with Jews. 2 The early western church was in no position to "legislate" against them. The primitive church claimed no jurisdiction over outsiders (1 Cor 5:12--6:11) and regarded Jews as members of 714

I

WALTERPAKTER

another order (Gal 4:21-30). Eusebius was concerned to show that Christians did not come under Jewish law rather than to place Jews under Christian law. 3 Early councils discouraged social contacts with Jews without professing any power over them. 4 Even after Christianity had become the state religion, St. Augustine never asserted ecclesiastical authority over Jews. While naming some illustrious early Israelites as members of the church,5 he excluded all contemporary Jews from the boundaries of the Christian community. Neither the early councils nor the popes claimed to exercise jurisdiction over Jewish civil status and property rights unless their actions had been authorized by secular powers or statutes. Some church councils were careful to note that their authority over Jews was derived from secular rulers.6 Others implicitly recognized secular law by complying with the prevailing locallawbooks.

Roman Religious Persecution The Romans criticized aliens, while tolerating foreign cults. Roman authors disparaged other peoples for their looks, clothing, diets, and customs as well as for their beliefs.? Non-Romans, including Jews, were occasionally expelled from Italy for religious reasons. 8 Individual Roman proponents of foreign cults were likewise deprived of their civil rights on trumped up charges. 9 Legislation, however, against entire classes of Roman citizens on the basis of religion was unknown under classical Roman law (ca. 150 to ca. 230 CE). The Romans not only condoned eastern cults in Italy, but protected Jews abroad through edicts of tolerance in the cities in Asia Minor. 10 The first official religious discrimination against entire groups of Roman citizens was directed at Christians rather than at Jews.ll In one respect, Roman laws against Christians may be distinguished from later Roman legislation against Jews. Christianity was seen as a domestic enemy, a fifth column within the "Establishment" itself. Christians were persecuted because of conversions within the upper echelons of Roman society. Under the republic, Roman slaves had been permitted to enjoy religious freedom, 12 but when members of the "Establishment" turned to foreign cults, as they did during the great spiritual crisis following the Hannibalic Wars, 13 the Senate reacted violently. Roman anti-Christian actions were difficult to rationalize. Early sources scarcely mention either religious, political, or legal grounds for these persecutions.l 4 They refer only to the ill-will of Christians. 15 Maximinus Daia (308-313 CE) does not charge Christians with anything. He simply blames Christianity for every natural catastrophe of his time. 16 Some ancient critics complained that Christianity flourished among the "rabble,"1 7 EARLYWESTERNCHURCHLAW ANDTIIEJEWS

I

715

but religious movements among the rabble did not usually arouse the "Establishment." The persecutions began after Christianity had won converts among the Roman elite 18 and the army, 19 and reached their height after the church had become respected and successful.20 Diocletian's (284-305 CE) persecutions were part of his program to salvage classical Roman culture. During the late third and early fourth century, he attempted to revive the beleaguered principles of Roman law, society, 21 and culture22 to stave off the threat of Greek and oriental customs and religions.23 Diocletian's and Galerius' (293-311 CE) actions were largely aimed at upper-class Christians, following conversions within the "Establishment" itself.2 4 According to Eusebius, they meted out harsh punishment to Christians in high places: "those who held high positions would lose all civil rights, while those in households, if they persisted in their profession of Christianity, would be deprived of their liberty." 25 Eusebius proudly recalls the eminence of the Christian martyrs 26 and the success of Christianity among highborn Romans, many with governmental posts.27 The same cannot be said of Jews in the empire. A small number of Jews did obtain high office in Rome, but these were not converts, nor did they obtain membership within the "Establishment."28 Jewish proselytism was limited. Jews were never seen as a threat to Roman culture until it became Christianized. Jews had been on friendly terms with Caesar,29 but under the empire Jews were seen as an external threat. Roman anti-Jewish laws emerged during the wars in Palestine under Vespasian (69-79 CE),30 Trajan (98-117 CE),3 1 and Hadrian (117-138 CE).32 The oldest extant pieces of anti-Jewish legislation are Hadrian's edicts banning Jewish circumcision33 and the ordination of rabbis, laws intended to break the back of the revolt. The ban on circumcision was dropped after the Bar Kokhba war34 and was never enforced outside of Palestine. 35 Hadrian's successor, Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE), permitted Jews to circumcise their own sons. 36 There was no persecution of Jews outside of Palestine; on the contrary, they enjoyed privileges not granted to Christians, including exemption from the imperial cult. 37 The basic difference between the Roman laws against Christians and those directed against Jews was that Roman anti-Jewish legislation was not intended to protect the "Establishment," but to protect Rome as a whole. They were not aimed at the upper echelons of Roman society, but the lower ones, in particular non-Jewish slaves, after the fourth century.38

Jews in Public Office

Before the Roman wars in Palestine, 39 few Jews obtained public posts, 40 either in Rome41 or in the Greek cities. 42 Jews in public office 716

I

WALTERPAKTER

only became more common as public office became less desirable. Jews were "permitted" to hold public functions after the Romans adopted the oriental system of "liturgies"-public burdens imposed on the wealthy making them responsible for taxes and other obligations owed in their district. 43 The third-century jurist Ulpian, in his work on the office of proconsul, records that: The deified Severns and Antoninus permitted those who followed the Jewish superstition to assume offices, but also imposed those obligations on them which did not injure their superstition. 44

Septimius Severus (193-211 CE) and Antoninus Caracalla (211-217 CE) could scarcely disguise how undesirable public office had become. The price for "permitting" Jews to hold office was acceptance of every burden of office which did not violate their religion, including the financial ones. Caracalla conceded public honors as he conceded Roman citizenship to all inhabitants of the empire in 212 CE 45 in order to enhance the empire's falling revenues. 46

Social Contacts

Early conciliar pronouncements on Jews occur at one of the earliest councils, held in Elvira, Spain (305/306), 47 at the conclusion of Diocletian's persecutions,48 when conversion to Christianity had become safe as well as fashionable.49 The Council of Elvira is typical of the ecclesiastical approach towards Jews. The council did not tell Jews to do anything. It told Christians to avoid social and family ties with Jews. Clerics and laymen were forbidden to eat with Jews.50 According to canon 50 of the Council: But if any cleric or layman shall have partaken of food with Jews, it was agreed that he is to be deprived of our company in order that his ways be improved.51

Prof. Blumenkranz has suggested that these provisions might have been based on still earlier models.52 This is unlikely. Only during the fourth century did the church feel confident enough to order its followers to shun Jews. Canon 50 itself provides linguistic evidence that this canon was a novelty. The Si quis form indicates a legal innovation.5 3 The term placuit ("it is resolved") is regularly used for provisions agreed upon after some controversy. These measures did not require secular authorization. Other enactments against Jews were only possible because of secular initiatives.

EARLYWESTERNCHURCHLAWANDTHEJEWS

I 717

Early Roman and Canonical Pronouncements on Jewish-owned Slaves The early church opposed ownership of Christian slaves by Jews, because this usually led to conversion and because it placed Christians in a bad light. But as Roman citizens, Jews could not be deprived of their human property except by the secular powers. 54 Consequently, antislavery provisions were not introduced into canon law until the matter was well settled in secular law. Even centuries after Elvira, councils framed their instructions concerning redemption and liberation of Jewish-owned slaves in accordance with the secular law of the region in which Jews and their slaves lived. Pagan emperors did not place any restrictions on Jews acquiring or exploiting slaves. 55 The Christian emperors, however, quickly reversed this policy. In 336, Constantine the Great (306-337) forbade circumcision of all slaves, including Christian ones and "those bought from any other sect." Circumcised slaves were to be manumitted. 56 In 339, Constantine II (337340) allowed Jews to retain uncircumcised pagan slaves, but Jews who circumcised slaves would forfeit their slaves and their lives.57 The rescripts and constitutions concerning Jewish-owned slaves which were collected in the Codex Theodosianus and Codex Justinianus reveal inconsistencies not only between the law in the eastern and western branches of the empire but within each division. In the eastern division in 384, Theodosius I (379-395) forbade Jews to make new purchases of Christian slaves and ordered Christians to redeem those already in Jewish hands "at a suitable price.'' 58 On October 20, 415, Theodosius II (408-450) required Jews in the eastern empire to donate their Christian slaves to the church. 5 9 But in the West, barely two weeks later, on November 6, 415, Honorius in Ravenna, always in need of funds to pay the Ostrogoths and his own soldiers, allowed Jews to keep their Christian slaves provided they did not convert them. 60 In 417, in the East, Theodosius II too relented and abandoned his order of 415 requiring Jews to donate their Christian slaves to the church.6l Jews were permitted to retain Christian slaves as well as to inherit or transfer them through .fideicommissum (trust). New purchases or gifts were not permitted, on pain of liberation without compensation. Jews who converted a Christian slave were subject to capital punishment and proscription. The final and consequently the controlling62 edict in this series of contradictory constitutions on Jewish-owned slaves was CTh 16.9.5 (423). 63 It forbade Jews to buy Christian slaves, but ignored those already owned by Jews and those acquired by means other than by purchase, including through birth. Thus, under the Theodosian Code, Jews could legally own Christian slaves. Theodosian law prevailed in parts of Spain and

718

I

WALTERPAKTER

Gaul by means of the Breviarium of Alaric, drawn almost entirely from the Codex Theodosianus.64 Other parts of the former western empire were not subject to the

Breviarium. In 532, Justinian prohibited Jews from acquiring Christians as

slaves by any means. 65 He later imposed a fine of thirty pounds on nonChristians who owned Christian slaves. 66 Slaves owned by non-Christians could win their freedom by converting; no compensation was required. 67 As a result, during the sixth century, two distinct Roman traditions on Jewish ownership of slaves coexisted in the West: the comparatively lenient Codex Theodosianus and the more severe Codex Justinianus, the Theodosian tradition preserved through the Breviarium of Alaric and early Gallic councils, the harsher eastern tradition of the Codex Justinianus preserved through the letters of Pope Gregory the Great. 68 In Gaul, ecclesiastical law preserved the Theodosian tradition requiring compensation when Jewish-owned slaves were liberated due to conversion.69 Merovingian synods such as the Third Council of Orleans (538)70 required that compensation be paid to Jewish owners of liberated slaves. Spanish law took up the harsher Justinian tradition.7 1 Visigothic councils such as the Fourth Council of Toledo (633), held with secular backing, ordered all Christian slaves owned by Jews to be freed without compensation. 72 Neither Gallic nor Visigothic church councils could have taken steps against private property by themselves. Church councils such as the Fourth Council of Toledo (633 CE) 73 or the Council of Paris (614 CE) only intervened against Jews directly because they had authorization from the secular powers.7 4 The few early ecclesiastical decrees regulating Jewish behavior without secular backing, such as Gregory I's letters on Jewishowned slaves, merely reiterated Roman law.75 Gregory, who had spent some time in Constantinople, noted that Jews were subject to Roman lawJ6 It was not until the thirteenth century that the western church professed independent jurisdiction over Jewish individuals and communities.77

Prohibitions on Intermarriage

Intermarriage is commonly forbidden when minorities fear a loss of identity or the influence of a majority or superior culture. Israelites entering Canaan from Egypt were forbidden to intermarry with Canaanites, Hittites, and other non-lsraelitesJS Aaron's grandson slew an intermixed couple.79 According to talmudic tradition, Jews were forbidden to marry unconverted Persians during the Babylonian exile. When foreign spouses are no longer considered a threat we find no objection to intermarriage. Thus, King Solomon openly lived with foreign wives (1 Kgs 11:1), but Esther's marriage to Ahasuerus was obliquely criticized in later tradition. 80 EARLy WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND THE JEWS

I

719

Throughout the Middle Ages, the western church forbade Christians to marry Jews, in part because Jews were deemed too clever for simple Christians. 81 The earliest conciliar pronouncements on intermarriage do not prohibit marriage to all Jews, only those to Jewish men. The Council of Elvira (305/306 CE) forbade Christians to marry their daughters to Jewish men, 82 passing over in silence the question of the marriage to Jewish women. Why was nothing said about such marriages? The Elvira bishops offered no reason. The answer is that ancient statutes do not attempt to cover every eventuality: "they are apt to be restricted to the problematic." 83 Marriages to Jewish women were not a problem. A Jewish spouse was rarely considered a desirable match, especially if marriage might involve conversion and circumcision. After 306 CE, Judaism was losing status against Christianity. Eusebius himself reflects this loss of status when he records the loss of Jerusalem, closed to Jews and colonized by foreigners under the name Aelia. 84 Even without conversion, a Jewish spouse could no longer be considered an asset. Soon after 306, Constantine and Licinius abolished the old state religion in favor of religious freedom "for Christians and everyone," 85 elevating Christianity as the favored religion of the empire. Due to the natural resistance to intermarriages among Christian men, at least among the old elite, it never occurred to the bishops convening at Elvira to forbid marriages to Jewish women. Women, on the other hand, are more vulnerable. Indeed, the Arabic version of the ecumenical Council of Nicaea, called by Constantine in 325, says this. According to the Arabic version, the Nicene Council feared that women, because of their weakness and "proclivity for evil," would be corrupted by infidel husbands. 86 Ossius (ca. 265-357/358 CE), bishop of Cordova from 295, forms a likely link between Elvira and Nicaea (as known through the Arabic or "Pseudo-Nicene" version). Ossius was a principal participant at Elvira, and was president at the Council of Nicaea. He also served as Constantine I's ecclesiastical advisor. 87 Originally, the Romans outlawed intermarriage for economic rather than for strictly religious reasons. Constantine himself did not address intermarriage. The earliest recorded imperial legislation on intermarriages was issued by his son Constantius II (337-361 CE), shortly after he became emperor. Constantius called for capital punishment of any Jew who married a woman employed in the imperial weaving factories, "lest they yoke Christian women to their disgrace. "88 Constantius' language marks the declining status of Jewry. Nevertheless, his concerns were not only religious. Such an extreme punishment indicates greater problems than the salvation of a few textile workers. In the eastern empire, purple cloth, linen, and silk manufactured in the 720

I

wALTER PAKTER

imperial factories were not seen as mere economic commodities. They were the symbols of imperial prestige, whose manufacture and sale were rigidly regulated. The real purpose of Constantius' ban on intermarriage to Jewish men was to keep the secrets of manufacturing these treasures out of the hands of Jewish tradesmen, especially those in Palestine, a center known for its textile manufacturing then and throughout the Middle Ages. 89 When Theodosius I, under canonical influence, later extended the ban on intermarriage to all Christians and Jews-male or female-in 388 CE, he incorporated Constantius' severe penalty from previous law. Theodosius I equated intermarriage or "anything like it" (i.e., cohabitation) with adultery. CTh 3.7.2 = CTh 9.7.5:

Let no Jew receive a Christian woman in marriage nor any Christian choose marriage with a Jewess. For if someone should commit anything like this, his crime will stand as if he had committed adultery, with freedom to accuse open to the public.90

Constantius was also responsible for making adultery a capital crime,91 but he said nothing concerning the validity of intermarriage. Even after Justinian incorporated CTh 3.7.2 into his own Codex (CJ 1.9.8), intermarriages apparently remained valid for legal purposes92 such as succession and legitimacy. Assimilating related misconduct to adultery was an old tradition in Rome. Classical jurists, including Gaius,93 report similar occurrences, although adultery was not as yet a capital offense. We may surmise various purposes: to blacken the deed, to implicate aiders and abettors,9 4 or to place the parties under the jurisdiction of special courts.95 What was new in Theodosius was to open up accusation to all comers, rather than limiting denunciation to immediate family members as had been the case in adultery prosecutions. The implication of giving standing to all comers was that intermarriage became a crime against all Christians. Theodosius' extension of the ban on intermarriage to males and females may have been required because it was a criminal statute. An ecclesiastical precedent for this extension may be seen in the work of St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan (339-397 CE). Theodosius had capitulated to Ambrose in the same year (388 CE), following the destruction of the synagogue in Nicephorium Callinicum, Mesopotamia, by an overzealous bishop. An imperial official in Callinicum had ordered the bishop to restore the synagogue out of church funds and Theodosius confirmed the decision. Theodosius was forced to reverse himself by Ambrose, who condemned the decision in public96 and halted cathedral services in the emperor's presence until Theodosius reversed the official's decision.97 EARLYWESTERNCHURCHLAW ANDTIIEJEWS

I

721

Theodosius' ban on intermarriage to Jews and Jewesses in CTh 3.7.2 (= CTh 9.7.5) probably also reflects Ambrose's influence. Such a ban is

without precedent in imperial or canon law, except for a similar pronouncement by St. Ambrose.9 8 In his work, Ambrose warned Christians against such alliances. Most likely this work preceded Theodosius' constitution. Given Theodosius' initial sympathy for the Jews at Callinicum, it is more likely that the emperor imitated St. Ambrose than the reverse. Ambrose's personal language (Cave, inquam ... ) also suggests innovation on the part of the author. The one-sided ban on marriage (to Jewish men) was accepted in some regions. Other regions excluded all marriages to Jews. The following table indicates a clear divergence between Spain and particularly Gaul:

Marriages to Jewish Men Forbidden Elvira (306 CE) can. 16 Pseudo-Nicaea (325 CE) can. 53

All Marriages to Jews Forbidden St. Ambrose

Toledo III (589 CE) can. 1499

CTh 3.7.2 = 9.7.5 (388 CE) Breviarium (506 CE) 3.7.2 Lex Romana Burgundionum

Toledo IV (633 CE) can. 63101

CJ 1.9.6 (388 CE)

(6th cent.) can. 191 00

Orleans II (533 CE) can. 19102 Clermont (535 CE) can. 6103 Orleans III (538 CE) can. 14104

The Arabic version of the Nicene Council contributed an explanation for barring marriages to Jewish men-a woman's weakness. But women were not necessarily weaker in some parts of the empire than in others. The real explanation is that the low caste of Jews in Italy, Greece, Spain, and other regions made a complete ban unnecessary there. Outside of Palestine, Egypt, and Gaul, few Christian men were likely to marry a Jewess. The condition of Iberian Jews improved significantly under Alaric and this is reflected in a total ban on marriages in the Breviarium to Jewish women as well as to Jewish men. This changed radically in Spain after Reccared. Sisebut and his successors ostracized and repressed Spanish Jews, to the point that there was no need to discourage Christian men from marrying them. The status of Spanish Jews had sunk so low that it was enough for the Visigoths to ban marriages to Jewish men. Only Christian women were still considered at risk by the Third lOS and Fourth106 Councils of Toledo. The significance of these one-sided prohibitions under a flagrantly

722

I

WALTERPAKTER

anti-Jewish regime was not that a Christian man was free to marry a Jewess, but rather that it was unthinkable. Judaism was less repressed in the eastern empire, where Theodosius was emperor. (Theodosius did not become Emperor of both divisions until 394 CE, five months before his death.) The situation for Jews in Gaul, where they were even permitted to maintain Christian slaves, was still more favorable. The Second (533 CE) and Third (538 CE) Councils of Orleans and the Council of Clermont (535 CE) prohibited all marriages with Jews, indicating that intermarriage persisted in Gaul. The fact that a ban on intermarriage was included as early as the Second Council of Orleans demonstrates that this was already considered a problem of some importance. 107 Canon 19 (Placuit, ut nullus) declared all intermarriages illegal (illicitas). Any Christian-man or woman-refusing to terminate such a union was excommunicated. In Gaul and parts of the eastern empire, the station of Jews was still attractive enough to make marriages even to Jewish women conceivable, hence all marriages to Jews had to be banned.

Exclusion from Legal Procedures 1. Exclusion of Jews from the Bar Prior to the fourth century, Jews could serve as legal counsel and could accuse and testify in court against Christians. The Valentinian emperors banned Jews from the civil service. Honorius (395-423 CE) blocked Jews from entering the Roman imperial service, but explicitly permitted them to practice law' so that they could use their training "in the liberal arts. "108 Only seven years later, however, in 425, the infant Valentinian III (425-455 CE) decreed that Jews and pagans would no longer be allowed to enter the military or to plead (public?) cases.109 Jews must have continued to study and practice law because in 468, Anthemius (467-472 CE) banned all non-Catholics from the bar in his edict Nemo vel inforo. 110 Shortly thereafter, in 472, Anthemius was beheaded in Rome by the Burgundian King Gundobad and in 476 the western empire fell to the German Odoacer. Nemo vel in foro remained a dead letter until it was revived and reintroduced into Italy by Justinian. lit

2. Origins of the Ban on Criminal Accusation by Jews The inability of Jews and other non-Catholics to accuse and testify against Christians in secular courts were two of the most influential restrictions of late antiquity. Exclusion of Jewish witnesses occurred at the same time Jews were excluded from serving as civil servants. The first known ban on Jewish witnesses is found in the ecclesiastical law of North Africa,

EARLy WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND TIIE JEWS

I 723

originally applied to clerics in canonical courts. Only later was this text extended to testimony against lay persons in civil cases. Exclusion of criminal testimony was well known in Roman law. Various disgraced and unreliable parties were barred from accusing in criminal cases, although classical Roman law did not discriminate against witnesses on the basis of religion. The Roman jurist Macer (fl. 235 CE) catalogues those parties who were denied the right to accuse (ius accusandi): We shall understand who can bring an accusation if we know those who cannot. Thus, some may be debarred from making an accusation on grounds of sex or age, for example a woman or a ward; some because of their oath of allegiance, for example, those performing military service; some because [they hold] a magistracy or office acting under which they cannot with impunity be summoned to court; some because of their own offenses, such as the infamous; some because of their unsavory way of making money, such as those who have lodged two actions against two accused or take money to bring or not to bring an accusation; and some because of their status, such as freedmen against their patrons. 112

Two reasons for these exclusions are apparent. They were intended in part to eliminate unreliable evidence and in part to perpetuate social differences. Hence slaves, 113 actors, gladiators were excluded, but also those who had become infames (legally ignominious, e.g., through bankruptcy or some other breach of trust) and other tainted persons. Religion was not mentioned. In the early fifth century. reforming bishops of the North African church incorporated the traditional Roman law exclusions into canons designed to protect the clergy. Previous councils had said who could be admitted, but not who was to be excluded. At the Council of Carthage (May 30, 419) the bishops banned excommunicates and other persons from accusing clerics (i.e., in canonical courts).ll4 Canon 128 of the council dealt with excommunicated Christians. Canon 129 banned additional parties: (i) slaves and persons who were excluded from bringing criminal accusations in public courts by "public law," (ii) persons stained by infamy (lnfamiae maculis aspersi), including actors and other disreputable characters, and (iii) heretics, pagans, and Jews. The council retained the traditional exception for their own cases: It was also resolved that all slaves and one's own freedmen are not permitted to accuse, nor are any of those, whom public laws do not permit to accuse in public crimes. Also, all persons spattered with the stain of infamy, that is actors or persons in disgrace, heretics even or

724

I

WALTERPAKTER

pagans and Jews. But all persons to whom the right to accuse is denied shall not be refused the right to accuse in their own cases.115

This is the first indication that parties were barred because they were non-Christians. In its original context, these disabilities were aimed at accusers of clerics in canonical courts. Although the text seems to incorporate some Roman procedure, such as the exception for their own cases (in causis propriis), 11 6 this canon was a new departure. Carthaginian limits on Jewish accusers were in harmony with contemporary imperial legislation such as Honorius' restrictions on Jewish courts 11 7 and Jewish lawyers. Nevertheless, we cannot conclude that these canons were an imitation of Roman law. We know of no Roman precedent for excluding Jews from accusing. The council itself does not profess to deal with lay persons or secular courts. The omission of the reference to clerics at the Council of Hippo (427 CE) 118 does not appear to be an extension of the law. The omitted reference to accusing clerics was probably self-understood. This is confirmed by Dionysius Exiguus (d. ca. 527 CE) who retained the reference to clerics in his collection. 119 The Carthaginian text did not become a precedent to prevent Jews from accusing Christians until it was edited in twelfth-century collections.

3. Exclusion of Jewish Testimony: Roman Law Exclusion from criminal accusation does not imply exclusion from civil testimony. However, exclusion from civil testimony automatically implies exclusion from accusation in criminal cases. A civil action affects the defendant's wealth, but a criminal accusation affects his reputation, civil status, and even his life. Accordingly, in ancient and in modern law, evidence is always weighed more carefully in criminal cases than in civil ones. Modern law only weighs testimony after it is presented. Civil cases require less certainty than criminal ones. Civil cases require a "preponderance of the evidence." Criminal cases require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." Under Roman criminal procedure, testimony was weighed before it could even be presented by excluding selected "suspect persons" who were considered automatically unreliable. Due to the gravity of criminal cases, prohibitions from accusation were more stringent than prohibitions from civil testimony; persons banned from accusing in criminal cases were not necessarily banned in civil ones. By contrast, anyone found unfit to testify in a civil action was a fortiori unfit to accuse in a criminal one. Because the standards for accusing were more rigorous than the standards for civil testimony, persons who could not accuse might still testify. EARLy WESTERN ClillRCH LAw AND TIIE JEWS

I

725

Sources which proscribed suspect persons from accusation still had to deal with civil testimony independently. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo, having barred certain persons from accusing, extended this ban to the same persons for civil testimony in a separate provision.120 On the other hand, collections which proscribed civil testimony from minorities ignored the question of accusation as superfluous. Once Justinian and later the Spanish Visigoths had excluded testimony from Jews, it was entirely pointless to ban them also from accusing, since exclusion from civil cases presupposed exclusion from criminal cases. The earliest extant secular legislation excluding Jewish witnesses in civil cases is Justinian's edict of 531, shortly after Dionysius' death. Justinian implies that there had been some previous controversy but it is unclear what this involved. It is possible that Jews were already excluded from accusing Christians and that Justinian's constitution (CJ 1.5.21) only extended the ban on accusation to include civil testimony. More likely, however, there was no earlier secular law on Jews accusing Christians, and the controversy concerned extension of the ecclesiastical ban to secular courts. The need for a sacred oath before testimony could be taken may have provided the occasion for this controversy. Had there been earlier Roman legislation, the compilers would probably have included it and the early councils would have incorporated it We may conclude that there were no Roman or canonical regulations prohibiting testimony from Jews prior to Justinian. Justinian's constitution reads: Since many judges, on the verge of resolving legal disputes, have appealed to our voice's oracle in order that we reveal to them what should be done concerning heretic witnesses, whether their testimony is to be admitted or refused, we decree that certainly no heretic, or even those who practice the Jewish superstition, shall be admitted against orthodox litigants to partici~ate with testimony, whether both parties are orthodox or one of them. 21

This text excluded Jews entirely from cases involving two Christians. In disputes between a Christian and a Jew, Jews could testify against Jews but not in their favor. In order for a Jew to bring a civil or criminal action against a Christian he would be compelled to produce Christian witnesses, an unusual burden. The first canonical ban on testimony from Jews in civil cases is not found until after Justinian's legislation, at the Fourth Council of Toledo (633 CE). Even then, the ban did not exclude all Jews but only relapsed ones.l22

726

I

wALTER PAKTER

Conclusions

Until the French Revolution, European Jews remained second-class citizens, subject to a series of disabilities which isolated them from the Christian majority physically and legally. With the notable exception of the ghetto itself, most of these restrictions were initiated by early canon and late Roman law in the period between the age ofEusebius and Justinian. Restrictions on Jews were developed mutually by the councils and the emperors. Early councils isolated Jews from Christian society by excluding them from social contacts and marriage. The Christianization of Roman law vastly increased the number of disabilities placed on Jews. In addition to criminalizing intermarriage, the emperors adopted restrictions on Jews' property rights, their livelihood, and their ability to seek justice, without depriving them of the burdens of citizenship. Ecclesiastical councils could not make law for secular courts and did not presume to alter the property rights of Jews until Roman law had spoken. Councils did not discuss slavery until after a series of Roman rescripts and constitutions. Thereafter, local councils in Gaul and Spain mirrored secular laws concerning compensation for manumitted slaves. In the area of procedural disabilities, canon and Roman law inspired one another. Exclusion of Jewish testimony from ecclesiastical courts occurred contemporaneously with limitations on Jewish courts and exclusion of Jews from the legal profession. The North African ban on Jewish witnesses, originally limited to ecclesiastical courts, provided the model for secular legislation in which Justinian forbade Jews to testify in any court of law. Thus Jews, while technically free to seek justice, were hampered by their inability to fmd legal representation and to present evidence. The effect of these restrictions was that, a millennium before the first compulsory ghettos appeared in 1550, canon and Roman law began to exclude Jews from Christian society economically, socially, and juridically.

Notes 1Solomon Grayzel, "The Beginnings of Exclusion,"' JQR n.s. 61 (1970) 15. 2 0n the following see A. Rabello, "The Legal Condition of the Jews in the Roman Empire," ANRW 2.13 (1980) 662-762; Bernard S. Bachrach, "The Jewish Community of the Later Roman Empire as Seen in the Codex Theodosianus," in Jacob Neusner and Ernest S. Frerichs, 'To See Ourselves as Others See Us": Christians, Jews, "Others" in Late Antiquity (Chico: Scholars, 1985) 399-421; Arnnon Linder, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation (Detroit: Wayne State University Press; Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1987), and Walter Pakter, Medieval Canon Law and the Jews (Abhandlungen zur Rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung 68; Ebelsbach: Gremer, 1988) 40. EARLy WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND TilE JEWS

I

727

3Eusebius, PE 1.7: "Jewish law was not established for us or capable of fulfillment by us who are Gentiles." 4 E.g., Council of Elvira (3051306); see below. 5 Augustine, £narrationes in psalmos 104.10 (CChrL 40, p. 1542): An ideo christi, quia etiamsi latentur, iam tamen christiani? ("Were there therefore already Christians at that time for Christ, though they were hidden?"). See Bernhard Blumenkranz, Die Judenpredigt Augustins (Basler Beitriige zur Geschichtswissenschaft; Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1946) 117. Augustine, De catechizandis rudibus 19.33.16 (CChrL 46, p. 158): cuius ecclesiae membra erant etiam iili sancti, quamuis in hac uita fuerint, antequam secundum carnern Christus dominus nasceretur ("of which church these holy men were also members, even though they lived before Christ our Lord had been born in the flesh"). 6 Theodor Mornrnsen, Romisches Strafrecht (Leipzig: Duncker & Hurnblot, 1899; reprinted Graz: Akadernische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1955) 597 n. 2. 1J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (London: Duckworth, 1979) 214. 8Jews and Chaldaei (practitioners of Babylonian astrology) were expelled from Italy in 139 BCE according to Valerius Maximus 1.3.3, noted by Arnold J. Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy (2 vols.; London: Oxford University Press, 1965) 2.404. 9Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, 2.401. 10Josephus, Ant. 14.10.1-26 § 185-267; Jean Juster, Les juifs dans /'empire romain (2 vols.; Paris, 1914; reprinted New Yorlc Burt Franklin, 1965) 1.133, 146; Emil Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (ed. Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, and Martin Goodman; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 19731987) 3.1.132. 1l E.g., Pliny, Ep. 96. Rudolf Freudenberger, Das Verhalten der romischen BehOrden gegen die Christen im 2. Jahrhundert (Munich: Beck, 1967) 41. 12Dig. 21.1.1.9 (Ulpian, Liber ad edictum aedilium curulium 1); Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, 2.404. 13 In 180 BCE Quarta Hostilia, widow of a consul, was sentenced to death according to Livy 40.37. See Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, 2.402. 14Pliny, Ep. 96: ideo nescio, quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quaeri. Eusebius, HE 5.1.10: "unreasonable judgments." HE 4.17.12: "What is the reason for punishing this man who has not been convicted of adultery or fornication or murder or theft or robbery or, in a word, of having done anything wrong, but merely confesses he bears the Christian name?" 15Freudenberger, Verhalten, 2. G. de Ste. Croix, "Why were the early Christians persecuted?" Past and Present 26 (1963) 37 n. 136. 16Eusebius, HE 9.7.8-9. 17Minucius Felix, Octavius (ca. 200-230 CE) 8.2. 18 Eusebius, HE 5.21.1: "now many of those who at Rome were famous for wealth and family turned to their own salvation with all their house and with all their kin. This was unendurable to the demon who hates good .... " Tertullian, Apol. 37.4.4: "the tribes, palace, senate, forum." 19Eusebius, HE 8.4.3. 20Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981) 21.

728

I

WALTERPAKTER

2 1 Among the foreign institutions Diocletian opposed was polygamy, still practiced by oriental Jews. CJ 5.5.2 (Diocletian, Dec. 11, 285) (bigamy). Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 253. 22Bames, Constantine and Eusebius, 12. 23Tony Honore, Emperors and Lawyers (London: Duckworth, 1981) 104. 24 For the names of "high rank" martyrs, see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 181. 25Eusebius, HE 8.2.4. Lactantius (ca. 240--ca. 320) reports similar restrictions aimed at Romans in high office. Mort. pers. 13 (ca. 318 CE) [CSEL 27; ed. Samuel Brandt and George Laubmann; Vienna: Tempsky, 1893) 11]: "The next day an edict was published, depriving the Christians of all honours and dignities; ordaining also that, without any distinction of rank and degree, they should be subject to torture and that every suit at law should be received against them; while, on the other hand, they were debarred from suing for defamation, adultery, or theft; and fmally they should neither be capable of freedom, nor have the right of suffrage." 26Eusebius, HE 8.3. 2 71bid. 8.5; 8.9: "distinguished for wealth, birth and reputation"; 8.9: Adauctus, "a man of illustrious Italian birth"; 8.12: Dornnina; 8.14: Sophronia. 28schiirer, History, 3.1.137. 29suetonius, Divus lulius 84. 30Eusebius, HE 3.5.1; 3.12. 3 11bid. 4.1.1. 3 2 Ibid. 5.12.1. 33scriptores Historiae Augustae, Hadrian 14.2 (LCL, p. 44): Moverunt ea tempestate et Iudaei bellum, quod vetabantur mutilare genitalia ("At this time the Jews also began a war because they were forbidden to cut off the genitals"). 34Eusebius, HE 4.6.1. 35M. Avi-Yonah, The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule (Oxford: Blackwell, 1976) 13. 36Dig. 48.8.11pr, (Modestinus, Liber regularum 6): Circumcidere ludaeis filios suos tantum rescripto divi Pii perrnittitur: in non eiusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur ("The deified Pius permitted Jews to circumcise only their own sons: men who have done this against those not of their religion will suffer the penalty for castration"). See also Linder, The Jews, 99-102. 37see n. 10 above. 38see text at n. 54 below. 39 Avi-Yonah, Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule, 41. 40 Vittore Colomi, Gli ebrei nel sistema del diritto comune fino alia prima emancipazione (Milan: Giuffre, 1956) 20. Jean Gaudemet, L'eglise dans /'empire romain (Paris: Sirey, 1958); Juster, Juifs, 2.243. 41schiirer, History, 3.1.135. 4 2Ibid., 3.1.137. 4 3M. Rostovzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Zd ed.; 2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957) 1.382. Naphtali Lewis; The Compulsory Public Services of Roman Egypt (Papyrologica Florentina 11; Florence: Gonnelli, 1982) 103.

EARLy WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND TilE JEWS

I

729

44Dig. 50.2.3.3 (Ulpian, De officio proconsulis 3): Eis qui ludaicam superstitionem sequuntur, divi Severns et Antoninus honores adipisci permiserunt, set et necessitates eis imposuerunt, qui superstitionem eorum non laederent. See also Linder, The Jews, 103-7. 4 5Dio Cassius, Roman History 18.5 (LCL, p. 297). The precise date and the content of the Constitutio Antoniniana remain uncertain. H. F. Jolowicz (and B. Nicholas), Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (3d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 345. 4&rony Honore (Uipian [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) 29) argues that revenue was not the main goal of the Constitutio. While this may be true, it was not a minor objective either. 47Bemhard B1umenkranz, Juifs et chretiens dans le monde occidental 430-1096 (Paris: Mouton, 1960) 106 n. 158. 48universal persecution of Christians was a brief episode. See Timothy D. Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982) 180. Diocletian abdicated on May 1, 305. Ibid., 197. 49Bames, Constantine and Eusebius, 12. 5°Elvira (305/306 CE) 16, Mansi, Collectio, 2.8, and Friedrich Lauchert, ed., Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien (Freiburg and Leipzig: Mohr, 1896; reprinted Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1961) 21. Slcan. 50: Si vero quis clericus vel fidelis cum ludaeis cibum sumpserit, placuit eum a communione abstineri ut debeat emendari. 52Bemhard Blumenkranz, "1udaeorum Convivia' a propos du Concile de Vannes (465) c. 12," Etudes d'histoire du droit canonique didiees a GabrielLe Bras (2 vols.; Paris: Sirey, 1965) 2.1055, 1056. 5 3 David Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1956) 6. Daube notes the difference between legislation beginning "If a man [Si quis] commits a crime" and "Whoever [Quis] commits a crime." "Si quisu tells a story; it indicates a specific case. The "Quis" form is more developed and represents a higher level of abstraction, a systematic category. See also idem, An;cient Jewish Law (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 73. 54E.g., Gregory I, Ep. 1.10 (PL 77.457): sed sicut romanis vivere legibus permittuntur ("but just as they are permitted to live according to the Roman laws"). Breviarium 2.10.20 (ed. Mommsen, in Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis [Berlin: Weidmann, 1905) 76): iudaei omnes qui romani esse noscantur ("all Jews who are recognized as Romans"). 5 5Juster, Juifs, 2.69; Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 84. 56CTh 16.9.1 (Oct. 21, 335); Juster, Juifs, 1.269; Linder, The Jews, 141; Jean Gaudemet, L'eglise dans /'empire romain (/Ve-ve siecles) (Paris: Sirey, 1958) 629 n. 9; Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 84. 51cTh 16.9.2 (cf. CJ 1.10.1), Constantine II (Aug. 13, 339); Linder, The Jews, 147-48. 58cTh 3.1.5, Gratianus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius (Sept. 22, 384); Juster, Juifs, 2.73 n. 10; Linder, The Jews, 174--77. 59cTh 16.8.22, Honorius and Theodosius (Oct. 20, 415); Juster, Juifs, 2.73 n. 3; Linder, The Jews, 267-72.

730

I

WALTERPAKTER

6°CTh 16.9.3, Honorius and Theodosius (Nov. 6, 415); Linder, The Jews, 27274.

61 CTh 16.9.4, idem (April 10, 417); Linder, The Jews, 277-80. 62cTh 1.1.5 (March 26, 429). 63CTh 16.9.5, Honorius and Theodosius (April 9, 423); Linder, The Jews, 291-

92.

64 cTh 3.1.5 =Lex Romana Visigothorum (Breviarium Alarici) 3.1.5. Cf. Jean Juster, "La condition legale des juifs sous les rois visigoths," Etudes d'histoire juridique offertes a P. F. Girard (Paris: Geuthner, 1912) 48; Alfredo M. Rabello, "A tribute to Jean Juster," Israel Law Review 11 (1976) 216, 406; and Linder, The Jews, 174-77. 6 5cJ 1.10.1, Constantine II [interpolated] (339 [532]); Linder, The Jews, 148, 279. 66cJ 1.10.2 (Justinian); Linder, The Jews, 370--71. 67 CJ 1.3.54, Justinian (527-534 CE). 68 James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (London: Soncino, 1934; reprinted New York: Atheneum, 1969) 210 (Gregory I), 322 (Frankish councils). Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 91. 6 9cTh 3.1.5, on which see Linder, The Jews, 174-77; cf. CTh 16.8.22. 7°orleans III (538 CE), can. 14, Mansi, Collectio, 9.15; Friederich Maasen, ed., Concilia Aevi Merovingici (MGH Legum sectio 3, Concilia 1; Hanover: Hahn, 1893) 78; and C. de Clerq, Concilia Galliae (CChrL 148a; Turnhout: Brepols, 1963) 120. See also Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 88. 11cJ 1.3.54.9 (Justinian). 72Toledo IV (633), can. 66, Mansi, Collectio, 10.635, and Jose Vives, ed., Concilios Visig6ticos e Hispano-Romanos (Barcelona and Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientlficas, 1963) 214: can. 66. See also Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 95. 7 3(i) Fourth Council of Toledo (633), can. 65, Mansi, Collectio, 10.635, and Vives, Concilios Visig6ticos, 213: Praecipiente domino atque excellentissimo Sisenando rege id constituit sanctum concilium, ut iudaei aut his qui ex iudaei[s] sunt officia publica nullatenus adpetant ("At the command of Sisenanth, lord and most excellent king, the Council declared that Jews or those from the Jews shall not seek public office of any

kind").

(ii) Ibid., can. 66, Mansi, Collectio, 10.635, and Vives, Concilios Visig6ticos, 214: Ex decreta gloriosissimi principis hoc sanctum elegit concilium, ut iudaeis non liceat christianos servos habere ("At the command of the most glorious prince this holy council has decided that Jews may not have Christian slaves"). 7 4 The Council of Paris (Oct. 10, 614), can. 17 (Mansi, Collectio, 10.542, and Maasen, Concilia, 190, and de Clerq, Concilia, 280) prohibited Jews from occupying public offices, but this was already prohibited by Roman law and was ratified by Chlotar II. 75Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 91. 7 6see n. 54 above. 77Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 10. 78 Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3. Cf. Gen 34 (Dinah). 7 9Num 25:7-9.

EARLY WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND THE JEWS

I 731

80The implied criticism of Esther may explain why the Book of Esther was not included in the accepted canon, but was relegated to the Apocrypha. See the forthcoming pulications of David Daube on Esther and Judith. 81Pakter, Medieval Canon Law, 279 n. 133; 288 n. 149. 82 Elvira, can. 16, Mansi, Colleclio, 2.8, and Friedrich Lauchert, ed., Kanones, 16: Haeretici, si se transferre noluerint ad ecclesiam catholicam, nee ipsis catholicas dandas esse puellas; sed neque iudaeis neque haereticis dare placuit. Eo quod nulla possit esse societas fidelis cum infidele: si contra interdictum fecerint parentes, abstineri per quiquennium placet ("Catholic women are not to be given to heretics who refuse to convert to the Catholic church. It was also resolved that they are not to be given to Jews or heretics. That is because there can be no partnership between a Christian and an infidel: if parents act against this prohibition, let them be shunned for five years"). 83David Daube, "The Preponderance of Intestacy at Rome," Tulane Law Review 39 (1965) 253, 254. Idem, "The Self-Understood in Legal History," Juridical Review (1973) 127. 84 Eusebius, HE 4.6. 85The pronouncement known as the Edict of Milan (June 13, 313) is recorded in Lactantius (ca. 240-ca. 320 CE), Mort. pers. (318?) 48.2f. (CSEL 27.228-229.11), and Eusebius, HE 10.5. 86The Latin versions of the Council of Nicaea contained only twenty canons. Grayzel, "The Beginnings of Exclusion," JQR n.s. 61 (1970) 15, 17. However, the Arabic version, with eighty canons, contains one canon (can. 53) paralleling Elvira, can. 16. See Mansi, Collectio, 2.969: Ut Christiani uxores ducant ex quacumque natione, modo ad fidem veniant: sed non debent Christiani dare filias suas nuptum infidelibus, ne ad errorem maritorum pervertantur, et fiant vel Judaeae, vel gentiles propter infirmitatem suam et proclivitatem ad malum, et qui non paruerit, a synodo excommunicatur ("Let Christians marry wives from any people, provided they convert: But Christians must not give their daughters in marriage to infidels, lest they be corrupted to the errors of their husbands and become Jewesses or gentiles through their weakness and tendency towards evil. He who does not submit is excommunicated by the Synod"). 87 Victor C. de Oercq, Ossius of Cordova: A Contribution to the History of the Constantinian Period (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1954). Henry Chadwick, "Ossius of Cordova and the Presidency of the Council of Antioch, 325," ITS n.s. 9 (1958) 292. 88cTh 16.8.6, Constantius (Aug. 13, 339); Linder, The Jews, 148. 89Juster, Juifs, 2.305. Arnold Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) 51, 63. 90CTh 3.7.2 = CTh 9.1.5 (Valentinianus, Theodosius & Arcadius): Ne quis Christianam mulierem in matrimonio Iudaeus accipiat, neque Iudaeae Christianus coniugium sortiatur. Nam si quis aliquid huiusmodi admiserit, adulterii vicem commissi huius crimen obtinebit, libertate in accusandum publicis quoque vocibus relaxata (March 14, 388); Linder, The Jews, 178-82. 91 CTh 11.36.4 (339 CE). The convicted couple was to be sewn in a leather sack and burned alive. See Juster, Juifs, 2.47 n. 7. 92Max Kaser, Das riimische Privatrechl (2d ed.; Munich: Beck, 1975) 168 n. 55. 93Gaius, lnst. 3.194; Dig. 4.4.37.1 (Tryphoninus, De disp. 3); Dig. 48.5.9pr (Papinianus, De adulteriis 2); Dig. 48.5.34.2 (Marcianus, De public is iudiciis 1). See David

732

I

WALTERPAKTER

Daube, "Greek and Roman Reflections on Impossible Laws," Natura/lAw Forum 12 (1967) 1, 32 n. 122. 94Dig. 48.5.13 (Ulpian, De adult. 1). 95Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, 696. 96Ambrose, Ep. 40 and 41 (PL 16.1101-21). 9 7 B. Blumenkranz, "Patristik und Friihrniuelalter," in K. H. Rengstorf and S. V. Kortzfleisch, eds., Kirche und Synagoge (Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1968) 91. Parkes, Conflict, 166. 98Ambrose, De patriarchis 1: De Abrahamo 9.84 (PL 14.451) and C. Schenk!, ed., Sancti Ambrosii Opera [CSEL 32.1; Prague: Temsky, 1897) 555: Cave, Christiane, gentili aut Iudeo filiam tuam tradere. Cave, inquam, gentilem aut ludeam atque alienigenam, hoc est hereticam, et omnem alienam a fide tua uxorem accersas tibi ("Beware, Christian, lest you give your daughter to a Gentile or a Jew. Beware, I say, lest you take as your wife a Gentile or Jew or foreigner, that is a heretic or anyone other than one of your faith"). 99Mansi, Collectio, 9.995, and Vives, Concilios Visigoticos, 129: de iudaeis: Suggerente concilio id gloriosissimus dominus noster [= Reccared] canonibus inserendum praecepit, ut iudaeis non liceat christianas habere uxores vel concubinas ... ("At the urging of the Council, our most glorious lord ordered included in the canons that Jews shall not be permitted to have Christian wives or concubines"). 100Ludwig Rudolf de Salis, ed., Leges Burgundionum (MGH Leges, Sectio 2,1; Hanover, Hahn, 1892) 143 = S. Riccobono et al., eds., Fontes iuris romani antejustiniani (3 vols.; Florence: Barbera, 1940) 2.732: [4) Coniunctio vero Iudaei cum christiana legibus inhibetur, ut nee Iudeus christianam, nee christianus Iudeam accipiat. Quod si factum fuerit, vicem adulterii vindicetur, iuxta lege (!) Theudosiani libri IX sub titulo: De adulteriis ("The union of a Jew with a Christian woman is prohibited by law, so that neither shall a Jew take a Christian woman, nor a Christian a Jewess. But if this was done, they shall be punished as if for adultery according to the Law in the Code of Theodosius Book 9 under the title On adultery"). In Burgundy and other parts of the former Gallia Narbonensis, Jews still belonged to the old Roman aristocracy, making them desirable partners for Germanic newcomers. 101 Mansi, Collectio, 10.634, and Vives, Concilios Visigoticos, 213 (C. 28, q. I, c. 10): Iudaei qui christianas mulieres in coniungio habent admoneantur ab episcopo civitatis ipsius, ut si cum eis permanere capiunt, christiani efficiantur (''Let Jews who have Christian women in marriage be admonished by the bishop of that city that if they wish to remain with them, they should become Christians"). 102Maasen, Concilia, 64, and de Clerq, Concilia, 19: Placuit, ut nullus Christianus ludeam Iudeus Christianam in matrimonio ducat uxorem ("It is resolved that no Christian shall take a Jewess as his wife, and no Jew a Christian"). 103 oennont (Concilium Arvemense, 535), can. 6, Maasen, Concilia, 67, and de Clerq, Concilia, 106: Si quis Iudaecae prauitati iugali societate coniungetur et seu Christiano Judea siue Iudaeo Christiana mulier consortio camali miscetur ... ("If anyone joins in marriage with the perversion of Judaism, and either a Jewess joins with a Christian man in carnal knowledge or a Christian woman with a Jewish man ... "). 104Maasen, Concilia, 78, and de Clerq, Concilia, 120: Christeanis quoque omnibus interdicimus, ne Iudeorum coniugiis misceantur ("We also forbid all Christians, lest they mix with Jews in marriage").

EARLy WESTERN CHURCH LAw AND TilE JEWS

I 733

105Toledo ill (589 CE), can. 14, Mansi, Collectio, 9.995, and Vives, Concilios Visig6ticos, 129 (seen. 99 above). l06Toledo IV (633 CE), can. 63, Mansi, Collectio, 10.634, and Vives, Concilios Visig6ticos, 213 (=Decretum Gratiani C. 28 q. 1 c. 10). 107orleans II (533 CE), can. 19, Maasen, Concilia, 64, and de Clerq, Concilia, 19. 108cTh 16.8.24, Honorius and Theodosius (March 10, 416); Linder, The Jews, 280-83. 109constitutio Sirmondi 6 (Theodosius and Valentinianus): Iudaeis quoque vel paganis causas [publicas?] agendi vel militandi licentiam denegamus ("We also deny Jews and pagans permission to plead the [public] cause or to serve in the military"). llOcJ 1.4.15 = CJ 2.6.8 (Leo & Anthemius, 468). 1llsee the previous note and CJ 1.5.12.9. 1!2Dig. 48.2.8 (Macer, De publicis iudiciis 2), translated in Alan Watson, ed., The Digest of Justinian (4 vols.; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 4.798. 113cf. Eusebius, HE 5.21.2-5: Apollonius' slave punished for testifying against his master. 114Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 128, Charles Munier, ed., Concilia Africae a.345-