Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, became afterward bishop of Antioch, as we are told by Eusebius, Contra Marcellum , I. 4, and by Philostorgius, H. E . III. 15. According to Jerome’s Chron , year of Abr. 2345, he was the successor of Philogonius and the predecessor of Eustathius in the episcopate of Antioch. He was still alive when Eusebius completed his History , that is, at least as late as 323 (see above, p. 45), but he was already dead when the Council of Nicæa met; for Eustathius was at that time bishop of Antioch (see e.g. Sozomen, H. E. I. 17, Theodoret, H. E. I. 7, and the Acts of the Council of Nicæa, ed. Labbei et Cossartii, I. p. 51), and Zeno, bishop of Tyre (see the Acts of the Nicene Council, ibid .). Philostorgius ( ibid .) informs us that he became bishop of Antioch but six months before his death, and there is no reason to doubt the statement. Eusebius speaks of him in the highest terms, both here and in his Contra Marcellum , and it was at the dedication of his church in Tyre that he delivered the panegyric oration quoted in chap. 4, below. He is claimed as a sympathizer by Arius in his epistle to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), and that he accepted Arius’ tenets is implied by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who, however, feels obliged to admonish him for not showing greater zeal in the support of the cause (see this epistle quoted by Theodoret, H. E . I. 6). This is the extent of our information in regard to him.

On the date of the composition of the tenth book of the History , and its relation to the earlier books, see above, p. 45.

εἰκότως δ᾽ ἐν ἀριθμῷ τελεί& 251· τὸν τέλειον ἐνταῦθα καὶ πανηγυρικὸν τῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἀνανεώσεως λόγον κατατ€ξομεν. The meaning of this sentence is very obscure. Valesius translates: Nec absurde ut opinor, absolutam omnibus numeris orationem panegyricam de ecclesiarum instauratione hic in perfecto numero collocabimus . Stroth, followed by Closs, renders: “Mit Recht werden wir hier auch eine vollständige feierliche Rede, von der Wiedererneuerung der Kirchen, als einen ordentlichen Theil miteinrücken.” Crusè reads: “Justly, indeed, shall we here subjoin in a perfect number a complete discourse and panegyric on the renovation of the churches.” The “perfect number” seems to refer to the number of the book (the number ten being commonly so called in ancient times), to which he has referred in the previous clause. Could we regard the “perfect panegyric” as referring to the book as a whole, as Crusè does, the sentence would be somewhat clearer; but the phrase seems to be a plain reference to the oration given in chap. 4, especially since Eusebius does not say τῆς ἐκκλησίας, but τῶν ἐκκλησὶ& 242·ν, as in the title of that oration. I have preserved the play of words, τελεί& 251·—τέλειον, in order to bring out Eusebius’ thought more clearly, but it must be remarked that the word τέλειον does not imply praise of the quality of his oration on the author’s part. It is used rather in the sense of complete or final, because it celebrates a completed work, as the tenth book completes his History , and thus crowns the whole.

Psa. xcviii. 1, 2 .

Literally, “spectacles and narratives” (ὄψεις τε καὶ διηγήσεις).

Cf. Matt. xiii. 17 .

Cf. Phil. i. 23

Psa. xlvi. 8, 9 .

See chaps. 10 and 11 of the preceding book.

Psa. xxxvii. 35, 36 .

τοῖς žξωθεν τοῦ καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς θι€σου.

By the edict of Constantine and Licinius full religious liberty was granted, not only to the Christians, but to all men of whatever creed or cult.

See below, chaps. 5–7.

Ezek. xxxvii. 7 .

These sentences are excellent examples of Eusebius’ rhetorical style, which marks the greater part of this tenth book. My endeavor has been to adhere as closely as possible to the original; and yet there are cases in which it is quite out of the question to give a literal translation without violating all grammatical laws, and in which the sense can be reproduced only by paraphrasing. The present sentence runs ναὶ μὴν καὶ τῶν προηγουμένων ἐντελεῖς θρησκεῖαι, ἱερουργίαι τε τῶν ἱερωμένων, καὶ θεοπρεπεῖς ἐκκλησίας θεσμοί.

This person was clearly Eusebius himself (see above, p. 11). Upon the date of this dedicatory service, at which Eusebius delivered the oration given in full in this chapter, see ibid .

Paulinus, bishop of Tyre. See above, chap. 1, note 1.

i.e. Paulinus.

Cf. Rev. xxi. 2

βεσελεήλ, which is the form found in the LXX. The Hebrew is לאֵלְצַבְּ, which the R.V. renders “Bezalel.” See Ex. xxxv. 30 sq.

See Hag. ii. 9

Eusebius addresses first the assembled clergymen in general, then Paulinus in particular, and finally the people, calling the latter “nurslings,” “habitation,” “school,” “auditory.” The significance of the words as used by him is plain enough, but their collocation is rather remarkable.

Psa. xliv. 1 .

Cf. Ex. vi. 6 , et al .

Psa. xlviii. 8 .

1 Tim. iii. 15 .

Psa. lxxxvii. 3 .

Psa. cxxii. 1 .

Psa. xxvi. 8 .

Psa. xlviii. 1 .

Psa. xlv. 2 .

Psa. cxxxvi. 4 .

Job ix. 10 .

Dan. ii. 21 .

1 Sam. ii. 8 . ( Psa. cxiii. 7 ).

Luke i. 52, 53 .

Cf. Psa. xcvi. 1

προσυπακούοντες. Eusebius seems to use this rather peculiar expression because the words of song which he suggests are not the words of the “new song” given by the Psalmist, but are taken from other parts of the book.

Psa. cxxxvi. 4 .

Ibid . 17 .

Ibid . 23, 24 .

It is remarked by Valesius that these words are taken from some tragic poet. That they are quoted from an ancient writer is clear enough from the Ionic forms which occur (ὁρῇ, ἀλλοτριῇσι, ξυμφορῇσι), and if a few slight changes be made (καμνόντων to καμόντων, ἕνεκεν to εἵνεκεν, μὲν to τὰ, ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτριῇσι τε to ἀλλοτριῇσι) the words resolve themselves into iambic trimeters:— τῆς τῶν καμόντων εἵνεκεν σωτηρίας ὁρῇ τὰ δεινὰ, θιγγ€νει δ᾽ ἀηδέων, ἀλλοτριῇσι συμφορῇσιν ἰδίας καρποῦται λύπας. According to Valesius, Gregory Nazianzen in his first Oratio quotes the last verse (καὶ τὸ ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίαις συμφοραῖς ἰδίας καρποῦσθαι λύπας, in which there is no trace of the poetical form) with the remark ὡςžφη τις τῶν παρ᾽ ἐκείνοις σοφῶν; and Valesius adds: “ Ad quem locum Elias Cretensis notat verba hæc esse Hippocratis quem Gregorius Nazianzenus sapientis cujusdam nomine designat .” Moreover, Schwegler remarks that the words are taken from Hippocrates. In a note ad locum he says: “ Hippocratis medici (cf. Hippocr. de Flat. init . p. 78, ed. Foes) quæ eadem laudantur et ab aliis Scriptoribus, veluti a Luciano in Bis. Accus . c. I. p. 49, ed. Bip. Cf. quæ interpretes adnotaverunt ad Luciani , l.c . Tom. VII. p. 400, ed. Bip.” I have not examined these references, and can therefore form no judgment in the matter.

ἀβλαβῶς. The application of the word is not perfectly clear, but the meaning seems to be “without harm to himself,” “unharmed.” “He is the only one able to minister to our salvation without sinking under the weight of the burden, or suffering from his contact with us.” Eusebius is perhaps thinking especially of Christ’s absolute sinlessness and victory over all temptation; perhaps only in a more general way of the great strength needed for such a task, strength possessed by Christ alone in sufficient measure to prevent his own complete exhaustion under the immense task.

Cf. Isa. ix. 6

μέγας ἀρχιστρ€τηγος; cf. Josh. v. 13 .

This seems to be simply a rhetorical expression of what is recorded in Bk. IX. chap. 9, in regard to the great statue of Constantine with a cross in his hand, erected in Rome after his victory over Maxentius. It is possible that other smaller monuments of a similar kind were erected at the same time.

αὐτοθεόν. The exact sense in which Eusebius uses this word is open to dispute. That it asserts the Son to be possessed per se , in and of himself, of absolute deity,—that is, that he is self-existent,—can hardly be maintained, though Valesius does maintain it. The word admits some latitude of meaning, as Heinichen shows (in his edition of Eusebius, III. p. 736 sq., Melet . XX.), and its use does not forbid a belief in the subordination of the Son. In my opinion it clearly indicates a belief in an essential deity of the Son, but not a full and absolute deity. Stein, in his Eusebius , p. 138, remarks: “Eusebius wendet hier dei platonischen Ausdrücke nach dem Vorbilde des Origenes auf das Wesen des Sohnes an. Nach Origines bezeichnen diese Ausdrücke die Absolutheit des Sohnes, nach den Platonikern jedoch bedeuten sie nicht das höchste Wesen. Es ist nun Zweifelhaft, ob Eusebius mit diesen Begriffen den Sinn des Origenes, oder den der Platoniker verknüpft habe.” There can be little doubt, in my opinion, that Eusebius followed Origen so far as he understood him, but that he never carried the essential deity of the Son so far as to cease to think of some kind of an essential subordination. See the discussion of Eusebius’ position, on p. 11 sq. of this volume. I have translated the word αὐτοθεόν “very God,” because there seems to be no other phrase which does not necessarily express more, or less, than Eusebius means by the word. It must be remembered, however, that in using the phrase which is commonly employed to translate the later Nicene ἀληθινὸν θεόν, I do not use it in the full sense thus ordinarily attached to it.

Psa. xxxiii. 9 .

τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ πανηγεμόνος καὶ αὐτοῦ θεοῦ λόγου. Valesius translates, Verbi omnium regis ac principis ac per se Dei ; Closs, “des Wortes, das der König aller Könige, der oberste Fürst und selbst Gott ist”; Crusè, “The universal King, the universal Prince, and God, the Word himself.” A conception is thus introduced which the clause as it stands, without the repetition of the article with λόγου, seems to me hardly to warrant. At any rate, the rendering which I have adopted seems more accurately to reproduce the original.

θεολογουμένῳ. The use of the word θεολογέω in the sense of speaking of, or celebrating a person as divine, or attributing divinity to a person, was very common among the Fathers, especially in connection with Christ. See Suicer’s Thesaurus , s.v . II. and Bk. V. chap. 28, § 4, above.

Eusebius’ reference to these various buildings is somewhat confusing. He speaks first of the Church of Christ, “the living temple which we all constitute”; then of the Jews, “the builders of that ancient temple which no longer stands”; and finally, as it seems, of the heathen, “builders of the structure which still endures and is composed of the mass of men” (τῶν πολλῶν ἀνθρώπων).

Literally, “it says” (φησί), i.e. “the Scripture says.”

John v. 19 .

i.e. Paulinus.

Ex. xxxv. 31 .

Psa. lviii. 6 . Eusebius agrees with the LXX, which reads τὰς μύλας τῶν λεόντων.

Psa. viii. 2 . The LXX has καταλῦσαι instead of Eusebius’ καταισχῦναι

Literally, “the God-fighting, daring deeds of the impious” (ταῖς θεομ€χοις τῶν ἀσεβῶν τόλμαις).

Psa. xxxvii. 14, 15 .

Psa. ix. 6 . Eusebius agrees with the LXX in reading μετ᾽ ἤχου: “with a sound.”

Ibid . 5 .

Psa. xviii. 41 .

Ibid . xx. 8 .

Ibid . lxxiii. 20 .

Cf. Bk. I. chap. 2, § 19, above, and the note on that passage.

Isa. xxxv. 1 .

Ibid . 3, 4 .

Ibid . 6, 7 .

Psa. lxxiv. 5, 6 .

Diocletian’s first edict included the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians, as well as of their churches. See above, Bk. VIII. chap. 2.